Yo DCO: Sinster Marketing Plot or Classic Reprint Series
Charis Fava
Okay.
Here it is! A post from me which is on-topic and relevant, which doesn't
insult anyone indirectly and it's directed at anybody who's interested
to answer the following question.
What's the deal with the Sandman re-print series.
Are they reprinting all the issues again cronologically or what?
I realise the Milliganists shall attack from the front screaming that
"if that, Gaimanite rubbish is to be reprinted, why not the inspired
works of our lord and master" and then the Morrisi will subvert from
within, by subliminally planting the need for reprints of Animal Man,
but this is intended to be a simple enquiry as to what DC are up to now.
Stuart Moore I'm talking to you, wee man. :)
Speak volumes, oh wise man (who works for the deviant company that
prevents Dan Jurgens from following his devine career as a dustman)
Or do they? He certainly has a lot of dealings with rubbish!
--
Charis Fava on her Win 95 machine
Join me on http:\www.eyeliner.and.spraypaint.com\
DCO Moore
Charis Fava <steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com> asked about the
ESSENTIAL VERTIGO: SANDMAN reprint series, and said:
>Stuart Moore I'm talking to you, wee man. :)
Och, I shud nut ye f'r that... (sorry, forgot I wasn't Scottish for a
minute).
Seriously, there's been a lot of confusion about ESSENTIAL VERTIGO, so
here's the scoop:
ESSENTIAL VERTIGO: THE SANDMAN begins this month. It will reprint, in
order, every issue of THE SANDMAN in color. Yes, this material is already
available in trade paperback (or will be soon); this series is intended
for those who either don't want to invest in the tpbs (especially new
readers), or who have a few gaps in their collections. There will be no
new material in the books.
ESSENTIAL VERTIGO: SWAMP THING begins in September, a month after the
conclusion of the regular monthly SWAMP THING title. It's a 24-page comic
that will reprint in black and white the Alan Moore run of SWAMPY from the
mid-'80s, beginning with issue #21 ("The Anatomy Lesson"). Some of this
material is available in trade paperback, but not all; this series is
intended to allow us to get back into print a lot of terrific materiof
it), we haven't been able to collect fully in trade paper. Again,
there'll be no new material (though there may be a few pinups sitting in
our inventory that will sneak in when & if there's a blank page).
Why is it in black and white? Two reasons: (1) the original color
separations were done for letterpress printing, which literally doesn't
exist anymore. Old letterpress separations used for offset printed
reprints look terrible; the dot-screen is very coarse and the art ends up
buried under the color. To reseparate the books would drive the price up,
defeating the purpose of these relatively low-priced ($1.95) reprints.
(2) Titan Books in England reprinted the entire Alan Moore run of SWAMP
THING some years ago in b&w and it looked terrific; there's a delicacy and
density of the linework that comes out more clearly. So we weighed the
factors and decided to go with b&w. (THE SANDMAN, being a more recent
book, will reprint fine with the original color.)
So that's it. Obviously all this is an experiment, and we're looking
forward to feedback. As to whether it's a sinister plot or a worthy
effort, I guess that depends on whether you want the books or not. It
will NOT affect our trade paperback program, which we've stepped up this
year to good effect and which will continue at (at least) the current
level.
--Stuart Moore
Senior Editor, Helix/Vertigo
Michael Chary
DCO Moore <dcom...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>ESSENTIAL VERTIGO: SWAMP THING begins in September, a month after the
>conclusion of the regular monthly SWAMP THING title. It's a 24-page comic
>that will reprint in black and white the Alan Moore run of SWAMPY from the
>mid-'80s, beginning with issue #21 ("The Anatomy Lesson"). Some of this
>material is available in trade paperback, but not all; this series is
>intended to allow us to get back into print a lot of terrific materiof
>it), we haven't been able to collect fully in trade paper. Again,
>there'll be no new material (though there may be a few pinups sitting in
>our inventory that will sneak in when & if there's a blank page).
YESSS!!!!!!!! Except Moore started with #20, didn't he? and also...
>Why is it in black and white? Two reasons: (1) the original color
>separations were done for letterpress printing, which literally doesn't
>exist anymore. Old letterpress separations used for offset printed
>reprints look terrible; the dot-screen is very coarse and the art ends up
>buried under the color. To reseparate the books would drive the price up,
>defeating the purpose of these relatively low-priced ($1.95) reprints.
How much would it increase the price? I mean, you have all the stuff, right?
>(2) Titan Books in England reprinted the entire Alan Moore run of SWAMP
>THING some years ago in b&w and it looked terrific; there's a delicacy and
>density of the linework that comes out more clearly. So we weighed the
>factors and decided to go with b&w. (THE SANDMAN, being a more recent
>book, will reprint fine with the original color.)
*grumble* Okay, I'll put up with it. New readrers look for Sting in the
crowd scenes :)
>So that's it. Obviously all this is an experiment, and we're looking
>forward to feedback. As to whether it's a sinister plot or a worthy
>effort, I guess that depends on whether you want the books or not. It
>will NOT affect our trade paperback program, which we've stepped up this
>year to good effect and which will continue at (at least) the current
>level.
Okay, but are you going to do the Morrison Animal mans and Doom Patrols?
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
"September 1993 has certainly lasted a long time." - Greg Morrow
"Gaaaaaaagggg" -- The Seattle Supersonics
"They have Superman, Batman and Rodman." - Sherone Wright on the Bulls
Richard Wahng
Swamp Thing. In fact, right now, I can run down to my local comic shop
and grab a copy of "American Gothic"- opps. Wrong Earth. Never mind.
Carl Fink
In article <4oq5n0$8...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Chary) wrote:
>
>YESSS!!!!!!!! Except Moore started with #20, didn't he? and also...
Yes. I have it, but can't recall the title right this minute. Swampy
basically spends the whole issue wandering around and thinking, while
his cut-off hand oddly *doesn't* heal (and he doesn't notice this),
confirms that Arcane is dead from last issue, then gets captured by
Sunderland to lead into #21's "Anatomy Lesson".
I've seen one of the Titan books -- it'll look good in monochrome.
--
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com madsci...@genie.com
Dueling Modems, Inc. http://www.sfrt.com/sfrt/
". . . stories have to end. It's what gives them meaning." -Neil Gaiman
Don Brinker
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Chary) wrote:
(Nothing, really. The original message hasn't shown up on my system
yet, and I wanted to ask something about Stuart message, so...)
>DCO Moore <dcom...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>ESSENTIAL VERTIGO: SWAMP THING begins in September, a month after the
>>conclusion of the regular monthly SWAMP THING title. It's a 24-page comic
>>that will reprint in black and white the Alan Moore run of SWAMPY from the
>>mid-'80s, beginning with issue #21 ("The Anatomy Lesson"). Some of this
>>material is available in trade paperback, but not all; this series is
>>intended to allow us to get back into print a lot of terrific materiof
>>it), we haven't been able to collect fully in trade paper. Again,
>>there'll be no new material (though there may be a few pinups sitting in
>>our inventory that will sneak in when & if there's a blank page).
*But* will it have all the material? I seem to remember hearing that
the DC TPBs cut little bits and pieces here and there (like the scene
of the Monitor watching ST and Arcane battle, maybe another crossover
or two, can't remember offhand...) Are *all* the scenes from the
original series going to be included, or is it just a case of fans
wanting to see that stuff will have to go mortgage their houses and
buy an original copy?
- Don
Moreno Roncucci
dcom...@aol.com (DCO Moore) wrote:
>(2) Titan Books in England reprinted the entire Alan Moore run of SWAMP
>THING some years ago in b&w and it looked terrific; there's a delicacy and
>density of the linework that comes out more clearly. So we weighed the
>factors and decided to go with b&w.
I agree. I have some of these paperback and the art is MUCH better in
b/w. I will buy the reprints even if I have all the original issues
I will never understand the americans preference for a badly colored
comic book over a well-done b/n one... :-(((
Ciao,
/\/\oreno.
Michael Chary
In article <gBQsxgen...@panix.com>, Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Chary) wrote:
>>
>>YESSS!!!!!!!! Except Moore started with #20, didn't he? and also...
>
>Yes. I have it, but can't recall the title right this minute. Swampy
>basically spends the whole issue wandering around and thinking, while
>his cut-off hand oddly *doesn't* heal (and he doesn't notice this),
>confirms that Arcane is dead from last issue, then gets captured by
>Sunderland to lead into #21's "Anatomy Lesson".
Yeah, I thought so. I have that issue somewhere as well.It wasn't in the
tpb, they should reprint it.
>I've seen one of the Titan books -- it'll look good in monochrome.
Not the point. THis was designed for color, they should put it in color.
Michael Chary
a) Bite me, you arrogant putz.
b) It was well colored. The color has a muted, emotive feel. It was
designed for color.
Tannhauser
On 2 Jun 1996, Michael Chary wrote:
> Moreno Roncucci <more...@queen.shiny.it> wrote:
> >
> >I will never understand the americans preference for a badly colored
> >comic book over a well-done b/n one... :-(((
>
> a) Bite me, you arrogant putz.
Is that only addressed to him, or can any arrogant putz hanging
around come and bite you too? Only I've missed lunch.....
Michael Chary
Good for you, admitting it is the first step.
Cian O'Connor
Michael Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: >I've seen one of the Titan books -- it'll look good in monochrome.
: Not the point. THis was designed for color, they should put it in color.
But if it looks better in black and white (not to mention cheaper)...?
Cian
Michael Chary
The pencil art looks great in b & w, but the story telling is muddied.
It's harder to follow. (Yes, I have seen a couple of the Titan books, and
I have the original run, or most of it.) As for expense. Well, how much
are people willing to pay for Kingdom Come? How much are they willing to
pay for reprints of Zot!? The Alan Moore run on Swamp Thing is some of
the best stuff ever, imnsho, and I should think it could be done the way
it was originally intended.
Greg Wheatley
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Chary) writes:
>Okay, but are you going to do the Morrison Animal mans and Doom Patrols?
Even just the Mr Nobody Doom Patrols? Or a Mr Nobody Graphic Novel?
Hell, a t-shirt?
Regards,
Greg (Who'd really like a limited series, but will settle
for being _slightly_ more realistic)
--
Because I was happy upon the heath
And danced amongst the winter's snow,
They clothed me in the clothes of death,
And taught me to sing the notes of woe - William Blake
Bob Heer
dcom...@aol.com (DCO Moore)
> mid-'80s, beginning with issue #21 ("The Anatomy Lesson"). Some of this
> material is available in trade paperback, but not all; this series is
do you just mean the covers and the issues after #34, or was there other
stuff not reprinted?
> Why is it in black and white? Two reasons: (1) the original color
> separations were done for letterpress printing, which literally doesn't
> exist anymore. Old letterpress separations used for offset printed
> reprints look terrible; the dot-screen is very coarse and the art ends up
> buried under the color. To reseparate the books would drive the price up,
hm, weren't #21-#34 and Annual #2 already reseperated for the trade paper
reprints? They certainly seemed to be, and the colouring there was fine
by current DC standards (mind, those are far from the highest standards
in the comics industry).
Not that I'm complaining, really. If it were a colour reprint I wouldn't
have bought it since I have the two trades and originals after that. In
b&w I probably will get at least the first few, to see how it looks (and
because it cuts down the chance of DC production screw-ups). So it's not
a bad idea. Hell, I tend to prefer old Ditko and Kirby stuff when it's
reprinted in b&w, too.
But you really should consider reprinting #20, since I hear it's good but
won't pay $20 for it. Do it as "Essential Vertigo:SWAMP THING #0" and
you can get people complaining about marketing gimmicks again.
Bob
Steve Lieber
Mike wrote:
<<Not the point. This was designed for color,
Not neccesarily. When talking about a comic being "designed for color,"
it isn't a (wait for it) black and white issue.
One of the things that old hands like Joe Kubert used to cram into our
pointy little skulls back at school was this concept: Assume that the
colorist and printer are going to be rushed, inexperienced or just
incompetent. Don't think of it as "coloring", think of it as "tinting."
The ides behind this is to make pictures that are absolutely complete in
black and white, and will still read and look good with even the worst
color slathered over it. The Swamp Thing guys were lucky in that they
generally had good color for that time. Tatjana Wood did some damn fine
work throughout the series. Still, the posibility that the seps would be
done by some pinheaded, drooling geek always had to be taken into
account.
This doesn't change the fact that when guys like Bissette, Veitch,
Tottleben (all Kubies) and Alcala "drew for color" in those days, it was
probably more of a defensive measure than a creative one. Most creators
I know still sort of dismiss the colored comics and think of their
xeroxes as the real stuff. While this is lessening as the color gets
better, ten years ago it was probably a lot more common.
I feel odd arguing "original intent." This is comics, not the Supreme
Court. Still, I think that the B&W reprints come a lot closer to what
the authors envisioned than any color reprint could.
Lieber
Steve Lieber
Steve Lieber
Hm. Sorry about the double posting, folks.
Carl Fink
In article <4otdqd$i...@venere.inet.it>,
more...@queen.shiny.it (Moreno Roncucci) wrote:
>fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Chary) wrote:
>
>
>arrogant, it was not my intention.
>
>But, what is a "putz"?
American English is strongly influenced by Yiddish. In Yiddish,
"putz" is "fool" (often translated as "penis").
>It was "not too bad colored". That's all. There were much worse books,
>color-wise, but there is really no comparison with the b/w art.
>
>If you don't believe me, wait and buy the reprints....
Read the messages. Mike owns some of the Titan reprints. (Thinking
that he must be ignorant, if he disagrees with you, is *arrogant*.)
>I don't want to sound too arrogant again, but I really think that B/W
>art is the way to go. Only in the USA there is still so an intolerance
>for this.
Sorry, that sounds arrogant. Also bigoted and nationalistic. Also
false.
>Coloring b/w art is the same that coloring old Stanley & Laurel
>films...
"Laurel and Hardy" films. Don't combine one person's family name with
the other's personal name.
This is not coloring black and white art -- the art was originally
done for color, and colored beautifully. Reprinting it in
monochrome is more like releasing a black and white version of
_Jurassic Park_.
Well, so far you sound like an *ignorant* and arrogant person. Can
you do better?
Moreno Roncucci
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Chary) wrote:
>Moreno Roncucci <more...@queen.shiny.it> wrote:
>>dcom...@aol.com (DCO Moore) wrote:
>>
>>>(2) Titan Books in England reprinted the entire Alan Moore run of SWAMP
>>>THING some years ago in b&w and it looked terrific; there's a delicacy and
>>>density of the linework that comes out more clearly. So we weighed the
>>>factors and decided to go with b&w.
>>
>>I agree. I have some of these paperback and the art is MUCH better in
>>b/w. I will buy the reprints even if I have all the original issues
>>
>>I will never understand the americans preference for a badly colored
>>comic book over a well-done b/n one... :-(((
>a) Bite me, you arrogant putz.
Well, I am not used to write in english. I am sorry if I sounded too
arrogant, it was not my intention.
But, what is a "putz"?
>b) It was well colored. The color has a muted, emotive feel. It was
>designed for color.
It was "not too bad colored". That's all. There were much worse books,
color-wise, but there is really no comparison with the b/w art.
If you don't believe me, wait and buy the reprints....
I don't want to sound too arrogant again, but I really think that B/W
art is the way to go. Only in the USA there is still so an intolerance
for this.
Coloring b/w art is the same that coloring old Stanley & Laurel
films...
Ciao,
/\/\oreno.
Tannhauser
On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Carl Fink wrote:
> >Coloring b/w art is the same that coloring old Stanley & Laurel
> >films...
>
> "Laurel and Hardy" films. Don't combine one person's family name with
> the other's personal name.
>
Funny, funny, funny, kittens. Carl, having decided to pick on
somebody with limited English, then manages to bugger it up anyway. A
cursory examination of the sentence will reveal that he has in fact
combined one person's family name with the same person's personal name.
Still a mistake, but it seems a little remiss to chastise somebody for
entirely the wrong offence.
Michael Chary
Steve Lieber <72674...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Mike wrote:
><<Not the point. This was designed for color,
>they should put it in color.>>
>
>Not neccesarily. When talking about a comic being "designed for color,"
>it isn't a (wait for it) black and white issue.
There's a level of Hell deserved for people who make jokes like that...
>One of the things that old hands like Joe Kubert used to cram into our
>pointy little skulls back at school was this concept: Assume that the
>colorist and printer are going to be rushed, inexperienced or just
>incompetent. Don't think of it as "coloring", think of it as "tinting."
>The ides behind this is to make pictures that are absolutely complete in
>black and white, and will still read and look good with even the worst
>color slathered over it. The Swamp Thing guys were lucky in that they
>generally had good color for that time. Tatjana Wood did some damn fine
>work throughout the series. Still, the posibility that the seps would be
>done by some pinheaded, drooling geek always had to be taken into
>account.
All, well and good, and I respect you and Joe Kubert and everyone else's
concerns for the artistic drawing process. I disagree with none of this
reasoning, but that's not what I was talking about. We'll get to that in
a sec.
>This doesn't change the fact that when guys like Bissette, Veitch,
>Tottleben (all Kubies) and Alcala "drew for color" in those days, it was
>probably more of a defensive measure than a creative one. Most creators
>I know still sort of dismiss the colored comics and think of their
>xeroxes as the real stuff. While this is lessening as the color gets
>better, ten years ago it was probably a lot more common.
All well and good, but in the case of Swamp Thing, the guy who was
writing it was Alan Moore, and I suspect he was writing with color in
mind. Why? Because he prominently feature a concept called "The Green." I
fear that in black and white "The Green" might lose some impact. Note
that in "The Anatomy Lesson" the color is crucial to the contrast of the
dead, frozen Swamp Thing body, and the neww, mossy reborn Swamp Thing.
In fact, the writing intself constantly reinforces the color. There are
*flames* when Woodru tries to take over the world, or rather the plants
do. The color of the flames is evident and import. I suspect color is
more important to the story of Swamp Thing than the powers that be might
realize. The pencils in the Titan editions are gorgeous, but I found the
stories lacking something. Also, Abby's black hair streak isn't as
evident in the b & w art, and I always found that very cute :)
>I feel odd arguing "original intent." This is comics, not the Supreme
>Court. Still, I think that the B&W reprints come a lot closer to what
>the authors envisioned than any color reprint could.
Gee, Steve, it's only what you do for a living :)
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
DUMP BUD SELIG!!! GIVE BASEBALL A REAL COMMISSIONER!! Walton's a weasel!!
"September 1993 has certainly lasted a long time." - Greg Morrow
Michael Chary
Moreno Roncucci <more...@queen.shiny.it> wrote:
>fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Chary) wrote:
>
>>Moreno Roncucci <more...@queen.shiny.it> wrote:
>>>dcom...@aol.com (DCO Moore) wrote:
>>>
>>>>(2) Titan Books in England reprinted the entire Alan Moore run of SWAMP
>>>>THING some years ago in b&w and it looked terrific; there's a delicacy and
>>>>density of the linework that comes out more clearly. So we weighed the
>>>>factors and decided to go with b&w.
>>>
>>>I agree. I have some of these paperback and the art is MUCH better in
>>>b/w. I will buy the reprints even if I have all the original issues
>>>
>>>I will never understand the americans preference for a badly colored
>>>comic book over a well-done b/n one... :-(((
>
>>a) Bite me, you arrogant putz.
>
>Well, I am not used to write in english. I am sorry if I sounded too
>arrogant, it was not my intention.
Fair enoguh, I'll try to make allowances, but you do it again below.
>But, what is a "putz"? >
Yiddish for "idiot."
>>b) It was well colored. The color has a muted, emotive feel. It was
>>designed for color.
>
>It was "not too bad colored". That's all. There were much worse books,
>color-wise, but there is really no comparison with the b/w art.
No, there isn't. The colored books are much more in fitting with the
written stories, most of which center around the concept of "The Green."
>If you don't believe me, wait and buy the reprints....
I have read the Titan reprints, or some of them. That's why I think the
colored versions work better in this particualr instance.
>I don't want to sound too arrogant again, but I really think that B/W
>art is the way to go. Only in the USA there is still so an intolerance
>for this.
Well, you are managing to sound arrogant, but indeed, America has zero
tolerance for black and white comics like Zot! and Teenage Mutant Ninja
Turtle and Cerebus and A Distant Soil and Samurai Penguin and Usagi
Yojimbo and March Hare and Mad and Cracked and and scores of other black
and white titles the American comic book indusrty produces. Not to
mention the many, many daily black and white comic strips the appear in
American newspapers for free every day.
It's a pity we can't have such black and white European geniuses like
Mattoti and Moebius and Herge here.
>Coloring b/w art is the same that coloring old Stanley & Laurel
>films...
The black and white art was commisioned to be colored in the case of
Swamp Thing.
First And Last And Always
In article <4orubj$s...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
Michael Chary <ma...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>In article <gBQsxgen...@panix.com>, Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>>fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Chary) wrote:
>>>
>>
>>Yes. I have it, but can't recall the title right this minute. Swampy
>>basically spends the whole issue wandering around and thinking, while
>>his cut-off hand oddly *doesn't* heal (and he doesn't notice this),
>>confirms that Arcane is dead from last issue, then gets captured by
>>Sunderland to lead into #21's "Anatomy Lesson".
>
>Yeah, I thought so. I have that issue somewhere as well.It wasn't in the
>tpb, they should reprint it.
I'd like to see it, too. But, at the very least, In the first reprint issue,
DC should include the intorduction to the first Titan reprint, which
comprehensively summed up the history of ST and detailed all the supporting
characters, up to and including ST 20.
>
>>I've seen one of the Titan books -- it'll look good in monochrome.
>
>Not the point. THis was designed for color, they should put it in color.
What about the colouring in the TPBs? I've not seen them, but I'm told
that it doesn't look at all like the colouring in the comics. In fact,
people have told me that the monochrome Titan TPBs more accurately
reflect the atmosphere of the original issues than the colour DC TPBs.
Mike
--
Mike Collins
Cian O'Connor
American foreign policy in three easy stages:
1) Pick on their poor English. If they can't speak the language, then
they should fucking learn!
Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
: In article <4otdqd$i...@venere.inet.it>,
: more...@queen.shiny.it (Moreno Roncucci) wrote:
: American English is strongly influenced by Yiddish. In Yiddish,
: "putz" is "fool" (often translated as "penis").
: >It was "not too bad colored". That's all. There were much worse books,
: >color-wise, but there is really no comparison with the b/w art.
: >
: >If you don't believe me, wait and buy the reprints....
: Read the messages. Mike owns some of the Titan reprints. (Thinking
: that he must be ignorant, if he disagrees with you, is *arrogant*.)
He wasn't saying he must be ignorant, he was saying read the reprints
and then you'll be persuaded.
: >I don't want to sound too arrogant again, but I really think that B/W
: >art is the way to go. Only in the USA there is still so an intolerance
: >for this.
: Sorry, that sounds arrogant. Also bigoted and nationalistic. Also
: false.
It's his opinion that black and white art is superior, that's
all. He's not saying all Americans are stupid. You on the other hand
sound hysterically paranoid. 'What, he said America's intolerent. Oh
no, shoot the muthafucka.'
: >Coloring b/w art is the same that coloring old Stanley & Laurel
: >films...
: "Laurel and Hardy" films. Don't combine one person's family name with
: the other's personal name.
He's Italian. He may not be completely au fait with American
culture. Name me the Italian equivalent.
: This is not coloring black and white art -- the art was originally
: done for color, and colored beautifully. Reprinting it in
: monochrome is more like releasing a black and white version of
: _Jurassic Park_.
In your opinion. I on the other hand find the colour irritating. This
is my opinion. Not everyone agrees, live with it.
: Well, so far you sound like an *ignorant* and arrogant person. Can
: you do better?
And you sound like a loud mouthed xenophobic American. Can you do
better.
Cian
Christoph Koerner
>>>>> On 2 Jun 1996 16:41:40 GMT, fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Chary) said:
> Cian O'Connor <cp...@thor.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Michael Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>
>: >I've seen one of the Titan books -- it'll look good in monochrome.
>
>: Not the point. THis was designed for color, they should put it in color.
>
>But if it looks better in black and white (not to mention cheaper)...?
> The pencil art looks great in b & w, but the story telling is muddied.
> It's harder to follow. (Yes, I have seen a couple of the Titan books, and
> I have the original run, or most of it.) As for expense. Well, how much
> are people willing to pay for Kingdom Come? How much are they willing to
> pay for reprints of Zot!? The Alan Moore run on Swamp Thing is some of
> the best stuff ever, imnsho, and I should think it could be done the way
> it was originally intended.
Indeed. Let the price be 2.50 or even 2.95, it would be worth it to
see the clearer pencils with the colour intact (what would have to be
avoided though, are the all-too-bright candy colours of the TPBs which
in several places destroy the mood the original issues evoke).
If it's going to be b&w, I'll buy 21-27 anyway because of the covers
(only have the tpb), but after that, I dunno...
What's more, there are at least two issues where the art itself
depends on colour, these being #37, where you don't see the undulating
light effects over Constantine's face in b&w, as they're generated by
colouring exclusively, and another issue (I forget which one right
now) which has a panel with eyes `hanging in the sky' (above a house,
if I remember correctly). The eyes are in blue ink and disappear
entirely in the Titan reprint.
Cheers,
Christoph
--
Christoph Koerner |
chri...@pc-labor.uni-Bremen.de | "Wizard, your life force is running out."
Michael Chary
First And Last And Always <mcol...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> wrote:
>Michael Chary <ma...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Not the point. THis was designed for color, they should put it in color.
>
>that it doesn't look at all like the colouring in the comics. In fact,
>people have told me that the monochrome Titan TPBs more accurately
>reflect the atmosphere of the original issues than the colour DC TPBs.
The coloring in the TPBs was thrown a little by the papers stock, but at
least the Green was green :)
Michael Chary
[Note that I am only bringing up national origins when someone else does.]
In article <4oufpe$9...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
Cian O'Connor <cp...@thor.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>American foreign policy in three easy stages:
>
>1) Pick on their poor English. If they can't speak the language, then
>they should fucking learn!
Look, you pathetic limey cretin, we weren't the ones bringing nationality
into it but that doesn't mean we should have to take it without comment. Go
eat a hamburger.
>Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
>: more...@queen.shiny.it (Moreno Roncucci) wrote:
>
>: American English is strongly influenced by Yiddish. In Yiddish,
>: "putz" is "fool" (often translated as "penis").
>
>: >It was "not too bad colored". That's all. There were much worse books,
>: >color-wise, but there is really no comparison with the b/w art.
>: >
>: >If you don't believe me, wait and buy the reprints....
>
>: Read the messages. Mike owns some of the Titan reprints. (Thinking
>: that he must be ignorant, if he disagrees with you, is *arrogant*.)
>
>He wasn't saying he must be ignorant, he was saying read the reprints
>and then you'll be persuaded.
Yes, but I have read some of them, and I wasn't.
>: >I don't want to sound too arrogant again, but I really think that B/W
>: >art is the way to go. Only in the USA there is still so an intolerance
>: >for this.
>
>: Sorry, that sounds arrogant. Also bigoted and nationalistic. Also
>: false.
>
>It's his opinion that black and white art is superior, that's
>all. He's not saying all Americans are stupid. You on the other hand
>sound hysterically paranoid. 'What, he said America's intolerent. Oh
>no, shoot the muthafucka.'
No, he did sound arrogant. You sound silly.
>: _Jurassic Park_.
>
>In your opinion. I on the other hand find the colour irritating. This
>is my opinion. Not everyone agrees, live with it.
You found color irritating in a comic which relied on color for major
story points? Have you *only* read the Titan reprints?
>: Well, so far you sound like an *ignorant* and arrogant person. Can
>: you do better?
>
>And you sound like a loud mouthed xenophobic American. Can you do
>better.
Than a patronizing, nonsensical Brit? He already has.
Tannhauser
On 3 Jun 1996, Cian O'Connor wrote:
> Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
> : In article <4otdqd$i...@venere.inet.it>,
> : more...@queen.shiny.it (Moreno Roncucci) wrote:
>
> : >Coloring b/w art is the same that coloring old Stanley & Laurel
> : >films...
>
> : "Laurel and Hardy" films. Don't combine one person's family name with
> : the other's personal name.
>
> He's Italian. He may not be completely au fait with American
> culture. Name me the Italian equivalent.
>
What is American for Jacques Tati, anyway?
Neil Barnes
Michael Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: DCO Moore <dcom...@aol.com> wrote:
: >(2) Titan Books in England reprinted the entire Alan Moore run of SWAMP
: >THING some years ago in b&w and it looked terrific; there's a delicacy and
: >density of the linework that comes out more clearly. So we weighed the
: >book, will reprint fine with the original color.)
: *grumble* Okay, I'll put up with it. New readrers look for Sting in the
: crowd scenes :)
I was buying the Titan reprints second hand and I never realised that the
series was originally in colour. It does look gorgeous in B&W.
neil
Michael Chary
Yes, it does. I have seen the Titan reprints. I have seen the tpbs. I
have the original series. The art looks very nice indeed in black and
white. But the *story* works better if the art's in color. I feel certain
the art would look better without the pesky word balloons and captions
boxes too. I don't see anyone calling for their removal. "Swamp Thing"
like most comic books was a collaborative effort between many creative
forces to make one of the most brilliant comics of all time. Yes,
pencil art and inking were great, but so were the writing and coloring. I
submit that kicking one of the elements which make up the story out of
the comic is ruinous. Now, the Titan reprints weren't bad. Certainly, if
you just want to look at the pencil art, they're terrific. I happen to
think the color is very important to this particular story, however.
Avatar WM
In article <4oppln$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, dcom...@aol.com (DCO
Moore) writes:
>Charis Fava <steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com> asked about the
>ESSENTIAL VERTIGO: SWAMP THING begins in September, a month after the
>conclusion of the regular monthly SWAMP THING title. It's a 24-page
comic
>that will reprint in black and white the Alan Moore run of SWAMPY from
the
>mid-'80s, beginning with issue #21 ("The Anatomy Lesson"). Some of this
>material is available in trade paperback, but not all; this series is
>intended to allow us to get back into print a lot of terrific materiof
>it), we haven't been able to collect fully in trade paper. Again,
>there'll be no new material (though there may be a few pinups sitting in
>our inventory that will sneak in when & if there's a blank page).
>Why is it in black and white? Two reasons: (1) the original color
>separations were done for letterpress printing, which literally doesn't
>exist anymore. Old letterpress separations used for offset printed
>reprints look terrible; the dot-screen is very coarse and the art ends up
>buried under the color. To reseparate the books would drive the price
up,
>defeating the purpose of these relatively low-priced ($1.95) reprints.
>(2) Titan Books in England reprinted the entire Alan Moore run of SWAMP
>THING some years ago in b&w and it looked terrific; there's a delicacy
and
>density of the linework that comes out more clearly. So we weighed the
>factors and decided to go with b&w. (THE SANDMAN, being a more recent
>book, will reprint fine with the original color.)
>
This Idea I will support whole heartedly...I have been wanting to get into
Swampy for awhile, and have the first trade, but am curious about the
black and white aspect. As long as it keeps the book from being overly
expensive...
>So that's it. Obviously all this is an experiment, and we're looking
>forward to feedback. As to whether it's a sinister plot or a worthy
>effort, I guess that depends on whether you want the books or not. It
>will NOT affect our trade paperback program, which we've stepped up this
>year to good effect and which will continue at (at least) the current
>level.
HOWEVER, I am strongly against the reprinting of the Sandman. The trades
are all in print, and I don't need reprints of stuff I already have. This
seems to be a waste of paper and marketing that could be used to reprint
something in Vertigo that hasn't been reprinted much, such as Hellblazer
or Shade.
"That's just my opinion, I could be wrong." - D. Miller
Kevin J. Maroney
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Chary) wrote:
>>But, what is a "putz"? >
>
>Yiddish for "idiot."
Euphemistically, yes. Actually, it's "penis".
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | ke...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
MC Grammar
In article <4oufpe$9...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, cp...@thor.cam.ac.uk (Cian
O'Connor) writes:
>: Well, so far you sound like an *ignorant* and arrogant person. Can
>: you do better?
>
>And you sound like a loud mouthed xenophobic American. Can you do
>better.
Now, Cian. I certainly share your disappointment with Carl's shameful
behavior, but you need to put down that stone and head back to your glass
house for a soothing cup of tea, or perhaps a nap.
Jill
P.S. As members of a clique that's so obsessed with improper spelling,
punctuation, and grammar in the posts of others, you and Tannhauser
certainly don't set much of an example. At least read what you've written
before you post, please.
Cian O'Connor
Tannhauser (trin...@sable.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
: On 3 Jun 1996, Cian O'Connor wrote:
: > He's Italian. He may not be completely au fait with American
: > culture. Name me the Italian equivalent.
: >
: What is American for Jacques Tati, anyway?
Wasn't Jacques French?
Cian
Cian O'Connor
Intolerance is a lovely thing.
Michael Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: In article <4oufpe$9...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
: Cian O'Connor <cp...@thor.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
: >American foreign policy in three easy stages:
: >
: >1) Pick on their poor English. If they can't speak the language, then
: >they should fucking learn!
: Look, you pathetic limey cretin, we weren't the ones bringing nationality
: into it but that doesn't mean we should have to take it without comment. Go
: eat a hamburger.
You pick on the guy's poor grasp of American culture, and you weren't
the one's bringing nationality into it. Of course you weren't, how
silly of me.
And don't call me a limey. I'm Irish, not English. If you are going to
sling mud, at least chuck it at the right target, eh?
: >Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
: >He wasn't saying he must be ignorant, he was saying read the reprints
: >and then you'll be persuaded.
: Yes, but I have read some of them, and I wasn't.
That is terribly nice for you. And then you blow a tantrum because
somebody dares to disagree with you.
: >It's his opinion that black and white art is superior, that's
: >all. He's not saying all Americans are stupid. You on the other hand
: >sound hysterically paranoid. 'What, he said America's intolerent. Oh
: >no, shoot the muthafucka.'
: No, he did sound arrogant. You sound silly.
Why, thank you.
: You found color irritating in a comic which relied on color for major
: story points? Have you *only* read the Titan reprints?
No, I've read both.
: >: Well, so far you sound like an *ignorant* and arrogant person. Can
: >: you do better?
: >
: >And you sound like a loud mouthed xenophobic American. Can you do
: >better.
: Than a patronizing, nonsensical Brit? He already has.
How absolutely wonderful for him. And he has such well balanced
friends too.
Cian
Marc Singer
In article <31AF1D...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com>,
Charis Fava <steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>
>I realise the Milliganists shall attack from the front screaming that
>"if that, Gaimanite rubbish is to be reprinted, why not the inspired
>works of our lord and master" and then the Morrisi will subvert from
>within, by subliminally planting the need for reprints of Animal Man,
>but this is intended to be a simple enquiry as to what DC are up to now.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!
It's funny because it's true.
Marc
Steve Lieber
Mike Chary wrote:
<<All well and good, but in the case of Swamp Thing, the guy who was
writing it was Alan Moore, and I suspect he was writing with color in
mind. Why? Because he prominently feature a concept called "The Green."
I fear that in black and white "The Green" might lose some impact. Note
that in "The Anatomy Lesson" the color is crucial to the contrast of the
dead, frozen Swamp Thing body, and the neww, mossy reborn Swamp Thing.
In fact, the writing intself constantly reinforces the color. There are
*flames* when Woodru tries to take over the world, or rather the plants
do. The color of the flames is evident and import. I suspect color is
more important to the story of Swamp Thing than the powers that be might
realize. The pencils in the Titan editions are gorgeous, but I found the
stories lacking something. Also, Abby's black hair streak isn't as
evident in the b & w art, and I always found that very cute :)>>
Good points, Mike. Moore does clearly write with color in mind. I
remember that Superman Team-up story he did w/ Veitch and Williamson
which clearly defined color as emotion, carrying the reader from Supes'
red rage to Swampy's green calm. In the Swamp Thing script I've read,
there was a lot of beautifully descibed color in the panel descriptions
that never made it onto the printed page, but might have just been there
to put the artists in the right mindset, much as he did in the script
for "from hell." That's not yet relevent though, and I'll give up this
point. The color, misregistered benday screens or not, was indeed part
of the story.
But as Stuart Moore posted, on today's printing presses the coarse
screens they used back then look like hell. That would mean new color
guides and new seps, and that, unfortunately would mean that the new
colorist would be working with a big handicap. He or she wouldn't have
Alan Moore's script, and would have to go by Tatjana Wood's
Making-the-best-of-a-bad-thing solutions. Back then they had either
three or four blues shades to work with, and some colors simply couldn't
go over some paterns of ink. Which of Ms Wood's choices were what the
other creators were calling for and which were dictated by the limits of
cheap printing? I don't know. Without the original scripts, which, as
far as I know, DC has no access to, a lot of the subtler aspects of
their original intent are going to be impossible to express. (An
argument could be put forth that one blue or green is pretty much the
same as another, but you won't hear it from me. Matt Hollingsworth would
knock my teeth out.)
All this is academic of course. It's a trade-off either way and I think
Dc's announced solution is a fair one. I've only been able to get five
of the Titan editions and I'm eager to re-experience the rest of the
stories. For those who haven't read them yet, I don't think the loss
will be that great. An illustrator friend of mine first encountered the
stories in my B&W tpb's. He loved them, and thought that the color
issues I lent him later lost a lot of the moody quality of the line
work he'd enjoyed earlier. The difference was stronger for him in the
Totleben issues than in the Alcalas. I tend to agree. Alacala's line
emphasized solidity as well as mood, whereas the essential quality of
Tottleben's "blur of frozen motion" as Moore once described it, is
really lost when color comes in and defines the edges.
Lieber
Lieber
Charis Fava
Cheers Stuart
That was the sort of info I was looking for?
And now your company will make some money out of me.
I didn't know about the Swampy reprints which are
more of interest to me than Sandman.
I have a couple of the Titan reprints and I would have to agree
that the art certainly stands alone in b&w.
Thanks
Charis
--
Charis Fava on her Win 95 machine
Join me on http:\www.eyeliner.and.spraypaint.com\
Jeffrey D Picka
Tannhauser <trin...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> What is American for Jacques Tati, anyway?
Trick question! There is no equivalent to Jacques Tati anywhere else
in cinema that I know of. Only Buster Keaton comes anywhere close.
JDP
--
==============================================================================
Jeff Picka pi...@galton.uchicago.edu
There are times when reality becomes too complex for Oral Communication.
But legend gives it a form by which it pervades the entire world. (Alpha 60)
==============================================================================
Charis Fava
Michael Chary wrote:
>
>
> The pencil art looks great in b & w, but the story telling is muddied.
> It's harder to follow.
The free flowing double page spreads are hard enough to follow in b&w
and colour.
Colour just made it easier for those with no sense of story direction to
follow the yellow brick road.
You obviously fell in to this catagory. For that matter so did I.
But the point is that there is no point. b&w or colour it's still stuff
that needs reprinting, and DC are doing it in a cheap format so that the
stuff is in good circulation rather than sitting in a darkened cupboard.
I applaud DC for reprinting the stuff in whatever format.
Charis Fava
Michael Chary wrote:
>
> a) Bite me, you arrogant putz.
>
> designed for color.
Grow up, you arrogant putz!
The original color was shite IMHO (and that's all it is, MY opinion)
And the internet was DESIGNED for security purposes in spreading
information between military and educational sites. So don't use it for
talking crap. Or is that a contridiction!
damon crumpler
dcom...@aol.com (DCO Moore) wrote:
>
>ESSENTIAL VERTIGO: SWAMP THING begins in September, a month after the
>conclusion of the regular monthly SWAMP THING title. It's a 24-page comic
>that will reprint in black and white the Alan Moore run of SWAMPY from the
>mid-'80s, beginning with issue #21 ("The Anatomy Lesson"). Some of this
>material is available in trade paperback, but not all; this series is
>intended to allow us to get back into print a lot of terrific materiof
>it), we haven't been able to collect fully in trade paper.
[1] i Really think there's a big enough market to recolor the american
gothic story and release it as a higher priced trade.
[2] if you're GOING to reprint the moore issues, then why the Hell NOT
reprint issue #20, which is Also done by moore and which is horrendously
priced and really rare? i KNOW that's it'sa story wrap up, but it's
still alan moore, and since you loose the story wrap up from the trade, it's
not as if readers are going to be any MORE lost.
--
"Hey- who left all the garbage on the steps on Congress?"/'I'm not
garbage- I'm an ammendment to be/.. There's a lot of flag burners who
have got too much freedom/I want to make it legal for policemen to beat em.
cuz there's limits to our liberty/at least i hope that there are/ cuz those
liberal freaks go too far.'/ "But why can't we just make laws against flag
burning?" 'Becuase that would be unconstitutional. But if we Change the
constitution...' "Then we can make all Sorts of crazy laws!"-- the simpsons
Bryant Durrell
In article <4ovugc$j...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
Michael Chary <ma...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>Charis Fava <steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>>Colour just made it easier for those with no sense of story direction to
>>follow the yellow brick road.
>>
>>You obviously fell in to this catagory. For that matter so did I.
>
>but the story revolved around "the Green" which was *gasp* a color.
I confess I don't understand this argument. I have little problem
following prose about colors, or even prose about pictures; it would
seem self-evident that a work of art can make useful reference to
elements which it does not include.
I have no problem with saying "It would be better if it was in color,"
and I in fact agree with that statement. What confuses me is the
argument that it's pointless without color.
I believe Stuart Moore when he says that color isn't practical. I'll
live without it. What's the big deal?
--
Bryant Durrell http://www.innocence.com/ dur...@innocence.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem."
-- John Galsworthy
Charis Fava
<<APLAUSE>>
<<APLAUSE>>
<<APLAUSE>>
<<APLAUSE>>
Huzzah!!!
Charis Fava
Carl Fink wrote:
>
> This is not coloring black and white art -- the art was originally
> done for color, and colored beautifully. Reprinting it in
> monochrome is more like releasing a black and white version of
> _Jurassic Park_.
I don't know what it is about our friends in the states that they have
such a problem with b&w.
Their defense of colour is admirable but unneccessary.
I suppose the resy of the world can handle it a lot better because most
of our "homegrown" titles have been predominatly b&w till about five
years ago.
IMHO 2000ad went to the dogs when it went to colour.
Compare Zenith in b&w to Zenith in colour and you'll get my drift.
Carl Fink
In article <4oufpe$9...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
cp...@thor.cam.ac.uk (Cian O'Connor) wrote:
I will now break my months-long policy of ignoring Cian. I expect
I'll regret it.
>American foreign policy in three easy stages:
Good -- anything any American does mmust represent all Americans.
How bigoted and nationalistic. (You should use another word, since
"American" also refers to Mexicans and Chileans, but why emphasize the
point?)
>1) Pick on their poor English. If they can't speak the language, then
>they should fucking learn!
I didn't pick on his English. I answered one question he asked
("putz") and corrected one phrase ("Laurel and Hardy"). Not at all
the same.
>: Read the messages. Mike owns some of the Titan reprints. (Thinking
>: that he must be ignorant, if he disagrees with you, is *arrogant*.)
>
>He wasn't saying he must be ignorant, he was saying read the reprints
>and then you'll be persuaded.
He was saying "read the reprints" to someone who *had already read the
reprints*. Thus, he hadn't read the reprints, and thus my comment.
You, Cian, apparently . . . haven't read the messages.
>: >I don't want to sound too arrogant again, but I really think that B/W
>: >art is the way to go. Only in the USA there is still so an intolerance
>: >for this.
>
>: Sorry, that sounds arrogant. Also bigoted and nationalistic. Also
>: false.
>
>It's his opinion that black and white art is superior, that's
>all. He's not saying all Americans are stupid. You on the other hand
>sound hysterically paranoid. 'What, he said America's intolerent. Oh
>no, shoot the muthafucka.'
I never said that, of course, but feel free to construct your own
opponent rather than commenting on my actual post.
He said that only in the U.S.A. is there intolerance of black and
white art. One, it's false -- many Latin countries, for instance,
prefer or insist on color comics. Two, it's false -- because we also
buy lots of monochromatic serial art.
Thus, he sounds bigoted against us U.S. citizens, and thus, my
comment.
>: "Laurel and Hardy" films. Don't combine one person's family name with
>: the other's personal name.
>
>He's Italian. He may not be completely au fait with American
>culture. Name me the Italian equivalent.
Justifiable comment there -- I meant it to come out more friendly than
it did. (There are no Italian equivalents -- not in the genre.)
Sorry, Moreno. That was unnecessarily hostile, and I apologize.
>: Well, so far you sound like an *ignorant* and arrogant person. Can
>: you do better?
>
>And you sound like a loud mouthed xenophobic American. Can you do
>better.
Well, I end most questions with a question mark, but that's trivial.
I am (at least on line) sometimes a loudmouth, Mr. Pot. I'm about as
xenophobic as I am a fan of yacht racing, which is to say not at all.
You mistake "even-handedly intolerant of ignorance and arrogance" for
"xenophobic".
--
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com madsci...@genie.com
Dueling Modems, Inc. http://www.sfrt.com/sfrt/
". . . stories have to end. It's what gives them meaning." -Neil Gaiman
Carl Fink
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.960603...@sable.ox.ac.uk>,
Tannhauser <trin...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "Laurel and Hardy" films. Don't combine one person's family name with
>> the other's personal name.
>>
>somebody with limited English, then manages to bugger it up anyway. A
>cursory examination of the sentence will reveal that he has in fact
>combined one person's family name with the same person's personal name.
>Still a mistake, but it seems a little remiss to chastise somebody for
>entirely the wrong offence.
What the heck are you talking about? Are you referring to my using
the first and last names of the same person?
Steve Lieber
Mike Chary, asked a question about my illustrator friend who was first
exposed to Swamp Thing in B&W and liked the reprints more than the color
orignals.
<<Tell me, what did your friend think of the writing?>>
He loved it. It's Alan Moore, man. Whadja expect?
How much is really missing from the storytelling because the color isn't
there? Looking at the issues I have in B&W, Moore "idiot-proofed" the
color in his writing the same way the artists did in the pictures.
There's plenty of Moore's prose, heavy... with ellipsises...describing
"the green." Will a blob of YB2 really make it that much more alive to
our hypothetical new reader? (Again I should emphasize that these
preventive measures turned out largely unneccesary. Ms. Wood did a great
job with the color, and even the seps and printing weren't too bad.)
You are right in that both of the guys you mentioned could do a fine
job. My point wasn't that no one could do a good job, but that just
coloring the books couldn't guarantee that we'd be getting "original
intent." Printing in black and white, aside from keeping the comic
cheaper than a back issue of Hawkman from my table at a con, gives
today's reader a near perfect look of how three quarters of the team did
their jobs.
I kinda would like to see Vertigo reprint the ads for Madballs, Power
Lords toys and the movie "Krull" though.
Carl Fink
In article <4p01d3$1...@shellx.best.com>,
dur...@shellx.best.com (Bryant Durrell) wrote:
>
>I have no problem with saying "It would be better if it was in color,"
>and I in fact agree with that statement. What confuses me is the
>argument that it's pointless without color.
. . . an argument that no one has made, that I've seen.
>I believe Stuart Moore when he says that color isn't practical. I'll
>live without it. What's the big deal?
There isn't one. Both Mike and I are going to buy the monochrome
reprints, after all. Mike would really prefer color reprints (I'm
neutral) and neither of us likes having people insult us on the basis
of our being U.S. citizens.
Michael Chary
Charis Fava <steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>Michael Chary wrote:
>>
>>
>> The pencil art looks great in b & w, but the story telling is muddied.
>> It's harder to follow.
>
>The free flowing double page spreads are hard enough to follow in b&w
>and colour.
I didn't find that to be the case. I just thought it worked better in
color. Particularly the fire and night scenes.
>Colour just made it easier for those with no sense of story direction to
>follow the yellow brick road.
>
>You obviously fell in to this catagory. For that matter so did I.
Thank you, no. I was able to follow the Titan editions perfectly fine,
but the story revolved around "the Green" which was *gasp* a color.
>
>But the point is that there is no point. b&w or colour it's still stuff
>that needs reprinting, and DC are doing it in a cheap format so that the
>stuff is in good circulation rather than sitting in a darkened cupboard.
>
>I applaud DC for reprinting the stuff in whatever format.
Agreed. I applauded them in my original post. I would just rather in were
in color.
Michael Chary
In article <4ov8nb$5...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
He started it. I just have no reason to let you people slander American
aesthetic values.
>Michael Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>
>: In article <4oufpe$9...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>: Cian O'Connor <cp...@thor.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>: >American foreign policy in three easy stages:
>: >
>: >1) Pick on their poor English. If they can't speak the language, then
>: >they should fucking learn!
>
>: Look, you pathetic limey cretin, we weren't the ones bringing nationality
>: into it but that doesn't mean we should have to take it without comment. Go
>: eat a hamburger.
>
>You pick on the guy's poor grasp of American culture, and you weren't
>the one's bringing nationality into it. Of course you weren't, how
>silly of me.
>
Are we the ones saying that he was aesthetically deficient because he was
Italian? No. He was the one attacking Americans on that basis.
>And don't call me a limey. I'm Irish, not English. If you are going to
>sling mud, at least chuck it at the right target, eh?
Damn, I'm of Irish extraction, so it lacks sting if I attack you for
being Irish. I don't suppose you're protestant? I have some great protestant
slurs I could use on you.
>
>: >Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
>: >He wasn't saying he must be ignorant, he was saying read the reprints
>: >and then you'll be persuaded.
>
>: Yes, but I have read some of them, and I wasn't.
>
>That is terribly nice for you. And then you blow a tantrum because
>somebody dares to disagree with you.
No, I called him an arrogant jerk for insulting Americans. Then I answered
his points.
>: >It's his opinion that black and white art is superior, that's
>: >all. He's not saying all Americans are stupid. You on the other hand
>: >sound hysterically paranoid. 'What, he said America's intolerent. Oh
>: >no, shoot the muthafucka.'
>
>: No, he did sound arrogant. You sound silly.
>
>Why, thank you.
You're welcome. Glad to help.
>: You found color irritating in a comic which relied on color for major
>: story points? Have you *only* read the Titan reprints?
>
>No, I've read both.
Huh, well, then you have idiosyncratic tastes.
>: >: Well, so far you sound like an *ignorant* and arrogant person. Can
>: >: you do better?
>: >
>: >And you sound like a loud mouthed xenophobic American. Can you do
>: >better.
>
>: Than a patronizing, nonsensical Brit? He already has.
>
>How absolutely wonderful for him. And he has such well balanced
>friends too.
Yes, and these friends have no reason whatever to allow themselves to be
pushed around.
Michael A. Chary
Charis Fava <steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>Michael Chary wrote:
>>
>> a) Bite me, you arrogant putz.
>>
>> b) It was well colored. The color has a muted, emotive feel. It was
>> designed for color.
>
>Grow up, you arrogant putz!
Gosh, how long did it take you to think that one up?
>The original color was shite IMHO (and that's all it is, MY opinion)
And you have every right to be just as wrong as your little heart desires.
The color in Moore's Swamp Thing was an integral part of the story. Moore
clearly counted on it working in a particular way.
>And the internet was DESIGNED for security purposes in spreading
>information between military and educational sites. So don't use it for
>talking crap. Or is that a contridiction!
I am perfectly aware what the net was designed for.
I was using it, in that particular instance, to respond to someone who
was insulting me. You on the other hand, are using it to insult someone
who defended himself against an insult. I submit that you are a hypocrite.
Michael Chary
Steve Lieber <72674...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Mike Chary wrote:
>But as Stuart Moore posted, on today's printing presses the coarse
>screens they used back then look like hell. That would mean new color
>guides and new seps, and that, unfortunately would mean that the new
>colorist would be working with a big handicap. He or she wouldn't have
>Alan Moore's script, and would have to go by Tatjana Wood's
>Making-the-best-of-a-bad-thing solutions. Back then they had either
>three or four blues shades to work with, and some colors simply couldn't
>go over some paterns of ink. Which of Ms Wood's choices were what the
>other creators were calling for and which were dictated by the limits of
>cheap printing? I don't know. Without the original scripts, which, as
>far as I know, DC has no access to, a lot of the subtler aspects of
>their original intent are going to be impossible to express. (An
>argument could be put forth that one blue or green is pretty much the
>same as another, but you won't hear it from me. Matt Hollingsworth would
>knock my teeth out.)
And there are two people eminently suit for such a project. Michael Zulli
could do it in his sleep. I mean, script or no script, he has a feel for
color that would just about rule over the stories. And given his working
speed, we'd get the comics just in time for me to attend that magno ball
exhibition on Titan. The other guy I think would do it great is Tom
McCraw. And he works quick. Both of these guys have a writers sensibility
and wouldn't need much scripting help. But how much would it cost to
recolor the books?
(Greg Wright might also be okay, but I feel he's not stark enough.)
>All this is academic of course.
Obvious, but I like academic discussions :)
>It's a trade-off either way and I think
>Dc's announced solution is a fair one. I've only been able to get five
>of the Titan editions and I'm eager to re-experience the rest of the
>stories. For those who haven't read them yet, I don't think the loss
>will be that great.
Perhaps not so great if you haven't read the series, but how will the
dark look in American Gothic if *everything* is in black and white?
That's where I first noticed it. Ciolor is important to our Mr. Moore.
>An illustrator friend of mine first encountered the
>stories in my B&W tpb's. He loved them, and thought that the color
>issues I lent him later lost a lot of the moody quality of the line
>work he'd enjoyed earlier. The difference was stronger for him in the
>Totleben issues than in the Alcalas. I tend to agree. Alacala's line
>emphasized solidity as well as mood, whereas the essential quality of
>Tottleben's "blur of frozen motion" as Moore once described it, is
>really lost when color comes in and defines the edges.
Hmm, I suspect that's an artists professional sensibility. I am just a
fan. For me the story as a whole worked better when the color was there.
Tell me, what did your friend think of the writing?
Michael Chary
Bryant Durrell <dur...@shellx.best.com> wrote:
>Michael Chary <ma...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>>Charis Fava <steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>>>follow the yellow brick road.
>>>
>>>You obviously fell in to this catagory. For that matter so did I.
>>
>>Thank you, no. I was able to follow the Titan editions perfectly fine,
>>but the story revolved around "the Green" which was *gasp* a color.
>
>following prose about colors, or even prose about pictures; it would
>seem self-evident that a work of art can make useful reference to
>elements which it does not include.
True, but in this case, the writer was counting on the colors to help.
It's like the black and white bits on the beginning and end of "The
Wizard of Oz" the director felt they helped the story. Alan Moore was
counting on color.
>I have no problem with saying "It would be better if it was in color,"
>and I in fact agree with that statement. What confuses me is the
>argument that it's pointless without color.
Strawman, No one has said that.
>
>I believe Stuart Moore when he says that color isn't practical. I'll
>live without it. What's the big deal?
I think Stuart Moore believes this. I am just not certain *I* bleieve it.
I am not calling Stuart Moore a liar, I merely saying that they managed
to reprint other stuff from that era in color, and they are reprinting
the tpbs in color. It makes me suspicious.
Michael Chary
Charis Fava <steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>Carl Fink wrote:
>>
>> This is not coloring black and white art -- the art was originally
>> done for color, and colored beautifully. Reprinting it in
>> monochrome is more like releasing a black and white version of
>> _Jurassic Park_.
>
>I don't know what it is about our friends in the states that they have
>such a problem with b&w.
We don't have any such problem. You arrogant Brits can't seem to grasp
that we can prefer something in one instance for a particular story.
>Their defense of colour is admirable but unneccessary.
We aren't defending color.
>I suppose the resy of the world can handle it a lot better because most
>of our "homegrown" titles have been predominatly b&w till about five
>years ago.
Um (and I mean that) you display such an appalling level of ignorance I
am surprised you can even operate a computer. The *VAST* majority of
American comics have always been in black and white. They are published
in our newspapers everyday.
Michael Chary
Steve Lieber <72674...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Mike Chary, asked a question about my illustrator friend who was first
>exposed to Swamp Thing in B&W and liked the reprints more than the color
>orignals.
>
I didn't know what to expect :)
>How much is really missing from the storytelling because the color isn't
>there? Looking at the issues I have in B&W, Moore "idiot-proofed" the
>color in his writing the same way the artists did in the pictures.
>There's plenty of Moore's prose, heavy... with ellipsises...describing
>"the green." Will a blob of YB2 really make it that much more alive to
>our hypothetical new reader? (Again I should emphasize that these
>preventive measures turned out largely unneccesary. Ms. Wood did a great
>job with the color, and even the seps and printing weren't too bad.)
What's she up to anyway? As to what it adds to a new reader, I couldn't
tell you. I know it made me a bit ansty when rereading it.
>You are right in that both of the guys you mentioned could do a fine
>job. My point wasn't that no one could do a good job, but that just
>coloring the books couldn't guarantee that we'd be getting "original
>intent." Printing in black and white, aside from keeping the comic
>cheaper than a back issue of Hawkman from my table at a con, gives
>today's reader a near perfect look of how three quarters of the team did
>their jobs.
True enough, I wasn't saying there's anything wrong with a black and
white reprint. I was just trying to figure out why they didn't think a
color one was feasible, and the answer given struck me as odd.
>I kinda would like to see Vertigo reprint the ads for Madballs, Power
>Lords toys and the movie "Krull" though.
Egads, "Krull" the only movie ever to make Lysette Anthony look ugly.
Moreno Roncucci
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Chary) wrote:
>>I don't want to sound too arrogant again, but I really think that B/W
>>art is the way to go. Only in the USA there is still so an intolerance
>>for this.
>Well, you are managing to sound arrogant, but indeed, America has zero
>tolerance for black and white comics like Zot! and Teenage Mutant Ninja
>Turtle and Cerebus and A Distant Soil and Samurai Penguin and Usagi
>Yojimbo and March Hare and Mad and Cracked and and scores of other black
>and white titles the American comic book indusrty produces. Not to
>mention the many, many daily black and white comic strips the appear in
>American newspapers for free every day.
>It's a pity we can't have such black and white European geniuses like
>Mattoti and Moebius and Herge here.
It seem to me that you are intentionally misunderstanding everything I
said. Come on, I know my english is bad, but it can't be SO bad...
I will try to explain it better with some examples:
What is the circulation of the best-selling b/w american comics?
What is the circulation of the best-selling color ones?
Could you please tell me the name of another country where there is so
a disparity on the circulation of comic books on the basis of the lack
of color?
Mattotti, Moebius and Herge' are NOT comic books authors. They publish
(at least in Europe) in graphic albums and high-brow magazines
And the works of Moebius have been colored for the american public. In
France and Italy "the Hermetic Garage" and many other stories were
originally published in b/n (not "Arzack" and "Blueberry, though)
In the USA, it is true or not that to try to get an increase in the
circulation over a certain limit, you HAVE to publish in color?
In Europe and in Japan all the best-selling comics are in b/w...
It's better-looking (IMHO), and it keeps the price down (and the
circolation up...)
You see, I was not talking about the people who buy Cerebus, Hate,
Stray Bullets, Palestine, Dirty Plotte or others alternative. I was
talking about the other 90% of the american comic book readers...
And, I would like to assure you that I was not being disdainful about
the american comics. Hell, I am spending a lot of money to get to read
them!
But I would kill for a b/w reprint of the works of Jack Kirby, Paul
Gulacy, Gene Colan, etc. (I have an italian edition of some Shang-Chi
and Tomb of Dracula in an oversized b/w format. They are so beautiful
that they can make you cry... )
>The black and white art was commisioned to be colored in the case of
>Swamp Thing.
About this, I agree with the message posted by Steve Lieber. He says
many of the thing I was trying to say, and he CAN write in good
english... :-)
Ciao,
/\/\oreno.
Moreno Roncucci
ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink) wrote:
>Read the messages. Mike owns some of the Titan reprints. (Thinking
>that he must be ignorant, if he disagrees with you, is *arrogant*.)
You are right. Thinking that your interlocutor is an ignorant only
because you don't agree with him, or because he is from another
country, is a sure sign of arrogance. So what is your excuse?
>>I don't want to sound too arrogant again, but I really think that B/W
>>art is the way to go. Only in the USA there is still so an intolerance
>>for this.
>Sorry, that sounds arrogant. Also bigoted and nationalistic. Also
>false.
I am sorry if it sound arrogant to you. But I would like to know
which part has irritated you so: the part where I was telling a
personal opinion about the future of b/w art, or the part where I
related a notion about the intolarance of the general public against
b/w comics that I got reading hundreds of articles in AMERICAN comics
magazines (and r.a.c.) complaining about the same problem?
By the way, I take offence at being called "bigoted", and I was never
a nationalist in my life. Could we avoid this childish name-calling?
About the "false" bit: I didn't understand what are you saying: are
you saying that a b/w comic book has in America the same chances of
success of a color one, or are you saying that this intolerance is
spread world-wide?
In the first case, I am very happy to hear that I was deceitfully
misinformed by many comics magazines (surely envious of the
predominance of b/w titles on the American market)
In the second case, I am sorry to say that you don't know very well
the market for comics outside America (I know, this sound arrogant,
too. Well, I has been called arrogant so many times in this thread
that I am beginning to feel like proving everybody right...)
>>Coloring b/w art is the same that coloring old Stanley & Laurel
>>films...
>"Laurel and Hardy" films. Don't combine one person's family name with
>the other's personal name.
You are right. But I DID want to write "Laurel and Hardy". I bet you
never write something wrong in haste, right?
>This is not coloring black and white art -- the art was originally
>done for color, and colored beautifully. Reprinting it in
>monochrome is more like releasing a black and white version of
>_Jurassic Park_.
This would be true for a comic like "Elektra: Assassin" or "Big
Numbers" or "Marvels", in which the art is drawn in color.
But Bissette and the other artist on ST (and all the other artist
working for Marvel or DC at the time) drawn in b/w...
Saying "the art was made to be colored by someone" is the same that
saying "the art was made for newsprint paper, so we MUST reprint this
ONLY on newsprint"
By the way, if the art was made to be colored by someone (not the
artists), then DC can publish it in b/w and you can color it
yourself...
>Well, so far you sound like an *ignorant* and arrogant person. Can
>you do better?
Well, I could try, but I will never be able to match you on these two
features...
Ciao,
/\/\oreno.
Andrew Boer
On Mon, 03 Jun 1996 20:57:08 -0400, ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink) wrote:
>He said that only in the U.S.A. is there intolerance of black and
>white art. One, it's false -- many Latin countries, for instance,
>prefer or insist on color comics. Two, it's false -- because we also
>buy lots of monochromatic serial art.
If Carl is giving up the envious position of the intolerant
American, I'd be delighted to fill his shoes...
It is my heartfelt opinion that black and white photographs
and film may indeed be more effective for conveying certain messages:
but this is because of the cultural associations we have with the
medium, and does not extend to comics.
Raging Bull, for example, works very well in black and white
because the lighting adds a dark artistic,
old-newsreels-of-boxing-matches kind of feel to the film. It plays on
our cultural associations: in film, black and white often seems to
imply either "old" (pre color) "dark" or "artistic".
Similarly, in photography, be it Ansel Adams landscape or
whoever else, black and white images tend to convey a seriousness and
a potency that is lost in color.
The cultural associations with black and white comics, on the
other hand (to me) were either "newsprint", or "independent" comics
who can't afford color.
I DO think that color comics are more effective than black and
white, perhaps because comic books (if we consider Action comics the
first real comic book) really started as a color medium. I also think
there are relative few black and white comics that are as impressive
as their color cousins--the grim Sin City for example---clearly a
deliberate choice for black and white-- I find consistently less
enjoyable than the Dark Knight Returns or even Batman Year One.
(although in terms of plot and dialogue, they are comparable)
It is true, of course, that a bad colorist can detract from
the enjoyment of a book. For example, I find that the gradations that
are used in Hellblazer dialogue boxes consistly distract me from the
plot. But in general, color books are always better. I can't think
of a single artist (from Milo Manara to Wendy Pini to Jeff Smith to
Dave Sim) whose art I wouldn't enjoy more with a good colorist. (I'm
actually a fan of Van Valkenburg lately)
There, is that polemic enough?
Gilbert Chew
In <4p00d2$l...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu
>>But as Stuart Moore posted, on today's printing presses the coarse
>>screens they used back then look like hell. That would mean new color
>>guides and new seps, and that, unfortunately would mean that the new
>>colorist would be working with a big handicap. He or she wouldn't
have
>>Alan Moore's script, and would have to go by Tatjana Wood's
>>Making-the-best-of-a-bad-thing solutions. Back then they had either
>>three or four blues shades to work with, and some colors simply
couldn't
>>go over some paterns of ink. Which of Ms Wood's choices were what the
>>other creators were calling for and which were dictated by the limits
of
>>cheap printing? I don't know.
>
>And there are two people eminently suit for such a project.
[comments about Michael Zulli, Tom McCraw, and Greg Wright deleted.]
Maybe I'm a bit obtuse or ignorant of such matters, but let me ask a
dumb question. Why wouldn't Ms. Wood herself be "eminently suited?"
Is she no longer working in the business or (ulp) deceased? Seems to
me she'd be the best choice to "update" her previous coloring job with
the most fidelity to "original intent."
Moreno Roncucci
ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink) wrote:
>>He wasn't saying he must be ignorant, he was saying read the reprints
>>and then you'll be persuaded.
>He was saying "read the reprints" to someone who *had already read the
>reprints*. Thus, he hadn't read the reprints, and thus my comment.
>You, Cian, apparently . . . haven't read the messages.
"Thus he hadn't read the reprints" ???
Maybe you wanted to say "Thus he hadn't read the messages". In this
case, you are right. I didn't read the messages in which he explained
that he had read the reprints.
Why I didn't read them? Maybe because I HAVE to be an arrogant "putz",
having dared to say something you don't like about the general tastes
of the american comic books readers...
Or maybe because I wrote my message BEFORE his...
You can check the dates on the messages (a clue: not everybody on the
planet has the same time zone) to find out the truth, if you have any
interest in it. It would have been better if you has done this BEFORE
insulting me, though...
>>: >I don't want to sound too arrogant again, but I really think that B/W
>>: >art is the way to go. Only in the USA there is still so an intolerance
>>: >for this.
>>
>>: Sorry, that sounds arrogant. Also bigoted and nationalistic. Also
>>: false.
>>
>>It's his opinion that black and white art is superior, that's
>>all. He's not saying all Americans are stupid. You on the other hand
>>sound hysterically paranoid. 'What, he said America's intolerent. Oh
>>no, shoot the muthafucka.'
>I never said that, of course, but feel free to construct your own
>opponent rather than commenting on my actual post.
I could say the same to you. Have you really TRIED to understand what
I was saying?
I don't believe that I have insulted anyone. If I did, I am very sorry
and I give you my apologies. But please, explain to me how can someone
who is simply pointing to a know fact (color books sell much better
than b/w ones in America. Not so in Europe, Sud America , Japan and
the rest of the world) insults all the American People...
>He said that only in the U.S.A. is there intolerance of black and
>white art. One, it's false -- many Latin countries, for instance,
>prefer or insist on color comics. Two, it's false -- because we also
>buy lots of monochromatic serial art.
One: which latin countries?
Two: "lots of monochromatic serial art", maybe. But I was talking
about comic books...
>Thus, he sounds bigoted against us U.S. citizens, and thus, my
>comment.
Very patriotic. Now, could we please stop this nationalistic march,
and talk a little about comics?
>>: "Laurel and Hardy" films. Don't combine one person's family name with
>>: the other's personal name.
>>
>>He's Italian. He may not be completely au fait with American
>>culture. Name me the Italian equivalent.
>Justifiable comment there -- I meant it to come out more friendly than
>it did. (There are no Italian equivalents -- not in the genre.)
>Sorry, Moreno. That was unnecessarily hostile, and I apologize.
Arghh! I have already retaliated in another message... :-((((
Well, it's too late to stop it now. I apologize, too...
Ciao,
/\/\oreno.
Andrew Boer
On Mon, 03 Jun 1996 21:08:13 -0400, ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink) wrote:
>In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.960603...@sable.ox.ac.uk>,
>Tannhauser <trin...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Laurel and Hardy" films. Don't combine one person's family name with
>>> the other's personal name.
>>>
>> Funny, funny, funny, kittens. Carl, having decided to pick on
>>somebody with limited English, then manages to bugger it up anyway. A
>>cursory examination of the sentence will reveal that he has in fact
>>combined one person's family name with the same person's personal name.
>>Still a mistake, but it seems a little remiss to chastise somebody for
>>entirely the wrong offence.
>
>What the heck are you talking about? Are you referring to my using
>the first and last names of the same person?
I have to admit, I had to read it about three times to figure out what
dear Daniel was talking about, but he was quite correct. Stan Laurel
(the quoted personage of our Italian friend was one person, and Hardy
(what was his first name, surely not Thomas,,,) was another. So when
you chastised him, you did so quite incorrectly.
Remember, he had said "Stanley and Laurel" films...
so...
Your admonishment should have read
"Don't combine one persons family name (Laurel) and personal name
(Stanley) with the other person's family name (Hardy) and not whatever
you said...
Picky, picky, but then, so were you, Carl.
Where did all this arrogance stuff come from, anyway. Tough crowd...
I must say, Daniel, your powers of cursory examination quite exceed
the mark.
Andrew (now in Greenwich Village (where the comic shops are far
seedier), recently escaped from Ann Arbor, MI.)
Andrew Boer
>Tannhauser <trin...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>
>> What is American for Jacques Tati, anyway?
>
>Trick question! There is no equivalent to Jacques Tati anywhere else
>in cinema that I know of. Only Buster Keaton comes anywhere close.
Hmmmm...who was that fellow who did Mr. Hulot.
He might be comparable.
Tannhauser
On 4 Jun 1996, Michael Chary wrote:
> Charis Fava <steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>
> >I suppose the resy of the world can handle it a lot better because most
> >of our "homegrown" titles have been predominatly b&w till about five
> >years ago.
>
> Um (and I mean that) you display such an appalling level of ignorance I
> am surprised you can even operate a computer. The *VAST* majority of
> American comics have always been in black and white. They are published
> in our newspapers everyday.
> --
I think I see the problem here, apart from the fact that every
main part in this debate has thus far been filled by a raving lunatic.
Micheal is inclined to include newspaper cartoons under the aegis of
"comics". This is not generally a viewpoint followed in Britain.
Therefore, the mainstream of American comicdom, if by that we mean
publications devoted almost entirely to graphic narrative (or some such
definition) is indeed a devotee of coloured artwork, and the mainstream
of British comicdom was predominantly black and white until quite
recently, although the entire British comics industry could probably be
handled by Slave Labour without breaking into a sweat anyway.
Cian O'Connor
Michael Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: Charis Fava <steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
: >I suppose the resy of the world can handle it a lot better because most
: >of our "homegrown" titles have been predominatly b&w till about five
: >years ago.
: Um (and I mean that) you display such an appalling level of ignorance I
: am surprised you can even operate a computer. The *VAST* majority of
: American comics have always been in black and white. They are published
: in our newspapers everyday.
This is true, actually, ever since America colonised Britain, we've all
been forced to learn about the minutae of American culture. We have to
take a retest every year, and if we fail then we don't get our ration
of Van Damme movies.
Why this failing should affect his use of a computer is beyond
me. I've always considered knowledge of American comics peculiarly
useless for the operation of computers, but I'm often wrong.
Cian
Cian O'Connor
Michael A. Chary (ma...@po.CWRU.Edu) wrote:
: Charis Fava <steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
: >The original color was shite IMHO (and that's all it is, MY opinion)
: And you have every right to be just as wrong as your little heart desires.
Fear this man, 'Charis', he's got objective truth fighting his corner.
: >And the internet was DESIGNED for security purposes in spreading
: >information between military and educational sites. So don't use it for
: >talking crap. Or is that a contridiction!
: I was using it, in that particular instance, to respond to someone who
: was insulting me. You on the other hand, are using it to insult someone
: who defended himself against an insult. I submit that you are a hypocrite.
: --
: Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
For an alleged barbarian, you sound disturbingly like a member of the
Woman's Institute.
Cian
Cian O'Connor
Michael Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: In article <4ov8nb$5...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
: He started it. I just have no reason to let you people slander American
: aesthetic values.
Aren't Americans individuals, or do you all march in aesthetic unison.
: >And don't call me a limey. I'm Irish, not English. If you are going to
: >sling mud, at least chuck it at the right target, eh?
: Damn, I'm of Irish extraction, so it lacks sting if I attack you for
: being Irish. I don't suppose you're protestant? I have some great protestant
: slurs I could use on you.
I'm Irish catholic from the Republic, not some Irish American who
get's misty eyed for a 'homeland' he's never seen; and supports a
bloody stupid, violent civil war in Ulster, because he's a 'patriot'.
: No, I called him an arrogant jerk for insulting Americans. Then I answered
: his points.
You must be very thin skinned if you found that insulting. So he
doesn't know about the B&W indies; the vast majority of American
comic fans as it happens do want their comic's coloured.
: >: You found color irritating in a comic which relied on color for major
: >: story points? Have you *only* read the Titan reprints?
: >
: >No, I've read both.
: Huh, well, then you have idiosyncratic tastes.
Shared it seems by quite a few people.
Cian
Michael A. Chary
Tannhauser (trin...@sable.ox.ac.uk) writes:
> On 4 Jun 1996, Michael Chary wrote:
>
>> Charis Fava <steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I suppose the resy of the world can handle it a lot better because most
>> >of our "homegrown" titles have been predominatly b&w till about five
>> >years ago.
>>
>> Um (and I mean that) you display such an appalling level of ignorance I
>> am surprised you can even operate a computer. The *VAST* majority of
>> American comics have always been in black and white. They are published
>> in our newspapers everyday.
>> --
>
> I think I see the problem here, apart from the fact that every
> main part in this debate has thus far been filled by a raving lunatic.
You haven't posted all that much.
> Micheal is inclined to include newspaper cartoons under the aegis of
> "comics". This is not generally a viewpoint followed in Britain.
Well, that's just too bad. I'm in the states. Moreno is in Italy.
British viewpoints, while interesting are hardly definitive.
> Therefore, the mainstream of American comicdom, if by that we mean
> publications devoted almost entirely to graphic narrative (or some such
> definition) is indeed a devotee of coloured artwork, and the mainstream
> of British comicdom was predominantly black and white until quite
> recently, although the entire British comics industry could probably be
> handled by Slave Labour without breaking into a sweat anyway.
Um, the mainstream of American comics, and remember that comics are an
American innovation, is made up of what it has always been made up of:
comic strips. There are also many black and white comic books and have
always been, but a moderately large newspaper sells more copies everyday to
more people than most of the comic books do in a month.
--
When there's no one there, it's Norg.
"The BBC's trailer department keeps calling the O J Simpson case "the trial
of the century." Sure, OJ's a big name, but I still think the title belongs,
narrowly, to Nuremberg." - Jack Hughes, "The Independent on Sunday."
Darko Macan
Moreno Roncucci (more...@queen.shiny.it) wrote:
: In Europe and in Japan all the best-selling comics are in b/w...
Um... It's true for Japan and I believe it's true for Italy
(all Bonelli editions being b/w and all the smaller booklets
(Alan Ford and whatever) too) but I don't believe you can say
that for francophone comics. Asterix, Tintin and all the
bestselling serials (Blueberry, Spirou, Bernard Prince, Schtroumpfes...
You name it!) are done in color. I do believe they even colored some of
Pratt's stuff these days. And I can't remember black and white ever
(except in that mid-eighties Casterman's "lets do real novels in BD
format" period) being more popular tahn the colored ones.
You may want to remember that, no matter how much comics are heralded
as art in France, their primary target audience remain kids. Hook 'em
while they're young! And kids are suckers for colors (not that the
adults aren't, mind you). Hence, I think that your statement above
needs a bit of modification. No hard feelings, I hope.
: It's better-looking (IMHO), and it keeps the price down (and the
: circolation up...)
And it takes longer to read b/w art than the colored one - more value for
your money!...:)
: You see, I was not talking about the people who buy Cerebus, Hate,
: Stray Bullets, Palestine, Dirty Plotte or others alternative. I was
: talking about the other 90% of the american comic book readers...
Kids. Not Americans but 90% of probably every comics market (bar the
japanese).
: But I would kill for a b/w reprint of the works of Jack Kirby, Paul
: Gulacy, Gene Colan, etc. (I have an italian edition of some Shang-Chi
: and Tomb of Dracula in an oversized b/w format. They are so beautiful
: that they can make you cry... )
Amen to that. I grew up reading b/w reprints of 70's Marvel stuff
(Romita on Spiderman, Buscema on Conan, Zeck on Shang-Chi, Buscema &
deZuniga on Doc Savage (um, that was b/w originally, I believe),
Rogers/Austin on Batman (um, that's DC, obviously)) and they never
looked as good in color to me. Than again, I wasn't twelve when I
saw them in color...:)
: >The black and white art was commisioned to be colored in the case of
: >Swamp Thing.
: About this, I agree with the message posted by Steve Lieber. He says
: many of the thing I was trying to say, and he CAN write in good
: english... :-)
Well, the only story where I felt that I was shortchanged in Titan
reprints was "My Blue Heaven", for obvious reasons. Bear in mind that
I haven't seen the stories in color previously so I didn't know what
I miss (and mostly I still don't).
Darko
Michael Chary
Matt Hollingsworth <10312...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>Well, here are some thoughts from a colorist about this whole
>thing.....
>
>I love the fact that they're to be printed in black and white. I've
>already seen these books in color and they look great, but I'd dig
>the chance to see all those Totleben lines without color on them.
>Color is *not* inherently better than black and white. I often skip
See, this is the thing: the artists like Lieber and Hollingsworth from
their stated reasons for liking the black and white, don't care about the
story. They only care about the art. The pencil art. That's fair in the
sense that they get to read a comic how ever they want, but I maintain
most readers care about the story as a sort of holistic entity, and Alan
Moore's Swamp Thing stories are better served by color.
>reading color books that I might otherwise read because the coloring
>is so bad. That's not the case with these books, though, as both
>Tatjana and Danny know what they're doing. Still, I look forward
>to seeing the black and white versions.... Totleben once told me
>about pouring glue onto a page to produce texture. Can't wait to
>see all that stuff in b&w....
You can probably pick up the Titan copies at any reasonably sized con. I
saw a couple at Motor City.
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
MC Grammar
In article <4p02q3$o...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Chary) writes:
>>I confess I don't understand this argument. I have little problem
>>following prose about colors, or even prose about pictures; it would
>>seem self-evident that a work of art can make useful reference to
>>elements which it does not include.
>
>True, but in this case, the writer was counting on the colors to help.
>It's like the black and white bits on the beginning and end of "The
>Wizard of Oz" the director felt they helped the story. Alan Moore was
>counting on color.
Which brings up an interesting question: Has anyone asked Moore what he
thinks about these reprints? He's getting royalties from them, and his
work will be seen by a new generation of readers (we hope). So do you
suppose he minds all that much, color or no color?
Jill
MC Grammar
In article <4p15fa$j...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, cp...@thor.cam.ac.uk (Cian
O'Connor) writes:
>: He started it. I just have no reason to let you people slander American
>: aesthetic values.
>
>Aren't Americans individuals, or do you all march in aesthetic unison.
>
>: >And don't call me a limey. I'm Irish, not English. If you are going to
>: >sling mud, at least chuck it at the right target, eh?
>
>: Damn, I'm of Irish extraction, so it lacks sting if I attack you for
>: being Irish. I don't suppose you're protestant? I have some great
>protestant
>: slurs I could use on you.
>
>I'm Irish catholic from the Republic, not some Irish American who
>get's misty eyed for a 'homeland' he's never seen; and supports a
>bloody stupid, violent civil war in Ulster, because he's a 'patriot'.
As long as we're avoiding generalizations...
Jill
P.S. "Gets" doesn't require an apostrophe. ("Git's" is another matter, but
let's not dwell on that.) Here, try this: Take a deep breath, hold it, and
release it slowly. Slowly, I said. That's it. Now go back and edit what
you've just written. See? You can do it.
Matt Hollingsworth
Well, here are some thoughts from a colorist about this whole
thing.....
I love the fact that they're to be printed in black and white. I've
already seen these books in color and they look great, but I'd dig
the chance to see all those Totleben lines without color on them.
Color is *not* inherently better than black and white. I often skip
reading color books that I might otherwise read because the coloring
is so bad. That's not the case with these books, though, as both
Tatjana and Danny know what they're doing. Still, I look forward
to seeing the black and white versions.... Totleben once told me
about pouring glue onto a page to produce texture. Can't wait to
see all that stuff in b&w....
-Matt Hollingsworth (colorguy)
Cian O'Connor
Michael A. Chary (bf...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: Tannhauser (trin...@sable.ox.ac.uk) writes:
: > On 4 Jun 1996, Michael Chary wrote:
: >
: >> Charis Fava <steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
: >>
: >> >I suppose the resy of the world can handle it a lot better because most
: >> >of our "homegrown" titles have been predominatly b&w till about five
: >> >years ago.
: >>
: >> Um (and I mean that) you display such an appalling level of ignorance I
: >> am surprised you can even operate a computer. The *VAST* majority of
: >> American comics have always been in black and white. They are published
: >> in our newspapers everyday.
: >> --
: >
: > I think I see the problem here, apart from the fact that every
: > main part in this debate has thus far been filled by a raving lunatic.
: You haven't posted all that much.
Very droll.
: > Micheal is inclined to include newspaper cartoons under the aegis of
: > "comics". This is not generally a viewpoint followed in Britain.
: Well, that's just too bad. I'm in the states. Moreno is in Italy.
: British viewpoints, while interesting are hardly definitive.
Who ever said they were definitive? You were arguing with Mark
Stephenson who's English, as such the differing cultural definitions
used in England and the States could be considered important. I think
the Italians also distinguish between comic strips and newspaper
strips (different word, or something. Not 100% though).
: Um, the mainstream of American comics, and remember that comics are an
: American innovation, is made up of what it has always been made up of:
: comic strips. There are also many black and white comic books and have
: always been, but a moderately large newspaper sells more copies everyday to
: more people than most of the comic books do in a month.
a) I don't think that comics necessarily were an American invention (I
seem to remember some French stuff, there's Punch if we're including
Newspapers, and I think there were English comics as well), I just
think they sold the most.
b) So what? I hardly think that Doonesbury and Swamp Thing are
terribly comparable.
c) The audiences are incredibly different. I doubt your typical fan of
the cartoons in newspapers would call himself/herself a comics fan.
d) Your satirical cartoonists are crap. Steve Bell is a God, you must
bow down and worship him...erm sorry, lost it a bit there.
Cian
Michael Chary
Cian O'Connor <cp...@thor.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
[Nothing about comics, just some inective.]
FOAD. YHL. HAND.
DCO Martha
I've just read through 20-some-odd messages in this thread (and yes, some
of them are very odd), and wanted to throw in my opinion, but without
quoting specifics.
I agree with Mike that American comic strips qualify as comics. Many are
collected and published in trade paperbacks, where they can be read as a
narrative story (not only the terrific TERRY & THE PIRATES and LI'L
ABNERs, but also CALVIN & HOBBES and DOONESBURY and even PEANUTS). And
these books all sell lots more than most color comics.
Martha Thomases
Also Likes B&W Fred Astaire Movies
Cian O'Connor
Apologies for the English, but I've just had an exam and so
consequently feel a little disorientated.
Andrew Boer (ab...@umich.edu) wrote:
: On Mon, 03 Jun 1996 20:57:08 -0400, ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink) wrote:
: >He said that only in the U.S.A. is there intolerance of black and
: >white art. One, it's false -- many Latin countries, for instance,
: >prefer or insist on color comics. Two, it's false -- because we also
: >buy lots of monochromatic serial art.
: If Carl is giving up the envious position of the intolerant
: American, I'd be delighted to fill his shoes...
Please do, you do a better job of it.
[lots of stuff deleted because I essentially agree with it, but can't
really add anything to it]
: The cultural associations with black and white comics, on the
: other hand (to me) were either "newsprint", or "independent" comics
: who can't afford color.
I like it when it's well done, but I think too often the colouring is
done by someone who isn't sympathetic to the original artist's
ideas. Then it really jars.
: I DO think that color comics are more effective than black and
: white, perhaps because comic books (if we consider Action comics the
: first real comic book) really started as a color medium. I also think
: there are relative few black and white comics that are as impressive
: as their color cousins--the grim Sin City for example---clearly a
: deliberate choice for black and white-- I find consistently less
: enjoyable than the Dark Knight Returns or even Batman Year One.
: (although in terms of plot and dialogue, they are comparable)
Being a minimalist I prefer comics in Black and White, unless the
colour actually adds something. Flex Mentallo would lose something in
Black and White, as the garish `poppy' element of the artwork would be
lost. The brightness of the tones is intrinsic to its
atmosphere. Currently I think Hellblazer gains enormously from the
murky, muddy colours (and the heavy use of brown, which gives it an
interesting earthy quality) again add to the atmosphere. I don't think
the same can be said of a lot of the earlier issues where they were
just coloured. Didn't add anything, it may even have subtracted from
the pencilwork.
The stark polarity of the colour in Sin City in some way (for me at
least) heightens both the paranoia and the twisted morality of the
book. When I read Batman Returns, the impact was softened. I think
part of the problem was that neither of the books pretends to give a
realistic portrayal of society, but because the colour was reasonably
naturalistic in the Dark Knight it made it difficult for me to
sufficiently suspend my disbelief.
: There, is that polemic enough?
It was, uh, great. Some more would be nice.
Cian
Cian O'Connor
MC Grammar (mcgr...@aol.com) wrote:
: P.S. "Gets" doesn't require an apostrophe. ("Git's" is another matter, but
: let's not dwell on that.) Here, try this: Take a deep breath, hold it, and
: release it slowly. Slowly, I said. That's it. Now go back and edit what
: you've just written. See? You can do it.
It's a typing in automatic pilot thing. Well that and this keyboard
having an awkward delete key involving three buttons, which if you get
it wrong cuts the connection, and probably fries your synapses.
The apostrophe is used for possession (expect when using a pronoun),
and where a letter has been missed out.
Cian
Jeffrey D Picka
ab...@umich.edu (Andrew Boer) writes:
>He might be comparable.
Hulot=Tati. Tati played Hulot in
M Hulot's Holiday
Mon Oncle
Playtime
Traffic.
He also appeared in several films for TV, and a film called Jour De
Fete in which he plays a Hulot-like character.
All are worth seeing repeatedly, especially Playtime.
JDP
--
==============================================================================
Jeff Picka pi...@galton.uchicago.edu
There are times when reality becomes too complex for Oral Communication.
But legend gives it a form by which it pervades the entire world. (Alpha 60)
==============================================================================
Chris Eckert
Charis Fava (steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com) wrote:
: I don't know what it is about our friends in the states that they have
: such a problem with b&w.
Speaking as a friend in the States (because you know, we've all
got the same opinions, being in the same country. Something they put in
the water.) I believe the problem the other posters are having, a concern
I share to a degree, is that the original Swamp Thing run was in color,
and designed to be so. By converting them to black and white, some
scenes, panels and plot points will be muddled or deleted, because they
were designed to be in color.
This does not make we as Americans monochromatophobic, or
whatever the proper term might be. I could never imagine the artwork in
Cerebus or Sin City to be improved by color, nor would I want a
"colorized" version of them. I get a weird feeling every time I see any
work by Evan Dorkin or Bob Burden colored. It's more of a case of
appropriateness of the color...do you think Brendan McCarthy's Shade
covers would be as effective in black and white?
Chris
Carl Fink
In article <4p1vb0$9...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
cp...@thor.cam.ac.uk (Cian O'Connor) wrote:
>a) I don't think that comics necessarily were an American invention (I
>seem to remember some French stuff, there's Punch if we're including
>Newspapers, and I think there were English comics as well), I just
>think they sold the most.
Comic BOOKS are ours, though. MORE FUN COMICS #1, consisting of
reprints of newspaper strips.
--
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com madsci...@genie.com
Dueling Modems, Inc. http://www.sfrt.com/sfrt/
". . . stories have to end. It's what gives them meaning." -Neil Gaiman
Bob Heer
one other question. In the obituary for Malcolm Jones in SANDMAN #75,
Gaiman states that Jones was recently re-inking pages in #16, I assume
for future printings of "The Dolls House".
Why was it decided to have those pages re-inked at this time, after
several printings of the book? Are there any changes in the script that
required it?
And will the "new" pages be used if the "Essential Vertigo" series gets
up to #16, or will the originals?
And are you going to get all the two page spreads on facing pages in the
"Essential Vertigo" reprint? (actually, one story in "Preludes" and one
in "Dolls House" were slightly reformated so that facing pages came out
right. So I guess you get a choice, depending on how many ads you run,
and where) And will you duplicate all the historical colouring errors?
And how about an "Essential Vertigo Special", with both "The Castle" and
"Fear of Falling"? I understand one or both of those had extra pages in
the version printed in the collected books, so it would be nice to see
them without having to pay for pages and pages of stuff I already have.
Bob
Charis Fava
Michael Chary wrote:
>
> Charis Fava <steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't know what it is about our friends in the states that they have
> >such a problem with b&w.
>
> that we can prefer something in one instance for a particular story.
and
>
> Um (and I mean that) you display such an appalling level of ignorance I
> am surprised you can even operate a computer.
Hey
Arrogant and ignorant! Why not try conceited and bed-wetter next.
Oh about the slur about operating a computer.
Fuck you Mike :(
Many people I work with say the same thing but I just shrug it off,
and cry when I get home in the evening.
--
Charis Fava on her Win 95 machine
Join me on http:\www.eyeliner.and.spraypaint.com\
Charis Fava
Michael Chary mentioned loads of stuff about nothing:
>
> In article <4ov8nb$5...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>
> aesthetic values.
Oh for the love of fucking God. It's a small world Mike. Boundaries on
maps are all it is. Stop taking everything so bloody literally.
The American way of life revolts a great many people in the world.
You happened to LOVE everything American, and I for one think you're
misguided but I can appreciate that you see things a lot different to me.
> >Michael Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
> >
> >: In article <4oufpe$9...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
> >: Cian O'Connor <cp...@thor.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >: >American foreign policy in three easy stages:
> >: >
> >: >1) Pick on their poor English. If they can't speak the language, then
> >: >they should fucking learn!
> >
> >: Look, you pathetic limey cretin, we weren't the ones bringing nationality
> >: into it but that doesn't mean we should have to take it without comment. Go
> >: eat a hamburger.
Stop trying to wind people up by insulting their intelligence. All it does
is bring your intelligence into doubt and these patriotic ravings of yours
are really starting to lose their admirable qualities. There is a difference
between watching your national football (soccer to you)team kick arse on the pitch
and rabidly, attacking anyone who doesn't subscribe to the belief that what the US
Government says is true, is in fact true.
> >You pick on the guy's poor grasp of American culture, and you weren't
> >the one's bringing nationality into it. Of course you weren't, how
> >silly of me.
> >
>
> Are we the ones saying that he was aesthetically deficient because he was
> Italian? No. He was the one attacking Americans on that basis.
He was attacking Americans was he? I have said far more "slanderous" things
about Americans on this group and you've never attacked me in this way. So
does that mean you've got a chip on your shoulder about Italians or do you just
ignore everything I say? I hope it's the latter but suspect the former.
> >And don't call me a limey. I'm Irish, not English. If you are going to
> >sling mud, at least chuck it at the right target, eh?
Yeah. I'm English. sling mud at me. I'm English through and through and whilst
I'd rather be English than (boo hiss) American I can accept the fact that my
little island isn't the best place in the world to go if you're looking for
Utopia. Just like your big island isn't.
> Damn, I'm of Irish extraction, so it lacks sting if I attack you for
> being Irish. I don't suppose you're protestant? I have some great protestant
> slurs I could use on you.
Now you're barking up the theological tree, trying to piss even more people
off. You're out of control chum! and you don't care who you attack next
just so long as their not American, of Irish Extraction or Roman Catholic.
Where will it stop? Ginger Haired. Left Handed. Sleepwalkers.
Go for it Mike.. They're all viable targets.
Ginger Haired Mutha Fuckas shouldn't be allowed to breath good old US air.
Or those LEFTIES using our nice black biros. And sleepwalkers. Shit! What are they
trying to say, walking through life with their eyes closed. Bastards! Are
they saying that America is not worth looking at. Is that it?????
> >
> >: >Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
> >: >He wasn't saying he must be ignorant, he was saying read the reprints
> >: >and then you'll be persuaded.
> >
> >: Yes, but I have read some of them, and I wasn't.
> >
> >That is terribly nice for you. And then you blow a tantrum because
> >somebody dares to disagree with you.
>
> No, I called him an arrogant jerk for insulting Americans. Then I answered
> his points.
But you're an arrogant jerk and you're American. How does that work out?
Surely not all Americans are like you. You see, I will not generalise here
because I know not all Americans are like you. Some know when to shut up!
> >: >It's his opinion that black and white art is superior, that's
> >: >all. He's not saying all Americans are stupid. You on the other hand
> >: >sound hysterically paranoid. 'What, he said America's intolerent. Oh
> >: >no, shoot the muthafucka.'
People ARE allowed to differ in views. He wasn't launching an all-out
attack of everything good and pure. He simply stated his opinion.
I have read your posts on the b&w vs colour issue and I have to agree with
most of what you said. But we're talking about comics here not a state of
world address.
>
Cian and Mike Mutual Appreciation Society Snipped
>
> >: >: Well, so far you sound like an *ignorant* and arrogant person. Can
> >: >: you do better?
> >: >
> >: >And you sound like a loud mouthed xenophobic American. Can you do
> >: >better.
> >
> >: Than a patronizing, nonsensical Brit? He already has.
> >
> >How absolutely wonderful for him. And he has such well balanced
> >friends too.
>
> Yes, and these friends have no reason whatever to allow themselves to be
> pushed around.
Basically you should shut up now before you damage the credibility of your
beloved country anymore than it is already.
Randy Lander
Charis Fava <steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>Carl Fink wrote:
>>
>> This is not coloring black and white art -- the art was originally
>> done for color, and colored beautifully. Reprinting it in
>> monochrome is more like releasing a black and white version of
>> _Jurassic Park_.
>I don't know what it is about our friends in the states that they have
>such a problem with b&w.
Yeah, you gotta really pity us Americans for having to deal with
primitive color comics. We must live in a cultural wasteland. Or
perhaps we have both black and white comics and color comics and some
comics look better in color. Nah, that statement doesn't insult
anyone, that can't be it.
I haven't read the original Swamp Thing comics. I'd just as soon read
them in black and white than not at all. But there are plenty of
instances where color enhances a book instead of dimming the effect of
black and white. Mike is saying Swamp Thing was one of those
instances. Is it so hard to accept that he says this because that's
what he believes and not because he's some American barbarian with a
grudge against b&w comics?
rwla...@io.com<*>
My Home Page:http://www.io.com/~rwlander
This Post contains the opinions of one Randy Lander.
Had it been the biblical truth, your bushes would be
on fire.
Cian O'Connor
Carl Fink (ca...@stupid.hostname.test.us) wrote:
: In article <4p1vb0$9...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
: cp...@thor.cam.ac.uk (Cian O'Connor) wrote:
: >a) I don't think that comics necessarily were an American invention (I
: >seem to remember some French stuff, there's Punch if we're including
: >Newspapers, and I think there were English comics as well), I just
: >think they sold the most.
: Comic BOOKS are ours, though. MORE FUN COMICS #1, consisting of
: reprints of newspaper strips.
As opposed to Rupert one presumes, or that French surrealist whose
name escapes me.
Cian
Jeffrey D Picka
In our modern and interconnected world, the notion of firstness often
becomes vacuous. In the case of comics, there were many forms of
graphic narrative, some word-driven and some picture-driven before the
advent of what we now think of as the comic book. IIRC, MORE FUN
COMICS was a collection of single page comic strips, and even the
original Superman and Batman stories were very short and owed much to
single page strips like Prince Valiant for their early form. European
books originated partly based on these models and partly based on
local forms of graphic narrative, with the result that now it takes
some time for new North American readers to acclimatize to the foreign
formats. This is especially true of Japanese comics, which IIRC
developed almost independently of North American ones. Who's first
isn't so important as trying to examine the interlocking paths of
development of all of the basic forms.
Kevin J. Maroney
mcol...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (First And Last And Always) wrote:
>In article <4orubj$s...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>Michael Chary <ma...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>>In article <gBQsxgen...@panix.com>, Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>Yes. I have it, but can't recall the title right this minute. Swampy
>>>basically spends the whole issue wandering around and thinking, while
>>>his cut-off hand oddly *doesn't* heal (and he doesn't notice this),
>>>confirms that Arcane is dead from last issue, then gets captured by
>>>Sunderland to lead into #21's "Anatomy Lesson".
#20 was entitled "Loose Ends", and I consider it integral to the
storylines which follow. I understand why DC chose not to reprint it
in the TPBs, but I still feel its absence. (Especially given that
Moore's penultimate issue was "Loose Ends (Reprise)", a reference
which is completely lost if you haven't read #20.)
>I'd like to see it, too. But, at the very least, In the first reprint issue,
>DC should include the intorduction to the first Titan reprint, which
>comprehensively summed up the history of ST and detailed all the supporting
>characters, up to and including ST 20.
Moore's introduction/synopsis was also present in the American TPB,
and you're completely right, it's brilliant.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | ke...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Matthew Daly
In article <DsHo1w.GF...@torfree.net> bg...@torfree.net (Bob Heer) writes:
>
>And how about an "Essential Vertigo Special", with both "The Castle" and
>"Fear of Falling"? I understand one or both of those had extra pages in
>the version printed in the collected books, so it would be nice to see
>them without having to pay for pages and pages of stuff I already have.
Well, as you say, Fear of Falling is already in Fables and Reflections,
so it's not too likely that they'll stick it somewhere else. And if
"The Castle" is the "story" that came out of Vertigo Jam, then it's
probably not something that folks are all that proud of. I mean, it
had a page of Merv, who I love, but the rest of it was so unreflective
of the characters that they portray that it can't seriously be taken
as a representation of what Sandman is about. Angst-ridden Nuala?
Abel with a 5:00 shadow? Spare me. And why did everyone have
pointy ears? Were they on their way to a Star Trek convention or
something?
-Matthew
--
Matthew Daly I don't buy everything I read ... I haven't
da...@ppd.kodak.com even read everything I've bought.
My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer, of course.
Tannhauser
On 4 Jun 1996, Michael A. Chary wrote:
>
> Tannhauser (trin...@sable.ox.ac.uk) writes:
> > On 4 Jun 1996, Michael Chary wrote:
> >
> >> Charis Fava <steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
> >>
> > Micheal is inclined to include newspaper cartoons under the aegis of
> > "comics". This is not generally a viewpoint followed in Britain.
>
> Well, that's just too bad. I'm in the states. Moreno is in Italy.
> British viewpoints, while interesting are hardly definitive.
The states? Of aphasia? "Charis", however, is in Britain, and
therefore my appraisal seems entirely germane, yours simply irrelevant.
>
> > Therefore, the mainstream of American comicdom, if by that we mean
> > publications devoted almost entirely to graphic narrative (or some such
> > definition) is indeed a devotee of coloured artwork, and the mainstream
> > of British comicdom was predominantly black and white until quite
> > recently, although the entire British comics industry could probably be
> > handled by Slave Labour without breaking into a sweat anyway.
>
> Um, the mainstream of American comics, and remember that comics are an
Do stop beginning sentences with "um", dear boy. If you have to
pause for thought, simply stop typing. Go on, try.
Michael Chary
Tannhauser <trin...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 4 Jun 1996, Michael A. Chary wrote:
>> Tannhauser (trin...@sable.ox.ac.uk) writes:
>> > On 4 Jun 1996, Michael Chary wrote:
>> >
>> >> Charis Fava <steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> > Micheal is inclined to include newspaper cartoons under the aegis of
>> > "comics". This is not generally a viewpoint followed in Britain.
>>
>> Well, that's just too bad. I'm in the states. Moreno is in Italy.
>> British viewpoints, while interesting are hardly definitive.
>
> The states? Of aphasia? "Charis", however, is in Britain, and
>therefore my appraisal seems entirely germane, yours simply irrelevant.
Your outcast state notwithstanding, the comics markets relevant to the
original discussion were in Amerca and Italy. Although, I will concede
any subject which concerns you is probably irrelevant.
>> > Therefore, the mainstream of American comicdom, if by that we mean
>> > publications devoted almost entirely to graphic narrative (or some such
>> > definition) is indeed a devotee of coloured artwork, and the mainstream
>> > of British comicdom was predominantly black and white until quite
>> > recently, although the entire British comics industry could probably be
>> > handled by Slave Labour without breaking into a sweat anyway.
>>
>> Um, the mainstream of American comics, and remember that comics are an
>
> Do stop beginning sentences with "um", dear boy. If you have to
>pause for thought, simply stop typing. Go on, try.
"Um" has a special meaning round these parts, lad. I am quite comfortable
with it's application in this instance.
Charis Fava
> >>
> >> a) Bite me, you arrogant putz.
> >>
> >> b) It was well colored. The color has a muted, emotive feel. It was
> >> designed for color.
> >
> >Grow up, you arrogant putz!
> Gosh, how long did it take you to think that one up?Not long at all it was the first thing that came ito my head after reading your
quaint speech. I tend to type as I think. Which as I don't tend to think
very well and often enough does lend to some interesting words and phrases.
> >The original color was shite IMHO (and that's all it is, MY opinion)
>
> And you have every right to be just as wrong as your little heart desires.I agree. I like being wrong occaisionally. It's character building.
I would suggest you try it. It's fun.
> The color in Moore's Swamp Thing was an integral part of the story. Moore
> clearly counted on it working in a particular way.
>
> >And the internet was DESIGNED for security purposes in spreading
> >information between military and educational sites. So don't use it for
> >talking crap. Or is that a contridiction!
>
> I am perfectly aware what the net was designed for.Good, but I fear you missed my point by me being too vacuous
> I was using it, in that particular instance, to respond to someone who
> was insulting me. You on the other hand, are using it to insult someone
> who defended himself against an insult. I submit that you are a hypocrite.No, I'm a bad ass anarchist, who has an answer to every paradox rolling
around my head for any occaison.
And he wasn't insulting you Mike, or your beloved country. He was talking
about comics and the colouring process. Lets get back down to earth.
Charis Fava
Michael Chary wrote:
>
> Charis Fava <steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
> >Michael Chary wrote:
>
>
> Agreed. I applauded them in my original post. I would just rather in were
> in color.
Okay
I concede your point.
I too, would prefer them in colour. (re-coloured bu Steve Oliff)
But B&W is what we're getting and I'll struggle by with that if need be.
I'm bowing out of this thread now.........
Charis Fava
>
> FOAD. YHL. HAND.
>
Mike don't you think that's a bit bitter.
And don't think that Cian won't understand what you mean.
I just hope the thread stops here and my little chum doesn't feed you
any more ammunition
Charis Fava
Sorry My startling wit didn't show up last time so i'll post it again
> Michael A. Chary wrote:
> >
> > Charis Fava <steph...@ncsbst01ca.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
> > >Michael Chary wrote:
> > >Grow up, you arrogant putz!
> > Gosh, how long did it take you to think that one up?
Not long at all it was the first thing that came ito my head after reading your
quaint speech. I tend to type as I think. Which as I don't tend to think
very well and often enough does lend to some interesting words and phrases.
> > >The original color was shite IMHO (and that's all it is, MY opinion)
> >
> > And you have every right to be just as wrong as your little heart desires.
I agree. I like being wrong occaisionally. It's character building.
I would suggest you try it. It's fun.
> > >And the internet was DESIGNED for security purposes in spreading
> > >information between military and educational sites. So don't use it for
> > >talking crap. Or is that a contridiction!
> >
> > I am perfectly aware what the net was designed for.Good, but I fear
> > you missed my point by me being too vacuous
> > I was using it, in that particular instance, to respond to someone who
> > was insulting me. You on the other hand, are using it to insult someone
> > who defended himself against an insult. I submit that you are a hypocrite.
No, I'm a bad ass anarchist, who has an answer to every paradox rolling
around my head for any occaison. And he wasn't insulting you Mike, or your
beloved country. He was talking about comics and the colouring process.
Lets get back down to earth.
--
Moreno Roncucci
dma...@jagor.srce.hr (Darko Macan) wrote:
>Moreno Roncucci (more...@queen.shiny.it) wrote:
>: In Europe and in Japan all the best-selling comics are in b/w...
>Um... It's true for Japan and I believe it's true for Italy
>(all Bonelli editions being b/w and all the smaller booklets
>(Alan Ford and whatever) too) but I don't believe you can say
>that for francophone comics. Asterix, Tintin and all the
>bestselling serials (Blueberry, Spirou, Bernard Prince, Schtroumpfes...
>You name it!) are done in color.
True. I used the wrong english word. I used "comics" as the plural of
"comic book", instead of "comic books"
It seem to me that a common cause of misunderstanding in my messages
is the fact that I am talking about comic book, and not about
newspaper strips or graphic albums.
Why I am limiting so the subject? Don't I believe that strips are
worthy?
Well, this is not the reason. I read every kind of comics, from all
the world, and I enjoy many american strips and many francophone
albums (the ones that get translated in Italian, at least). But when
we talk about the American Comics Industry, we talk about comic books.
Strips are part of the newspaper industry, and graphic albums in the
USA are not sold in the numbers enjoyed by color comics.
Even in France, the b/w books (Tardi, Gal, the early Moebius, etc.)
have not the stigma they have often in the USA.
>I do believe they even colored some of
>Pratt's stuff these days.
Yes, I know. It seems that even Europe will not be spared by the
b/n-phobes... :-(((
In Italy, Mondadori has published hardback volumes with the issues of
"Dylan Dog" by Sclavi and Stano. (drawn in half-tone in the original
edition). They colored them. The horror, the horror.... :-((
>You may want to remember that, no matter how much comics are heralded
>as art in France, their primary target audience remain kids. Hook 'em
>while they're young! And kids are suckers for colors (not that the
>adults aren't, mind you). Hence, I think that your statement above
>needs a bit of modification. No hard feelings, I hope.
None. You are right, and your modifications were needed. It's very
tiring for me to write in english (I must check the dictionary every
third word) so often I am too laconic.
It's true. Kids are suckers for colors. But comics must grow up, if
this has to become an art form in the public's eye...
>: You see, I was not talking about the people who buy Cerebus, Hate,
>: Stray Bullets, Palestine, Dirty Plotte or others alternative. I was
>: talking about the other 90% of the american comic book readers...
>Kids. Not Americans but 90% of probably every comics market (bar the
>japanese).
In Italy only Disney and Superheroes comic books are in color. The
best-selling superhero title is Spider-man, with a circulation of less
than 30.000
The worst-selling Bonelli title sell two times this amount. Some of
them reach a circulation of a million copies. All of them are in b/w.
>: But I would kill for a b/w reprint of the works of Jack Kirby, Paul
>: Gulacy, Gene Colan, etc. (I have an italian edition of some Shang-Chi
>: and Tomb of Dracula in an oversized b/w format. They are so beautiful
>: that they can make you cry... )
>Amen to that. I grew up reading b/w reprints of 70's Marvel stuff
>(Romita on Spiderman, Buscema on Conan, Zeck on Shang-Chi, Buscema &
>deZuniga on Doc Savage (um, that was b/w originally, I believe),
>Rogers/Austin on Batman (um, that's DC, obviously)) and they never
>looked as good in color to me. Than again, I wasn't twelve when I
>saw them in color...:)
I was. To be exact, I was eight when I read my first Marvel comic book
(an Italian translation of The Amazing Spider-Man # 34) in 1972. It
was half in b/n and half in color...
Ciao,
/\/\oreno
Moreno Roncucci
dcom...@aol.com (DCO Martha) wrote:
>I've just read through 20-some-odd messages in this thread (and yes, some
>of them are very odd), and wanted to throw in my opinion, but without
>quoting specifics.
>I agree with Mike that American comic strips qualify as comics.
I never said they aren't comics. But I think that are few and far
between the americans that say "I don't read newspaper daily strips
because they are in b/n". And I don't believe that the color, or lack
of it, on the comics page make much of a difference in the circulation
of a newspaper.
Which percentage of this circulation is brought by comic book readers?
> Many are
>collected and published in trade paperbacks, where they can be read as a
>narrative story (not only the terrific TERRY & THE PIRATES and LI'L
>ABNERs, but also CALVIN & HOBBES and DOONESBURY and even PEANUTS).
I know. I have a complete run of Terry & the Pirates, and I have many
books with reprints of Popeye, The Shadow, Mandrake, Male Call, Li'l
Abner, Calvin & Hobbes, etc.
I want to read them as they were drawn by the authors. I want to read
b/w daily strips in b/w, not colored by someone.
About the Sunday Pages, it depends on who colored them. If the author
could check the coloring process to his satisfation (a true rarity, I
fear) I want to read them in color. But if the coloring was done
without any control by the author, I prefere the b/w version
There are exceptions. I have a book with some Carl Barks stories
re-colored by Peter Ledger. It's a very nice book, and I liked it very
much. But it is a book created by Carl Barks AND Peter Ledger, not a
precise reprodution of the works of Barks.
To get the best edition of the Barks masterpieces, I brought the Carl
Barks Library (the true one, in b/n. Pure Barks, without additives...)
> And
>these books all sell lots more than most color comics.
A different kind of public. More mature (IMHO)
Maybe it's better to explain better my position...
I have been a comics reader and collector for 24 years. I read comics
of every kind and from every nation (the only condition is that I like
them... ;-) )
In my humble opinion, the more exciting comics market now is in the
USA.
No. I am not talking about superheroes (I loved them years ago. I have
a complete run of translations of all the Marvel comic book from 1961
to the mid-'70, and I still enjoy them, as I enjoyed many other
superhero books even after. But I can barely stand most superhero
titles now...)
I am talking about Vertigo. About Fantagraphics, about Drawn and
Quarterly, about many self-publishers, too many to list them all. I
currently subscribe to over 40 american titles (over half of my comics
expenses: I am very happy that not too many of them are montly... :-)
The vast majority of them are in b/w. And I like it that way. Compare
the art of Glen Barr from "Brooklyn Dreams" to his work in "Seekers",
colored by someone other...
I am not saying that it's the colorist's fault. Many of them don't
have any control to the separation process. And a lot of time they
SAVE the art (see Spawn and many other Image titles...) but it doesn't
matter to me if they change the art for the better of for the worse.
They change it anyway.
I agree absolutely with what Scott McCloud said in his masterpiece,
Understanding Comics: colorized art is NOT "embellished" art, is
DIFFERENT art. Often RUINED art
I don't know if you have read "Musing" # 1 (Calliope Comics). In it,
"Brief Lives" penciler Jill Thompson talk about the problems she had
with the colors on his work. And looking at her b/w art inside the
magazine, it's difficult to not agree with her...
Anyway....
After many years, I have come to accept a fact of life: that not all
the people agree with me. Hell, the vast majority of people DISAGREE
with me. My tastes are shared by few.
I can understand this. I can understand that X-Men sells much more
than The Invisibles, or that Liefeld is much more known that Chester
Brown. I don't like this, I would like to live in a world where Moore
and Moorison and Clowes and many other were rich and famous, and
nobody read x-crap. As I would love to live in a world where more
people read books, and watch less TV. But I have come to accept the
fact that this will never happen.
So, I can understand that the typical comic books reader would choose
Batman over "Seven miles a second". Or over "Exit"
What I cannot understand, what I will never be able to understand, and
what I don't want even to try to understand is a dim-witted jerk
(american or italian, I don't care) who says "A b/w book? It must be
cheap crap. I don't want even to look at it".
From what I have read in many american comics magazines in many years,
many of the american comic books readers are like this.
I have never been in the States. All I know about USA come from
reading american books, comics and magazines. So maybe I am wrong. I
would be very happy to hear it. I would be very happy if all the
horror stories of this kind that I have read, written by retailers,
publishers and critics, were no more that lies. But until I hear
othervise, this is the image that I got of the typical comic books
reader. And it's not a nice image...
I don't think I have insulted the american people. I don't think I
have insulted even all the comic books readers (a very little
minority).
I have insulted only the kind of people who say: "when you insult the
people who refuse even to look at b/w comics, when you insult the
people who thinks that b/w art is shit, you insult me"
And for this I will not apologize...
Ciao,
/\/\oreno.
>Martha Thomases
>Also Likes B&W Fred Astaire Movies
I like them, too... :-)
Moreno Roncucci
ab...@umich.edu (Andrew Boer) wrote:
> If Carl is giving up the envious position of the intolerant
>American, I'd be delighted to fill his shoes...
I feel a little surrounded...
> It is my heartfelt opinion that black and white photographs
>and film may indeed be more effective for conveying certain messages:
>but this is because of the cultural associations we have with the
>medium, and does not extend to comics.
I don't believe so. The film "Clerk" is an example of a b/w film that
work aesthetically. In color, it would not have been the same film,
even with the same "cultural associations"
> Raging Bull, for example, works very well in black and white
>because the lighting adds a dark artistic,
>old-newsreels-of-boxing-matches kind of feel to the film. It plays on
>our cultural associations: in film, black and white often seems to
>imply either "old" (pre color) "dark" or "artistic".
Often. Not always.
> Similarly, in photography, be it Ansel Adams landscape or
>whoever else, black and white images tend to convey a seriousness and
>a potency that is lost in color.
So, you say that a photographer can use b/w for aesthetic reasons, and
that a b/w photo can have an effect that a color photo could never
achieve, right?
> The cultural associations with black and white comics, on the
>other hand (to me) were either "newsprint", or "independent" comics
>who can't afford color.
This is the cultural associations that I believed was present in the
USA (and not in the rest of the world), but I was attacked for saying
this in public...
Are you sure that you can say a thing like this in Usenet? ;-)
So far, you are the first "intolerant american" that don't deny this
point in this thread.
Of course, we don't agree about the consequences of this cultural
assumption: I believe that it is the cause of many of the problems in
the comic book industry. Without it, the american comic books would be
more inexpensive, less garish, more culturally accepted, less of a
"child's stuff". As in Japan or Europe.
> I DO think that color comics are more effective than black and
>white,
I disagree, but it is a matter of taste...
>perhaps because comic books (if we consider Action comics the
>first real comic book) really started as a color medium.
But comics began as a b/w medium...
> I also think
>there are relative few black and white comics that are as impressive
>as their color cousins--the grim Sin City for example---clearly a
>deliberate choice for black and white-- I find consistently less
>enjoyable than the Dark Knight Returns or even Batman Year One.
>(although in terms of plot and dialogue, they are comparable)
This is a matter of taste, too. But there is a point that I would like
to go into: you said before that you accept that films and photos in
b/n can achieve results that are impossible in color.
After that, you say that this is not true in comics. I quote:
> But in general, color books are always better. I can't think
>of a single artist (from Milo Manara to Wendy Pini to Jeff Smith to
>Dave Sim) whose art I wouldn't enjoy more with a good colorist. (I'm
>actually a fan of Van Valkenburg lately)
Even Alberto Breccia? ;-)
So, you think that color comics are always better than b/w ones.
I can make two assumption based on this:
1) You think that comics are an inferior medium, with a limited range
of results. So limited that is impossible achieve the same seriousness
and potency of a photo, or even any aesthetic result not based on
chromatic tones
2) Comics, to you, are not, and cannot ever be, an art form. The
pencilers and inkers are not artist, they are factory workers.
Am I right? If not, please explain to me the differences between comic
art, photographic art, and penciled "fine art".
> There, is that polemic enough?
No... :-).
I concede to you that you have said many things that I will never
agree with, and that some of these things can provoke me.
But you forgot to insult me, you didn't use name-calling, and you
explined your opinions...
I am sorry, but you don't seem intolerant enough to belong in this
thread... :-)
Ciao,
/\/\oreno.
damon crumpler
ab...@umich.edu (Andrew Boer) wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Jun 1996 20:57:08 -0400, ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink) wrote:
>
>
>>He said that only in the U.S.A. is there intolerance of black and
>>white art. One, it's false -- many Latin countries, for instance,
>>prefer or insist on color comics. Two, it's false -- because we also
>>buy lots of monochromatic serial art.
>
>American, I'd be delighted to fill his shoes...
>and film may indeed be more effective for conveying certain messages:
>but this is because of the cultural associations we have with the
>medium, and does not extend to comics.
>because the lighting adds a dark artistic,
>old-newsreels-of-boxing-matches kind of feel to the film. It plays on
>our cultural associations: in film, black and white often seems to
>imply either "old" (pre color) "dark" or "artistic".
>whoever else, black and white images tend to convey a seriousness and
>a potency that is lost in color.
this smacks so much of the "b&w is better" argument
that i'll assume i'm just assuming too much. still disagree with you,
though-- some of the most potent images i've seen have been color.
b&w is merely different.
> The cultural associations with black and white comics, on the
>other hand (to me) were either "newsprint", or "independent" comics
>who can't afford color.
> I DO think that color comics are more effective than black and
>white, perhaps because comic books (if we consider Action comics the
>first real comic book) really started as a color medium.
bullhocky. cerebus is quite fine in b&w.
I also think
>there are relative few black and white comics that are as impressive
>as their color cousins--the grim Sin City for example---clearly a
>deliberate choice for black and white-- I find consistently less
>enjoyable than the Dark Knight Returns or even Batman Year One.
i suspect that has less to do with the art than the story-- miller's
hopefully not being serious w/ sin city, cuz the writing's just not that good.
>(although in terms of plot and dialogue, they are comparable)
> It is true, of course, that a bad colorist can detract from
>the enjoyment of a book. For example, I find that the gradations that
>are used in Hellblazer dialogue boxes consistly distract me from the
>plot.
i don't like th coloring in hellblazer either-- if you're Going to color, then
you might as well use more than two colors.
But in general, color books are always better. I can't think
>of a single artist (from Milo Manara to Wendy Pini to Jeff Smith to
>Dave Sim) whose art I wouldn't enjoy more with a good colorist.
your preferences, is all.
(I'm
>actually a fan of Van Valkenburg lately)
>
> There, is that polemic enough?
>
yep.
--
"Hey- who left all the garbage on the steps on Congress?"/'I'm not
garbage- I'm an ammendment to be/.. There's a lot of flag burners who
have got too much freedom/I want to make it legal for policemen to beat em.
cuz there's limits to our liberty/at least i hope that there are/ cuz those
liberal freaks go too far.'/ "But why can't we just make laws against flag
burning?" 'Becuase that would be unconstitutional. But if we Change the
constitution...' "Then we can make all Sorts of crazy laws!"-- the simpsons