REVIEW: X-MEN #77: Pen-Elayne For Your Thoughts
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
X-MEN #77
"Stormfront"
Writer: Joe Kelly <josep...@aol.com>
Penciller: German Garcia
Inker: Art Thibert
Coloring Studio: Liquid!
Lettering Studio: Comicraft
Asst. Ed.: Jason Liebig
Head Honcho: Mark Powers
WHAT GOES ON: Storm returns home, accompanied by her current team
members, to find her village in turmoil. [Hivemind Index Grade: 2.8]
Here's what I thought...
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
I've always admired Ororo Monroe, but the way I perceive her as having
been written in the past, she's seemed rather aloof and unknowable. So
I'm glad Kelly decided to humanize Storm a bit in taking her back to
Africa to face a situation which has put her hometown in trouble.
I like it even more than Storm herself, rather than her village, turns out
to be the villain's bait, that the Shadow King was merely posing as the
god Ananasi in order to lure Psylocke into a confrontation. Very clever
misdirection, on both the story level (that Storm and the other X-Men were
fooled) and the metatextual one (at least in my case, that twist certainly
came out of nowhere).
The problem I had this time was with the art. A lot of it was very pretty
and I'm sure Garcia considered his panel layouts clever, but things were
really hard to follow, especially in the final climactic scene. For such
a momentous event, the faces of those affected look much too serene and
placid. I can't figure how Psylocke's final blow wound up coming back to
hit her, or who shouted "NO!" when she struck-- some native with curly
hair and a necklace? And I realize I can't blame Garcia for not wanting
to give away that Ananasi/Shadow King was manipulating the X-Men's sense
of reality by distinguishing their hallucinations, but I still found some
of those scenes needlessly confusing as well. I was glad for Thibert's
inks, they kept a nice consistency of character appearance, but it wasn't
enough to settle the feeling of unintended disorientation here. I look
forward to the return of Ferry (and certainly to the crystal-clear visual
storytelling of Alan Davis and Mark Farmer in a few issues!).
I also question whether, given that this psychic event seems to affect
many characters in the Marvel Universe, we're now to be subjected to some
sort of buy-all-the-books-to-get-the-full-story crossover. I hope not; I
have no desire to look at any other X books at present, and tend to frown
upon such hard-sell tactics. Good plotting and dialogue, mediocre visual
execution, and no real sense of closure, which is never a plus. Somewhat
recommended.
So, what did y'all think?
- Elayne
--
This review is copyright 1998 by Elayne Wechsler-Chaput, who's been doing
some rather back-breaking spring cleaning (hey, I thought I cleaned that
spring just last year!). I'll never be a domestic deity, but I'm thinking
of trying out for assistant domestic seraph or something...
Justin Samuels
I also I glad to see them actually explore her background. Storm's
mother's family was from that area of Kenya, and Ororo descends from a
long line of witch priestesses . it's possible Ainet is related to her,
and maybe we'll finally see Storm develop her magical powers.
>
> I like it even more than Storm herself, rather than her village, turns out
> to be the villain's bait, that the Shadow King was merely posing as the
> god Ananasi in order to lure Psylocke into a confrontation. Very clever
> misdirection, on both the story level (that Storm and the other X-Men were
> fooled) and the metatextual one (at least in my case, that twist certainly
> came out of nowhere).
Yes.
>
> The problem I had this time was with the art. A lot of it was very pretty
> and I'm sure Garcia considered his panel layouts clever, but things were
> really hard to follow, especially in the final climactic scene. For such
> a momentous event, the faces of those affected look much too serene and
> placid. I can't figure how Psylocke's final blow wound up coming back to
> hit her,
Because the Shaodw King ahd arrange all the sould of the people he
placed on the astral plane in a pattern to use them to amplify
Psylocke's powers considerably . She was a part of the chain.
or who shouted "NO!" when she struck-- some native with curly
> hair and a necklace?
Psylocke shouted no when she realized she was tricked.
And I realize I can't blame Garcia for not wanting
> to give away that Ananasi/Shadow King was manipulating the X-Men's sense
> of reality by distinguishing their hallucinations, but I still found some
> of those scenes needlessly confusing as well. I was glad for Thibert's
> inks, they kept a nice consistency of character appearance, but it wasn't
> enough to settle the feeling of unintended disorientation here. I look
> forward to the return of Ferry (and certainly to the crystal-clear visual
> storytelling of Alan Davis and Mark Farmer in a few issues!).
>
> I also question whether, given that this psychic event seems to affect
> many characters in the Marvel Universe, we're now to be subjected to some
> sort of buy-all-the-books-to-get-the-full-story crossover.
There is no evidence of it in the spoilers at mania. The event does
spill over into other titles of courser, as it effects the entire world,
but it is resolved in X-Men and Uncanny X-men.
I hope not; I
> have no desire to look at any other X books at present,
then do not.
Jérémy MANESSE
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput a écrit dans le message
>I also question whether, given that this psychic event seems to affect
>many characters in the Marvel Universe, we're now to be subjected to some
>sort of buy-all-the-books-to-get-the-full-story crossover.
I think not. This event might have repercussions in other books ("if the
writers got the memo", said Kelly) but the Psi-War storyline seems to be
meant to run in the two main x-titles only.
____________________________________
Blix the Frog, french but nice.
http://perso.club-internet.fr/blix/comicsus
ScottB
>Good plotting and dialogue, mediocre visual
>execution, and no real sense of closure, which is never a plus.
In a multi-issue story arc, closure wouldn't be appropriate. The story
spans several issues. The writer wants us to buy the next issue.
Scott
"While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is
a criminal element, I am of it, while there is a soul in prison, I am not
free." --Eugene V. Debs
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
ScottB (baileysatpacifierdotcom) wrote:
: >Good plotting and dialogue, mediocre visual
: >execution, and no real sense of closure, which is never a plus.
: In a multi-issue story arc, closure wouldn't be appropriate.
Disagree. Closure is *always* appropriate. Closure is not the same thing
as "end of story." It means something is resolved-- doesn't have to be
the main storyline, could be something else. Nothing here is resolved,
with the possible exception of Ororo's village being freed (but we see
little evidence of that).
Far too many serial fiction writers believe closure is not necessary. I
think it ought to be, especially if folks are shelling out money every
month. It's not hard to give something a beginning, middle, and end, and
still keep ongoing threads running.
- Elayne
--
"Very few people possess true artistic ability. It is therefore both
unseemly and unproductive to irritate the situation by making an effort.
If you have a burning, restless urge to write or paint, simply eat
something sweet and the feeling will pass." - Fran Lebowitz
ScottB
>Disagree. Closure is *always* appropriate. Closure is not the same thing
>as "end of story." It means something is resolved-- doesn't have to be
>the main storyline, could be something else. Nothing here is resolved,
>with the possible exception of Ororo's village being freed (but we see
>little evidence of that).
A successful story has a beginning, a middle and an end. If that story
spans several issues, then the beginning may be within X-Men #77, the middle
may be in Uncanny X-Men #358, and the end may be in X-Men #78. (Or
whatever. I don't know exactly what titles or issue numbers this crossover
will involve.) That is the nature of comicbook stories that are continued
in the next issue, or elsewhere. If X-Men #77 was a single issue self
contained story, we could expect closure, resolution and an end. Since it
isn't, we must look for our closure at the conclusion of the story.
>Far too many serial fiction writers believe closure is not necessary. I
>think it ought to be, especially if folks are shelling out money every
>month. It's not hard to give something a beginning, middle, and end, and
>still keep ongoing threads running.
Here's where I think our disagreement lies. X-Men #77 starts a multi-part
story, not an ongoing thread. That distinction makes all the difference.
mark
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
> ScottB (baileysatpacifierdotcom) wrote:
>
> : >Good plotting and dialogue, mediocre visual
> : >execution, and no real sense of closure, which is never a plus.
>
> : In a multi-issue story arc, closure wouldn't be appropriate.
>
> Disagree. Closure is *always* appropriate. Closure is not the same thing
> as "end of story." It means something is resolved-- doesn't have to be
> the main storyline, could be something else. Nothing here is resolved,
> with the possible exception of Ororo's village being freed (but we see
> little evidence of that).
>
> Far too many serial fiction writers believe closure is not necessary. I
> think it ought to be, especially if folks are shelling out money every
> month. It's not hard to give something a beginning, middle, and end, and
> still keep ongoing threads running.
>
I agree with ScottB. Kelly's goal was to build up momentum. If he's got a big
story to tell, one issue shouldn't be enough. All he had time for was the
beginning. Cliffhangers are classic serial storytelling and a type of
"closure" in and of themselves.
On the other hand, Seagle (who normally has your closure thing down pat on
the 4-arc structure of Sandman Mystery Theater) slapped a joky ending onto
the last UXM that somehow cheapened it. The last two pages seemed to redirect
all the foreshadowed storylines of the last six issues or so into oblivion,
except for the least challenging one (the next issue blurb for
Bishop-Deathbird).
With 77 I was satisfied, though. Unlike too many other writers, Kelly seems
to care about resolving storylines quickly, and in control of the rhythm of
one issue flowing into the next. He's withholding closure.
X-Men is good sex! UXM is a big tease with nothing to offer...
*always* is mighty strong
mark
Robin Riggs
In article <3569f...@news.pacifier.com>,
"ScottB" <baileysatpacifierdotcom> wrote:
>>Far too many serial fiction writers believe closure is not necessary. I
>>think it ought to be, especially if folks are shelling out money every
>>month. It's not hard to give something a beginning, middle, and end, and
>>still keep ongoing threads running.
>Here's where I think our disagreement lies. X-Men #77 starts a multi-part
>story, not an ongoing thread. That distinction makes all the difference.
I strongly disagree. EVERY issue of EVERY comic, even continuing soap-opera
style books and multi-issue storylines, should have a sense of completeness
in and of themselves. If they aren't, then they fail at a fundemental level
of storytelling.
The old tennet that "every issue is someone's first" doesn't just mean that
the backstory should be included and the characters introduced. It also
means that each issue should be able to be enjoyed on it's own as well as
part of the whole. That doesn't have to mean it can't leave you panting to
get the next issue though. :)
I think it'll be very interesting to see how things go once Alan gets on
this book, he has VERY strong ideas about good storytelling
Robin.
ScottB
Robin Riggs wrote in message ...
>In article <3569f...@news.pacifier.com>,
>"ScottB" <baileysatpacifierdotcom> wrote:
>
>>>Far too many serial fiction writers believe closure is not necessary. I
>>>think it ought to be, especially if folks are shelling out money every
>>>month. It's not hard to give something a beginning, middle, and end, and
>>>still keep ongoing threads running.
>
>>Here's where I think our disagreement lies. X-Men #77 starts a multi-part
>>story, not an ongoing thread. That distinction makes all the difference.
>
>I strongly disagree. EVERY issue of EVERY comic, even continuing soap-opera
>style books and multi-issue storylines, should have a sense of completeness
>in and of themselves. If they aren't, then they fail at a fundemental level
>of storytelling.
>
We need to make some distinctions between requirements for a successful
issue and a successful story. I'm not sure if my clumsy prose is up to the
task of explaining what I mean, but let's give it a go:
X-Men #77's plot has three basic parts: Storm and the X-Men go to Africa,
the X-Men fight Anasasi, Anasasi is revealed as the Shadow King. These
events are the beginning, middle and end of the issue, (and give the issue
that sense of completeness), but together they make up only the beginning of
the story. As it is only the beginning of the story, we can't expect things
like closure and resolution yet. What was the nature of that psionic trap?
Is Psylocke dead (please yes)? What does the Shadow King (hissss) plan to
do to our X-Men? Read Psi-War part 2, the continuation of the story.
AGr3691541
In article <6kc400$7...@panix3.panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>no real sense of closure
This line belong in something like rec.tv.rikki.lake.....
Lazy Line Painter Al
Paul O'Brien
In article <6kcqr9$s...@panix3.panix.com>, Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
<fire...@panix.com> writes
>
>Disagree. Closure is *always* appropriate. Closure is not the same thing
>as "end of story." It means something is resolved-- doesn't have to be
>the main storyline, could be something else. Nothing here is resolved,
>with the possible exception of Ororo's village being freed (but we see
>little evidence of that).
I don't agree that any resolution was necessary here. This is
the opening chapter of a four part story. And in fact, if
you're looking for resolution there is some - the Shadow King
had a plan, and we saw it through from (almost) start to
successful conclusion.
Paul O'Brien
pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk, www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/
Life is unfair. Kill yourself or get over it.
Randy Lander
>I think it'll be very interesting to see how things go once Alan gets on
>this book, he has VERY strong ideas about good storytelling
Huh. Well, I think Kelly has some pretty strong ideas about good
storytelling as well, but he is new and does occasionally drop the
ball in minor ways. If Alan can resist totally dominating the book (as
he did, to the benefit of FF #1-3), Kelly should learn a lot.
rwla...@io.com <*> http://www.io.com/~rwlander
---------------------------------------------------------
"The only place you can find a Main Street anymore is at
Disneyland. And you just try and buy a gun there."
-Hank Hill, "King of the Hill"
Indigo
In article <35699A...@cornell.edu>,
"Type in your e-mail address again here" wrote:
>
>*snippage*
> > S
> > P
> > O
> > I
> > L
> > E
> > R
> >
> > S
> > P
> > A
> > C
> > E
> >
> > I've always admired Ororo Monroe, but the way I perceive her as having
> > been written in the past, she's seemed rather aloof and unknowable. So
> > I'm glad Kelly decided to humanize Storm a bit in taking her back to
> > Africa to face a situation which has put her hometown in trouble.
>
> I also I glad to see them actually explore her background. Storm's
> mother's family was from that area of Kenya, and Ororo descends from a
> long line of witch priestesses . it's possible Ainet is related to her,
> and maybe we'll finally see Storm develop her magical powers.
> >
Unlikely. Ainet was pretty much clearly established as Storm's mother-figure,
not any kind of biological relationship. Besides, Cairo and Kenya are
several miles apart. Aside from which, Storm's mother, N'Dare, came from a
different tribe/locale and was living with her husband David in the US (which
means she likely has little contact with her relatives). If Ororo had blood
relations, it's kind of unlikely that one of them wouldn't step forward and
say something by now, given that Storm had a lot of rep as the white haired,
blue-eyed goddess of the Sudan.
Insofar as Storm's sorcery: I don't see it happening anytime soon. Sorcery
is going to be useless against the Shadow King.
> > I like it even more than Storm herself, rather than her village, turns out
> > to be the villain's bait, that the Shadow King was merely posing as the
> > god Ananasi in order to lure Psylocke into a confrontation. Very clever
> > misdirection, on both the story level (that Storm and the other X-Men were
> > fooled) and the metatextual one (at least in my case, that twist certainly
> > came out of nowhere).
>
> Yes.
Very twisty. I also liked SK's rhymes and taunts. Kelly deserves his kudos
here.
> >
> > The problem I had this time was with the art. A lot of it was very pretty
> > and I'm sure Garcia considered his panel layouts clever, but things were
> > really hard to follow, especially in the final climactic scene. For such
> > a momentous event, the faces of those affected look much too serene and
> > placid. I can't figure how Psylocke's final blow wound up coming back to
> > hit her,
>
> Because the Shaodw King ahd arrange all the sould of the people he
> placed on the astral plane in a pattern to use them to amplify
> Psylocke's powers considerably . She was a part of the chain.
>
> or who shouted "NO!" when she struck-- some native with curly
> > hair and a necklace?
>
> Psylocke shouted no when she realized she was tricked.
>
> And I realize I can't blame Garcia for not wanting
> > to give away that Ananasi/Shadow King was manipulating the X-Men's sense
> > of reality by distinguishing their hallucinations, but I still found some
> > of those scenes needlessly confusing as well. I was glad for Thibert's
> > inks, they kept a nice consistency of character appearance, but it wasn't
> > enough to settle the feeling of unintended disorientation here. I look
> > forward to the return of Ferry (and certainly to the crystal-clear visual
> > storytelling of Alan Davis and Mark Farmer in a few issues!).
> >
> > I also question whether, given that this psychic event seems to affect
> > many characters in the Marvel Universe, we're now to be subjected to some
> > sort of buy-all-the-books-to-get-the-full-story crossover.
>
> There is no evidence of it in the spoilers at mania. The event does
> spill over into other titles of courser, as it effects the entire world,
> but it is resolved in X-Men and Uncanny X-men.
>
> I hope not; I
> > have no desire to look at any other X books at present,
>
> then do not.
>
The problem with that is, that "then don't" is going to leave a reader with
only fragments of the story. Fine for Marvel and their near-empty pockets,
but a royal PITA for the reader.
> and tend to frown
> > upon such hard-sell tactics. Good plotting and dialogue, mediocre visual
> > execution, and no real sense of closure, which is never a plus. Somewhat
> > recommended.
> >
> > So, what did y'all think?
> >
> > - Elayne
> >
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Robin Riggs (Robin...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
: I should point out that I haven't seen X-Men #77 yet and was responding to
: general comments about storytelling in my previous posts, not criticisms of
: the book itself.
And you call yourself a 30+-year X-books fan. Well, that's just sad. I
mean, really. What's your excuse? "Oh, whine whine, I have to go all
the way to Brighton to get to a comic shop, whine whine! Oh, poor me, I'm
spending all my time drawing the stuff, I can't spare any to read it!"
It's a damn good thing your fiancee has all these issues saved up waiting
for you to read when you visit her, is all I can say.
- Elayne (Robin's fiancee, for those of you who haven't caught on)
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Randy Lander (rwla...@io.com) wrote:
: On Tue, 26 May 1998 10:53:20 +0100, Robin...@dial.pipex.com (Robin
: Riggs) wrote:
: >I think it'll be very interesting to see how things go once Alan gets on
: >this book, he has VERY strong ideas about good storytelling
: Huh. Well, I think Kelly has some pretty strong ideas about good
: storytelling as well, but he is new and does occasionally drop the
: ball in minor ways. If Alan can resist totally dominating the book (as
: he did, to the benefit of FF #1-3), Kelly should learn a lot.
Alan plays very well with others. When he's brought onto a book, it's the
editor's call as to how much his sensibilities will "dominate." It's very
often the case that the editor WANTS his storytelling sensibilities to
"dominate," and that's WHY he's hired.
- Elayne
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Paul O'Brien (pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <6kcqr9$s...@panix3.panix.com>, Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: <fire...@panix.com> writes
: >
: >Disagree. Closure is *always* appropriate. Closure is not the same thing
: >as "end of story." It means something is resolved-- doesn't have to be
: >the main storyline, could be something else. Nothing here is resolved,
: >with the possible exception of Ororo's village being freed (but we see
: >little evidence of that).
: I don't agree that any resolution was necessary here. This is
: the opening chapter of a four part story.
I didn't say *resolution of the story*. I said *a sense of closure*. The
two are not synonymous. Kelly has managed closure in every one of his
X-MEN issues I've read so far. This issue didn't have that, mainly
because, IMHO, it's leading into a pointless crossover beyond his control.
: And in fact, if
: you're looking for resolution there is some - the Shadow King
: had a plan, and we saw it through from (almost) start to
: successful conclusion.
Hmm, okay, I'll buy that as SOME closure, but of course the plan has just
begun, so we've in effect seen Phase I completed. If I were a casual
reader just picking up an issue of X-MEN to see what was going on, though,
I doubt I'd feel as though I got my money's worth in terms of a beginning,
middle and end to ANY of the subplots.
Dan McEwen
On 27 May 1998 22:03:53 -0400, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>Paul O'Brien (pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: And in fact, if
>: you're looking for resolution there is some - the Shadow King
>: had a plan, and we saw it through from (almost) start to
>: successful conclusion.
>
>Hmm, okay, I'll buy that as SOME closure, but of course the plan has just
>begun, so we've in effect seen Phase I completed. If I were a casual
>reader just picking up an issue of X-MEN to see what was going on, though,
>I doubt I'd feel as though I got my money's worth in terms of a beginning,
>middle and end to ANY of the subplots.
Isn't that the point? This story was clearly intended to get you to
buy the next issue so you'll know what's going on.
Eric L Bailey
>Paul O'Brien (pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: In article <6kcqr9$s...@panix3.panix.com>, Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
>: <fire...@panix.com> writes
>: >
>: >Disagree. Closure is *always* appropriate. Closure is not the same thing
>: >as "end of story." It means something is resolved-- doesn't have to be
>: >the main storyline, could be something else. Nothing here is resolved,
>: >with the possible exception of Ororo's village being freed (but we see
>: >little evidence of that).
>
>: I don't agree that any resolution was necessary here. This is
>: the opening chapter of a four part story.
>
>I didn't say *resolution of the story*. I said *a sense of closure*. The
>two are not synonymous. Kelly has managed closure in every one of his
>X-MEN issues I've read so far. This issue didn't have that, mainly
>because, IMHO, it's leading into a pointless crossover beyond his control.
Well, was it his idea to use the Shadow King, or editorial dictate?
If it was his idea (and this isn't the multi-series crossover like
we've seen in the recent past), then he has control of it.
E
Eric L Bailey
On 25 May 1998 08:51:03 -0700, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
>S
>P
>O
>I
>L
>E
>R
>
>S
>P
>A
>C
>E
>
>
>
>I also question whether, given that this psychic event seems to affect
>many characters in the Marvel Universe, we're now to be subjected to some
>sort of buy-all-the-books-to-get-the-full-story crossover. I hope not; I
>have no desire to look at any other X books at present, and tend to frown
>upon such hard-sell tactics. Good plotting and dialogue, mediocre visual
>execution, and no real sense of closure, which is never a plus. Somewhat
>recommended.
As far as I know, this is just supposed to be between the two X-Men
books. Hopefully, it will have affects across the MU, but not require
picking anything else up. One great example of this sort of
continuity was Simonson's Thor, several years back. During one
plotline, the Casket of Eternal Winters was opened, plunging the world
into a sudden freeze. This was aknowledged in many of Marvel's other
books that month, as unexpected snowstorms in the middle of summer
occured everywhere. However, Thor readers were not required to pick
up anything but Thor, nor were readers of the other books required to
pick Thor up.
E
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Dan McEwen (fe...@lsh.org) wrote:
: On 27 May 1998 22:03:53 -0400, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
: Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: >Paul O'Brien (pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >: And in fact, if
: >: you're looking for resolution there is some - the Shadow King
: >: had a plan, and we saw it through from (almost) start to
: >: successful conclusion.
: >
: >Hmm, okay, I'll buy that as SOME closure, but of course the plan has just
: >begun, so we've in effect seen Phase I completed. If I were a casual
: >reader just picking up an issue of X-MEN to see what was going on, though,
: >I doubt I'd feel as though I got my money's worth in terms of a beginning,
: >middle and end to ANY of the subplots.
: Isn't that the point? This story was clearly intended to get you to
: buy the next issue so you'll know what's going on.
It's one of the points, but hooking the reader doesn't have to mean
presenting an incomplete portion of a story arc. I must imagine X-books
don't have a lot of casual readers, that the majority of folks who pick up
the books are in it for the long haul, but it's still, to me, basic Comic
Book Writing 101-- even in a continuing story, *something* is accomplished
or resolved in each chapter. Many writers do this by page 20 or 21 so
they can use the last 1-2 pages setting up the hook for the following
issue. In fact, Joe usually does something like this, which is why I was
surprised to see he didn't here.
AGr3691541
In article <6kigm9$m...@panix3.panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>: And in fact, if
>: you're looking for resolution there is some - the Shadow King
>: had a plan, and we saw it through from (almost) start to
>: successful conclusion.
>
>Hmm, okay, I'll buy that as SOME closure, but of course the plan has just
>begun, so we've in effect seen Phase I completed. If I were a casual
>reader just picking up an issue of X-MEN to see what was going on, though,
>I doubt I'd feel as though I got my money's worth in terms of a beginning,
>middle and end to ANY of the subplots.
>
Your a fan of the X-books but don't like stories that don't finish within one
issue?
You must have *hated* Claremont
Lazy Line Painter Al
ScottB
>It's one of the points, but hooking the reader doesn't have to mean
>presenting an incomplete portion of a story arc. I must imagine X-books
>don't have a lot of casual readers, that the majority of folks who pick up
>the books are in it for the long haul, but it's still, to me, basic Comic
>Book Writing 101-- even in a continuing story, *something* is accomplished
>or resolved in each chapter. Many writers do this by page 20 or 21 so
>they can use the last 1-2 pages setting up the hook for the following
>issue. In fact, Joe usually does something like this, which is why I was
>surprised to see he didn't here.
It is there. The trap is sprung, Anasasi's plan is revealed, and he is
revealed as the Shadow King. Accomplishment: a mystery is solved..
Dan McEwen
On 28 May 1998 10:47:49 -0400, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>Dan McEwen (fe...@lsh.org) wrote:
>: Isn't that the point? This story was clearly intended to get you to
>: buy the next issue so you'll know what's going on.
>
>It's one of the points, but hooking the reader doesn't have to mean
>presenting an incomplete portion of a story arc. I must imagine X-books
>don't have a lot of casual readers, that the majority of folks who pick up
>the books are in it for the long haul, but it's still, to me, basic Comic
>Book Writing 101-- even in a continuing story, *something* is accomplished
>or resolved in each chapter. Many writers do this by page 20 or 21 so
>they can use the last 1-2 pages setting up the hook for the following
>issue. In fact, Joe usually does something like this, which is why I was
>surprised to see he didn't here.
See, I thought it was there. Anasazi defeated the X-Men and revealed
his identity. The set-up for next issue was the EMP wave.
Dan McEwen
On 28 May 1998 16:51:23 GMT, agr36...@aol.com (AGr3691541) wrote:
>Your a fan of the X-books but don't like stories that don't finish within one
>issue?
>You must have *hated* Claremont
I can't swear to it, but I don't think Elayne read X-Men (at least on
a continuing basis) prior to Mark Waid's all-too brief run.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
AGr3691541 (agr36...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <6kigm9$m...@panix3.panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
: Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
: >: And in fact, if
: >: you're looking for resolution there is some - the Shadow King
: >: had a plan, and we saw it through from (almost) start to
: >: successful conclusion.
: >
: >Hmm, okay, I'll buy that as SOME closure, but of course the plan has just
: >begun, so we've in effect seen Phase I completed. If I were a casual
: >reader just picking up an issue of X-MEN to see what was going on, though,
: >I doubt I'd feel as though I got my money's worth in terms of a beginning,
: >middle and end to ANY of the subplots.
: Your a fan of the X-books...
Not particularly, no. I generally like Joe Kelly's writing, though, which
is why I'm buying X-MEN at present.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Dan McEwen (fe...@lsh.org) wrote:
: See, I thought it was there. Anasazi defeated the X-Men and revealed
: his identity.
That felt like closure to you? "Big villain revealed!" is almost the
opposite of closure, to me. And consider it's a superhero comic, having
the villain prevail isn't exactly closure either. :)
Dan McEwen
On 29 May 1998 14:36:37 -0400, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>Dan McEwen (fe...@lsh.org) wrote:
>
>: See, I thought it was there. Anasazi defeated the X-Men and revealed
>: his identity.
>
>That felt like closure to you? "Big villain revealed!" is almost the
>opposite of closure, to me. And consider it's a superhero comic, having
>the villain prevail isn't exactly closure either. :)
>
I thought having the villain win was closure.
Randy Lander
On 27 May 1998 13:39:19 -0400, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>Randy Lander (rwla...@io.com) wrote:
>: On Tue, 26 May 1998 10:53:20 +0100, Robin...@dial.pipex.com (Robin
>: Riggs) wrote:
>
>: >I think it'll be very interesting to see how things go once Alan gets on
>: >this book, he has VERY strong ideas about good storytelling
>
>: Huh. Well, I think Kelly has some pretty strong ideas about good
>: storytelling as well, but he is new and does occasionally drop the
>: ball in minor ways. If Alan can resist totally dominating the book (as
>: he did, to the benefit of FF #1-3), Kelly should learn a lot.
>
>Alan plays very well with others. When he's brought onto a book, it's the
>editor's call as to how much his sensibilities will "dominate." It's very
>often the case that the editor WANTS his storytelling sensibilities to
>"dominate," and that's WHY he's hired.
Well, yeah, as I said, it was to the *benefit* of Lobdell's Fantastic
Four. :)
But I think Kelly's building a real nice story with X-Men, and I hope
Alan is being brought in to enhance, rather than refocus that. Which I
suspect he is. More or less, Robin's original comment came off as
sounding a little down on Kelly (which I know now, and suspected then,
was not intended) so I wanted to just stick that point in there, that
Kelly could learn a lot but he's not just some wet-behind-the ears
amateur.
AGr3691541
In article <356f5b61...@news.io.com>, rwla...@io.com (Randy Lander)
writes:
>>Alan plays very well with others. When he's brought onto a book, it's the
>>editor's call as to how much his sensibilities will "dominate." It's very
>>often the case that the editor WANTS his storytelling sensibilities to
>>"dominate," and that's WHY he's hired.
>
>Well, yeah, as I said, it was to the *benefit* of Lobdell's Fantastic
>Four. :)
>
>But I think Kelly's building a real nice story with X-Men, and I hope
>Alan is being brought in to enhance, rather than refocus that.
In an interview recently (I think it was in Wizard) Alan Davis said he accepted
the X-men job because after writing/drawing for a while he liked the thought of
just *drawing* someone else writing.
Lazy Line Painter Al
Brian Fried
And Alan Davis is not the full time penciller on X-Men, just a fill-in
until they can find someone else.
The ending of the chapter was the EMP. Psylocke is toast. Jean, Cable,
Nate, Emma, Chamber (who should be blowing up everything at this point),
Monet . . . all have been incredibly weakened by the EMP which has put
their psionics out of whack. The X-Men were outsmarted pretty quickly.
The lead into next issue? The Shadow King was the one who outwitted them.
If you're knowledgable about the X-Men, you know the Shadow King spells
very big trouble for the X-Men without Xavier present. If not, you now
know who the villain is and that he has an agenda. What that agenda is
you'll have to wait and see.
Kelly's writing, and Seagle's, is excellent in that each issue is usually
a separate part. Pauses, such as Sauron nearly victorious, are meant to
keep a decent spot in the action while hooking you into next issue.
The WIZARD interview is revealing only in that Seagle and Kelly aren't
into major crossovers with all the X-books. They're right. By keeping to
themselves, neither has to worry about continuity stepping and poor
chaptering by bad writers.
======================================================================
Brian Fried
bfr...@chat.carleton.ca
Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"What do you say? Will the human race be run in a day?
Or will someone save this planet we're playing on?"
- Paul McCartney, 'Pipes Of Peace', 1983
======================================================================
ALBERT B. CHING
bfr...@chat.carleton.ca (Brian Fried) wrote:
>And Alan Davis is not the full time penciller on X-Men, just a fill-in
>until they can find someone else.
I've heard Adam Kubert, and Leneil Francis Yu, but I'm confused...
personally, I'm pulling for Yu. Gotta resepct the asians.
>The ending of the chapter was the EMP.
EMP? I thought it was just a psi-wave thing, no Electro-magnetic
stuff attached, but what do I know?
Ever notice that every EMP/psi-wave/whatever scene in a Marvel comic
always results in a shot of a lot of characters looking flustered?
Cool...
I thought it was strange that Psylocke starred in this issue, she returned
rather abruptly, and Kelly hates her. Bizarre. Well, not that
he hates Betsy, everybody does...
Albert
--
Robin Riggs
In article <6l2ovm$o0u$1...@news.asu.edu>,
chin...@aztec.asu.edu (ALBERT B. CHING) wrote:
>bfr...@chat.carleton.ca (Brian Fried) wrote:
>>And Alan Davis is not the full time penciller on X-Men, just a fill-in
>>until they can find someone else.
>I've heard Adam Kubert, and Leneil Francis Yu, but I'm confused...
>personally, I'm pulling for Yu. Gotta resepct the asians.
From what I've heard, Kubert is doing 3 or 4 issues to give Alan some lead
time. Then Alan will do 6 issues and Yu will take over if Alan decides to
move on after those six. I'm pretty sure that there wouldn't be any
argument from Marvel if Alan decided he wanted to stay on for more.
Robin.
Consul de Designers
> EMP? I thought it was just a psi-wave thing, no Electro-magnetic
> stuff attached, but what do I know?
Well, this probably connects to the Magneto does Psionics with magnetics
bit, but in XMan, after Nate leaves this area he just superpsiblasted, some
stalker tracked him by loking for a EMP blast.
--
de Designers,
[_Jameson Stalanthas Yu_]
[Shade and Sweet Water, mes amis and Edgerunners]
[Link at http://www-scf.usc.edu/~jamesony -X- ICQ 10208399]
[Mutatis mutandis, strive to be humane, not human]
Mazoi Music (Walt)
On 3 Jun 1998, ALBERT B. CHING wrote:
<SNIP>
> I thought it was strange that Psylocke starred in this issue, she returned
> rather abruptly, and Kelly hates her. Bizarre. Well, not that
> he hates Betsy, everybody does...
Maybe its cuz its was either Her or Jean. The Prof would have had the
experience and power to give SK a good run for his money.
**********************************************************************
What good are guided missles when you have misguided leaders?
Strickly Reggae Lyrics: Reggae Lyric transcripts at:
Eric L Bailey
>On 3 Jun 1998, ALBERT B. CHING wrote:
><SNIP>
>> I thought it was strange that Psylocke starred in this issue, she returned
>> rather abruptly, and Kelly hates her. Bizarre. Well, not that
>> he hates Betsy, everybody does...
>
>Maybe its cuz its was either Her or Jean. The Prof would have had the
>experience and power to give SK a good run for his money.
And, not to sound like the Shadow King here but, Jean would have seen
through it.
E
Andyg3129
Robin...@dial.pipex.com (Robin Riggs) writes:
>I strongly disagree. EVERY issue of EVERY comic, even continuing soap-opera
>style books and multi-issue storylines, should have a sense of completeness
>in and of themselves. If they aren't, then they fail at a fundemental level
>of storytelling.
>
>The old tennet that "every issue is someone's first" doesn't just mean that
>the backstory should be included and the characters introduced. It also
>means that each issue should be able to be enjoyed on it's own as well as
>part of the whole.
"Every issue is someone's last" you mean?
It's a kind of depressing thought.
I can't agree with you, though.
Every story has to have a beginning a middle
and an end?
How trite is that?
It's as tired as the old
Meet-Fight-Realise misunderstanding-Team up formula.
Not every story has to abide by the same tennets.
It's a great big Universe and we're all really puny.
There are plenty of comics out there that provide
a plethoric abundance of "closure", if that is what
you are seeking.
Some of the best comics I've ever read have completely
lacked any sense of resolution whatsoever, and yes, it can
be extremely annoying, but then that's what kept me yearning
for it for thirty days.
Anyway, isn't the whole point of "closure" to help you put
something completely out of your mind and stop dwelling
on it. And isn't that completely at odds with a well told
comic book? (At least from a marketing POV)
Ultimately, what it comes down to is, yes, every issue
is someone's first. But there are a lot more of _us_ than
there are of _them_, and we want something to satisfy
us too. As someone who's recently made the
terrifying step of picking up LSH, I understand that I've only
just started reading it, and don't expect to be able to understand
what's going on. I accept this on the grounds that, a couple
of years down the line, when I'm familiar with the setup,
the payback will be that much greater.
I get the feeling I haven't fully understood where you are coming
from, so I'd be interested in discussing this further.
But no-fair tag teaming on me just because I'm not engaged :-)
Andy.
Robin Riggs
In article <199806071217...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
andy...@aol.com (Andyg3129) wrote:
> Robin...@dial.pipex.com (Robin Riggs) writes:
>>I strongly disagree. EVERY issue of EVERY comic, even continuing soap-opera
>>style books and multi-issue storylines, should have a sense of completeness
>>in and of themselves. If they aren't, then they fail at a fundemental level
>>of storytelling.
>>The old tennet that "every issue is someone's first" doesn't just mean that
>>the backstory should be included and the characters introduced. It also
>>means that each issue should be able to be enjoyed on it's own as well as
>>part of the whole.
>"Every issue is someone's last" you mean?
No. I mean that anyone buying comic ought to be satisfied by that comic
alone. Leavning the audience wanting more should be a by-product of telling
a good story, not just giving half a chapter so you HAVE to buy more.
>It's a kind of depressing thought.
>I can't agree with you, though.
>Every story has to have a beginning a middle
>and an end?
>How trite is that?
Sorry if it's trite, but if it doesn't have a beginning, middle and end
then it's not a story. It may be something else but not a story.
>It's as tired as the old
>Meet-Fight-Realise misunderstanding-Team up formula.
>Not every story has to abide by the same tennets.
There are certain things that are just plain good storytelling. Yes you can
tell stories without them, but why would you want to when they're better
with them.
>It's a great big Universe and we're all really puny.
>There are plenty of comics out there that provide
>a plethoric abundance of "closure", if that is what
>you are seeking.
I'm not the one doing the seeking. I'm one of those doing the making. :)
>Some of the best comics I've ever read have completely
>lacked any sense of resolution whatsoever, and yes, it can
>be extremely annoying, but then that's what kept me yearning
>for it for thirty days.
Can you really say that even if you really enjoyed something, it isn't
possible you'd have enjoyed it even more if it satisfied you more without
having to depend on follow-ups. Wouldn't you have sought out the next issue
simply because you enjoyed it.
Go back and look again at those favourite stories you mention. I think
you'll find that some of the better ones do actually give an aspect of
closure. Most do.
>Anyway, isn't the whole point of "closure" to help you put
>something completely out of your mind and stop dwelling
>on it.
No. It's a resolution from which things can move on.
> And isn't that completely at odds with a well told
>comic book? (At least from a marketing POV)
No. If a story is well told the readers will come back for more. Readers
will only follow for just so long without resolution before they realise
they're being short changed and look elsewhere.
It's not just comics, it's all serial fiction. A good example from a few
years back is Hill Street Blues where there were seemingly endless
criss-crossing plot threads. If you actually analysed the stories you'd
find that not plot thread went for more than three episodes without
reaching it's climax and EVERY episode contained the resolution of at least
one plot thread. The format hasn't changed an awful lot over the years and
is very similar now in NYPD Blue.
>Ultimately, what it comes down to is, yes, every issue
>is someone's first. But there are a lot more of _us_ than
>there are of _them_, and we want something to satisfy
>us too.
My point is that it ought to satisfy everyone.
>As someone who's recently made the
>terrifying step of picking up LSH, I understand that I've only
>just started reading it, and don't expect to be able to understand
>what's going on. I accept this on the grounds that, a couple
>of years down the line, when I'm familiar with the setup,
>the payback will be that much greater.
I think you'll find that the Legion will become progressively less
dependant on past continuity. The impression I get from talking to Mike
McAvennie is that he's far more interested in telling great new stories
than he is in constantly referencing old ones.
>I get the feeling I haven't fully understood where you are coming
>from, so I'd be interested in discussing this further.
>But no-fair tag teaming on me just because I'm not engaged :-)
Hey, we're going one on one here. :) Elayne and I have quite heated
discussions on storytelling, but on this we're pretty much agreed. If an
issue doesn't give you satisfaction on it's own there's something missing.
Robin.
Paul O'Brien
In article <199806071217...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Andyg3129
<andy...@aol.com> writes
>Every story has to have a beginning a middle
>and an end?
>How trite is that?
That principle is true enough. What I'm not so sure about is the
idea that every chapter should be complete unto itself. Though in a
serial medium, it IS true that each issue should be enjoyable in
its own right. Many books like Cerebus that utterly disregard that
principle are really just butting their heads on the limitations
of the 22-page pamphlet format rather than pushing back the
boundaries.
Paul O'Brien
pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk, www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/
It's Punch-a-Pixie week, courtesy of B*Witched.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: <andy...@aol.com> writes
: >Every story has to have a beginning a middle
: >and an end?
: >How trite is that?
: That principle is true enough. What I'm not so sure about is the
: idea that every chapter should be complete unto itself.
I think it really has to be, in order to give the person enough value for
their money. (And by "complete" I mean at least one resolution of
*something*.)
- Elayne
--
"The kiss originated when the first male reptile licked the first female
reptile, implying in a subtle, complimentary way that she was as succulent
as the small reptile he had for dinner the night before."
- F. Scott Fitzgerald
Dan McEwen
On 8 Jun 1998 17:16:04 -0400, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>Paul O'Brien (pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: In article <199806071217...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Andyg3129
>: <andy...@aol.com> writes
>: >Every story has to have a beginning a middle
>: >and an end?
>: >How trite is that?
>
>: That principle is true enough. What I'm not so sure about is the
>: idea that every chapter should be complete unto itself.
>
>I think it really has to be, in order to give the person enough value for
>their money. (And by "complete" I mean at least one resolution of
>*something*.)
>
To what? There weren't really any subplots. To me, this is like
asking for me to wrap up a part of my life each day in case someone
does an overview and can't make sense out of each individual part.
Life doesn't happen that way, and neither should every story be that
way. The story was a beginning. If a reader can't understand that
concept, they have problems. If a beginning doesn't bring a person to
buy the next part, what's the point of catering to them?
Andyg3129
Robin...@dial.pipex.com (Robin Riggs) writes:
>andy...@aol.com (Andyg3129) wrote:
>>"Every issue is someone's last" you mean?
>
>No. I mean that anyone buying comic ought to be satisfied by that comic
>alone. Leavning the audience wanting more should be a by-product of telling
>a good story, not just giving half a chapter so you HAVE to buy more.
I understand your point. I'm not attempting to excuse poor
writing. But I won't accept a poorly written story which has
no closure as evidence that you need closure to make a
good story.
>Sorry if it's trite, but if it doesn't have a beginning, middle and end
>then it's not a story. It may be something else but not a story.
What about The Empire Strikes Back?
That's commonly touted as having a middle, middle and a middle.
>There are certain things that are just plain good storytelling. Yes you can
>tell stories without them, but why would you want to when they're better
>with them.
Variety?
Maybe a desire to have your stories be something
other than plain?
To discover some new things that are also good
storytelling?
>I'm not the one doing the seeking. I'm one of those doing the making. :)
Yeah, yeah. Name-dropper :-)
mmm, were you that guy who was caught in the Manchester
bombing? Glad you're okay.
>Can you really say that even if you really enjoyed something, it isn't
>possible you'd have enjoyed it even more if it satisfied you more without
>having to depend on follow-ups. Wouldn't you have sought out the next issue
>simply because you enjoyed it.
Possibly not. A large part of the enjoyment _is_ the
incompleteness of the issue. That sheer ...tingly..feeling you
get that stays with you for a whole month whenever you
think of it. And if the issue didn't depend on follow-ups,
to be honest, I might take the opportunity to not buy the
next issue. There are so many titles that do depend on
follow-ups, and only so much money to go round.
Or, rather, now I've started work, only so much time
to go round.
>Go back and look again at those favourite stories you mention. I think
>you'll find that some of the better ones do actually give an aspect of
>closure. Most do.
Hmm. Okay, to borrow from Star Trek for a moment, consider
the episode Best of Both Worlds (part 1). I and most people I've
talked to hold this as the best episode. To me, the brilliance
of it was the very fact that it stopped. It built these threads up
to an incredible climax, AND THEN DIDN'T DELIVER.
If you can see any closure in there, please tell me.
I think perhaps part of it is that many comics,
to be frank, aren't very good at delivering resolution.
So the occasional issue which doesn't even attempt
to, makes such a refreshing change - it's like it captures
your imagination - it's full of potential, rather than being
maybe a bit of a letdown.
Maybe part of this is just me.
People complain about films having enormous plotholes,
and I never see them. When they moan about something
not making sense, I just explain it. I _like_ a film to have
holes in it. It enables me to use my imagination and fill
them in. I don't want to be spoonfed entertainment.
>No. If a story is well told the readers will come back for more. Readers
>will only follow for just so long without resolution before they realise
>they're being short changed and look elsewhere.
Yes, I accept that. I never meant to imply it was okay
to do this every issue. You can only stretch the toffee so
far before it breaks. But as an occasional thing, I don't mind it.
I can fully accept that there's a three part story that in each
individual part, doesn't really function. But taken as a whole,
could be a work of genius. Now, it's probably true that in
this case, said story should have been published as a whole,
rather than serialised. But it's also probably true, that it would
never have been published in that form, and I'm willing to take
what I can get.
>It's not just comics, it's all serial fiction. A good example from a few
>years back is Hill Street Blues where there were seemingly endless
>criss-crossing plot threads. If you actually analysed the stories you'd
>find that not plot thread went for more than three episodes without
>reaching it's climax and EVERY episode contained the resolution of at least
>one plot thread. The format hasn't changed an awful lot over the years and
>is very similar now in NYPD Blue.
Fair enough, but I'm not convinced that there couldn't
have been ONE episode which didn't resolve a thread,
that just advanced existing ones, or that an audience
couldn't have been sophisticated enough to cope with
a plot thread lasting more than three episodes.
>>Ultimately, what it comes down to is, yes, every issue
>>is someone's first. But there are a lot more of _us_ than
>>there are of _them_, and we want something to satisfy
>>us too.
>
>My point is that it ought to satisfy everyone.
I'm not convinced that's possible.
(In fact, hanging around _this_ crowd, I'm fairly
certain it's impossible ) ;-)
Why do you think it should satisfy _everyone_ though?
What's wrong with knowing your audience and aiming
for it?
>>As someone who's recently made the
>>terrifying step of picking up LSH, I understand that I've only
>>just started reading it, and don't expect to be able to understand
>>what's going on. I accept this on the grounds that, a couple
>>of years down the line, when I'm familiar with the setup,
>>the payback will be that much greater.
>
>I think you'll find that the Legion will become progressively less
>dependant on past continuity. The impression I get from talking to Mike
>McAvennie is that he's far more interested in telling great new stories
>than he is in constantly referencing old ones.
Ah, that'd be right. No sooner do I work out
what's going on, than I no longer need to know.
That's just sodding typical :-)
>>I get the feeling I haven't fully understood where you are coming
>>from, so I'd be interested in discussing this further.
>>But no-fair tag teaming on me just because I'm not engaged :-)
>
>Hey, we're going one on one here. :) Elayne and I have quite heated
>discussions on storytelling, but on this we're pretty much agreed. If an
>issue doesn't give you satisfaction on it's own there's something missing.
I agree, but I'm not convinced that an issue has to
have closure to satisfy me.
The first episode of KillerNet had no closure whatsoever.
In fact, to be brutally honest, nothing really happened at all.
However, without it, the second episode wouldn't have had
nearly the impact on me it did.
Perhaps if you could list some examples of what you
consider to be closure.
>Robin.
>
Andy.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: >Sorry if it's trite, but if it doesn't have a beginning, middle and end
: >then it's not a story. It may be something else but not a story.
: What about The Empire Strikes Back?
: That's commonly touted as having a middle, middle and a middle.
TERRIFIC example! This is precisely why it's my least favorite Star Wars
movie. Most people I know like it better than JEDI, and many better than
the first STAR WARS movie, but I had major problems with it because of its
lack of closure (and lack of a satisfying ending, as it ended on quite the
downer emotionally). I saw nice closure in the first and third movies of
that trilogy. (I also saw good closure in the first and third Indiana
Jones movies, but I've never seen the second so I can't comment on it.)
: A large part of the enjoyment _is_ the
: incompleteness of the issue.
Wow. Let's just say that you and I get enjoyment from vastly different
things, then. :) I tend to *despise* incompleteness. I feel like I
wasted my money if I get something incomplete. (Of course, this is
different than deliberately leaving something vague and open-ended, or
having a few things resolved but others dangling.)
Robin Riggs
In article <199806101808...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
andy...@aol.com (Andyg3129) wrote:
>Robin...@dial.pipex.com (Robin Riggs) writes:
>>andy...@aol.com (Andyg3129) wrote:
>I won't accept a poorly written story which has
>no closure as evidence that you need closure to make a
>good story.
At it's most simple a story has to introduce characters, situation and
conflict and then resolve the conflict. If there is no resolution then it's
not a story. Even episodes benefit from resolution
>What about The Empire Strikes Back?
>That's commonly touted as having a middle, middle and a middle.
Good example. I was DEEPLY disappointed by Empire. It has some fun points
when watching it but at the end I felt cheated. Star Wars is the perfect
counter example though, it's episode 4 of 9 but would have been perfectly
acceptable without any of the others.
>>There are certain things that are just plain good storytelling. Yes you can
>>tell stories without them, but why would you want to when they're better
>>with them.
>Variety?
>Maybe a desire to have your stories be something
>other than plain?
>To discover some new things that are also good
>storytelling?
Why do you have to abandon what's already established as good storytelling
in order to achieve this? It's not an either/or situation.
>>I'm not the one doing the seeking. I'm one of those doing the making. :)
>Yeah, yeah. Name-dropper :-)
>mmm, were you that guy who was caught in the Manchester
>bombing? Glad you're okay.
No, that was John Royle, and it was his PAGES that got caught by the bomb.
I have inked John though. :)
>>Can you really say that even if you really enjoyed something, it isn't
>>possible you'd have enjoyed it even more if it satisfied you more without
>>having to depend on follow-ups. Wouldn't you have sought out the next issue
>>simply because you enjoyed it.
>Possibly not. A large part of the enjoyment _is_ the
>incompleteness of the issue. That sheer ...tingly..feeling you
>get that stays with you for a whole month whenever you
>think of it. And if the issue didn't depend on follow-ups,
>to be honest, I might take the opportunity to not buy the
>next issue. There are so many titles that do depend on
>follow-ups, and only so much money to go round.
>Or, rather, now I've started work, only so much time
>to go round.
Leaving a cliffhanger ending has nothing at all to do with an issue having
closure. Some say that the archetypal formula for a Marvel comic is a 20
page story with a 2 page set up tacked on the end to leave a cliffhanger
for next issue. The first 20 pages gives you the satisfaction of reading
something complete and the desire to see more. The last 2 give you the
sense of urgency to be clamouring for more.
>>Go back and look again at those favourite stories you mention. I think
>>you'll find that some of the better ones do actually give an aspect of
>>closure. Most do.
>Hmm. Okay, to borrow from Star Trek for a moment, consider
>the episode Best of Both Worlds (part 1). I and most people I've
>talked to hold this as the best episode. To me, the brilliance
>of it was the very fact that it stopped. It built these threads up
>to an incredible climax, AND THEN DIDN'T DELIVER.
>If you can see any closure in there, please tell me.
I honestly couldn't say as I don't remmeber episodes by their title. It may
be one I have on tape so I'll get back to you on it.
>I think perhaps part of it is that many comics,
>to be frank, aren't very good at delivering resolution.
>So the occasional issue which doesn't even attempt
>to, makes such a refreshing change - it's like it captures
>your imagination - it's full of potential, rather than being
>maybe a bit of a letdown.
That still doesn't mean it wouldn't be even better if it stood alone.
>Maybe part of this is just me.
>People complain about films having enormous plotholes,
>and I never see them. When they moan about something
>not making sense, I just explain it. I _like_ a film to have
>holes in it. It enables me to use my imagination and fill
>them in. I don't want to be spoonfed entertainment.
There's a difference between leaving room for the imagination, which can
undoubtably be a good thing, and just not executing the job as well as it
could be done.
>>No. If a story is well told the readers will come back for more. Readers
>>will only follow for just so long without resolution before they realise
>>they're being short changed and look elsewhere.
>Yes, I accept that. I never meant to imply it was okay
>to do this every issue. You can only stretch the toffee so
>far before it breaks. But as an occasional thing, I don't mind it.
>I can fully accept that there's a three part story that in each
>individual part, doesn't really function. But taken as a whole,
>could be a work of genius. Now, it's probably true that in
>this case, said story should have been published as a whole,
>rather than serialised. But it's also probably true, that it would
>never have been published in that form, and I'm willing to take
>what I can get.
It's still possible to have a really classic multi-part story where the
episodes satisfy completely on their own but are even better when read as a
whole. To give an X-Men example; to my mind the classic trilogy from X-Men
#111-113. They all work perfectly as episodes that introduce character,
situation and conflict and resolve a conflict while leaving a cliffhanger
for the next issue. For me this is comics at their best.
>>It's not just comics, it's all serial fiction. A good example from a few
>>years back is Hill Street Blues where there were seemingly endless
>>criss-crossing plot threads. If you actually analysed the stories you'd
>>find that not plot thread went for more than three episodes without
>>reaching it's climax and EVERY episode contained the resolution of at least
>>one plot thread. The format hasn't changed an awful lot over the years and
>>is very similar now in NYPD Blue.
>Fair enough, but I'm not convinced that there couldn't
>have been ONE episode which didn't resolve a thread,
>that just advanced existing ones, or that an audience
>couldn't have been sophisticated enough to cope with
>a plot thread lasting more than three episodes.
The audience had no idea that the plots weren't lasting more than three
episodes. It gave the appearance of being a constant unbroken stream. That
was the amazing skill of it. You were being told several complex
intertwining story threads simultaneously, in a very considered and
structured way, but the structure wasn't at all apparent. Seamless
storytelling.
>>My point is that it ought to satisfy everyone.
>I'm not convinced that's possible.
>(In fact, hanging around _this_ crowd, I'm fairly
>certain it's impossible ) ;-)
Okay. :) You shouldn't be REQUIRED to read what's gone before or comes
after in order to be satisfied. Empire Strikes Back entertained me but it
sure didn't satisfy me, Star Wars did both.
>Why do you think it should satisfy _everyone_ though?
>What's wrong with knowing your audience and aiming
>for it?
I think it's our obligation to do our best to satisfy anyone who chooses to
pick up one of our issues. That doesn't mean that you can guarantee that
they'll like it but that shouldn't be because you didn't supply all the
neccessary ingredients.
>>>As someone who's recently made the
>>>terrifying step of picking up LSH, I understand that I've only
>>>just started reading it, and don't expect to be able to understand
>>>what's going on. I accept this on the grounds that, a couple
>>>of years down the line, when I'm familiar with the setup,
>>>the payback will be that much greater.
>>I think you'll find that the Legion will become progressively less
>>dependant on past continuity. The impression I get from talking to Mike
>>McAvennie is that he's far more interested in telling great new stories
>>than he is in constantly referencing old ones.
>Ah, that'd be right. No sooner do I work out
>what's going on, than I no longer need to know.
>That's just sodding typical :-)
LOL!
>>>I get the feeling I haven't fully understood where you are coming
>>>from, so I'd be interested in discussing this further.
>>>But no-fair tag teaming on me just because I'm not engaged :-)
>>Hey, we're going one on one here. :) Elayne and I have quite heated
>>discussions on storytelling, but on this we're pretty much agreed. If an
>>issue doesn't give you satisfaction on it's own there's something missing.
>I agree, but I'm not convinced that an issue has to
>have closure to satisfy me.
Maybe not for you, but as a general rule it does. If the story is well told
you may not even notice it. You don't have to bang someone over the head
with "this is the end of this part of the story" to achieve closure. Just
resolve a conflict that has been previously established.
>The first episode of KillerNet had no closure whatsoever.
>In fact, to be brutally honest, nothing really happened at all.
>However, without it, the second episode wouldn't have had
>nearly the impact on me it did.
Glad it worked for you. I didn't see any of it.
>Perhaps if you could list some examples of what you
>consider to be closure.
Take X-Men #111-113 as I already mentioned them.
**Spoiler space for anyone who hasn't read these classic issues yet.**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Okay... #111 is a battle between the X-Men and Mesmero which is resolved on
page 16 (of 17). Then on the last page it's revealed that Magneto was
really behind it all along leaving a cliffhanger for...
#112 where Magneto takes the X-Men to his Antarctic base. There's a battle
where Magneto takes out the X-Men one by one as they all attack him their
own way resolved by an absolute victory by Magneto.(Note that unlike Empire
Strikes Back the villains victory was absolute and far more satisfactory
because of it.) The cliffhanger set up on the final page is that he intends
to exact revenge by leaving them helplessly imprisoned until...
#113 in which the X-Men escape and prepare an ambush for Magneto. They
resolve the conflict by beating him through teamwork. This gives us
character growth as well as resolution through the defeat of Magneto and
the destruction of his base. Magneto escapes and at least some of the X-Men
survive the destruction of the base and again leave a cliffhanger for the
next issue.
Any of these issues read on their own are immensely satisfying reads giving
a sense of having read something complete while still being part of
something larger. They also ALL have cliffhanger endings to make you
desperately wnat to find out what happens next.
Mighty fine comics. If anyone who has read through all this rambling
doesn't already own copies of these issues I heartily recommend you go
immediately and but a copy of THE ESSENTIAL X-MEN. 27 classic issues for a
paltry $12.95.
Robin.
hasn't typed so much in years... :)
alas...@hyperlink.com
In article <6lmlat$k...@panix3.panix.com>,
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> : What about The Empire Strikes Back?
> : That's commonly touted as having a middle, middle and a middle.
>
> TERRIFIC example! This is precisely why it's my least favorite Star Wars
> movie. Most people I know like it better than JEDI, and many better than
> the first STAR WARS movie, but I had major problems with it because of its
> lack of closure (and lack of a satisfying ending, as it ended on quite the
> downer emotionally).
So in order for an snding to be good or satisfying, it must be happy?
Personally, I've always felt that ESB has the strongest ending of all the
three - "and the all lived happily ever after" endings always struck me as
far too neat. Even on it's own ESB basically says "OK, we're leaving the
story here. Look the characters go on, and they've got goals to accomplish
beyond the scope of this story."
> things, then. :) I tend to *despise* incompleteness. I feel like I
> wasted my money if I get something incomplete. (Of course, this is
> different than deliberately leaving something vague and open-ended, or
> having a few things resolved but others dangling.)
That's exactly waht ESB did, though. It's not incomplete, merely unresolved.
Alasdair.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
alas...@hyperlink.com wrote:
: In article <6lmlat$k...@panix3.panix.com>,
: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: > : What about The Empire Strikes Back?
: > : That's commonly touted as having a middle, middle and a middle.
: >
: > TERRIFIC example! This is precisely why it's my least favorite Star Wars
: > movie. Most people I know like it better than JEDI, and many better than
: > the first STAR WARS movie, but I had major problems with it because of its
: > lack of closure (and lack of a satisfying ending, as it ended on quite the
: > downer emotionally).
: So in order for an snding to be good or satisfying, it must be happy?
Well, to me, yeah, this particular one I would have preferred to be happy
in order for ME to be satisfied.
In order for an ending to be "good" in an objective sense, though, I think
closure is a necessity, which EMPIRE didn't have. It wasn't a complete
story.
: Personally, I've always felt that ESB has the strongest ending of all the
: three...
Well, like I said, I know I'm in the minority here.
: > things, then. :) I tend to *despise* incompleteness. I feel like I
: > wasted my money if I get something incomplete. (Of course, this is
: > different than deliberately leaving something vague and open-ended, or
: > having a few things resolved but others dangling.)
: That's exactly waht ESB did, though. It's not incomplete, merely unresolved.
It's incomplete *because* it's not resolved. People shouldn't have HAD to
see RETURN OF THE JEDI, but when Lucas made EMPIRE that was probably the
assumption, that since he figured SW fans would anyway, why bother with a
real ending? Feh. That's a cheat, to me.
De Parker
Robin Riggs wrote:
> At it's most simple a story has to introduce characters, situation and
> conflict and then resolve the conflict. If there is no resolution then it's
> not a story. Even episodes benefit from resolution
What if some of the conflicts are resolved while others are created?
How many people who saw "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back" were
planning on skipping "The Return of the Jedi" but couldn't because of
the unresolved conflicts?
> Good example. I was DEEPLY disappointed by Empire. It has some fun points
> when watching it but at the end I felt cheated. Star Wars is the perfect
> counter example though, it's episode 4 of 9 but would have been perfectly
> acceptable without any of the others.
That's the only reason we saw Episode 4 of 9 first. Had the movie
flopped, they'd be done. I think of "Star Wars" as a 27 hour movie of
which I've only seen the middle 9 hours.
dp
Alasdair Watson
In article <6lpl69$7...@panix3.panix.com>, Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
<fire...@panix.com> writes
>: That's exactly waht ESB did, though. It's not incomplete, merely unresolved.
>
>It's incomplete *because* it's not resolved.
And what point does resolution occur? When the good guys win? When as
many of the good guys as possible have gotten out alive?
> People shouldn't have HAD to
>see RETURN OF THE JEDI, but when Lucas made EMPIRE that was probably the
>assumption, that since he figured SW fans would anyway, why bother with a
>real ending? Feh. That's a cheat, to me.
I suspect it's more a case of needing to get events to happen for the
story, being constrained by time, and knowing there's another film to
tie it up in. What could have been done to Empire (bearing in mind that
ROTJ was also going to be made) that would have given it the resolution
you require, within the time of say three hours, while leaving room for
another two and a half hours of ROTJ
--
Alasdair Watson
Andyg3129
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>: What about The Empire Strikes Back?
>: That's commonly touted as having a middle, middle and a middle.
>
>TERRIFIC example! This is precisely why it's my least favorite Star Wars
>movie. Most people I know like it better than JEDI, and many better than
>the first STAR WARS movie, but I had major problems with it because of its
>lack of closure (and lack of a satisfying ending, as it ended on quite the
>downer emotionally).
Elayne, you've just listed the reasons why it's my
favourite. :-)
I think it was a tremendously bold movie.
As close as ten minutes before the end, it looks like
they'll wrap up this, wrap up that, and live happily ever
after. But then they don't wrap up this, and that goes wrong,
and, look, they're lucky to be living at all.
I think in all honesty it one of the five best written films
I've ever seen, and the best populist film.
>Wow. Let's just say that you and I get enjoyment from vastly different
>things, then. :)
It would seem so.
But then being a teetotal celibate vegetarian,
I'm used to hearing that a lot! ;-)
Andy.
Ciaran John McGrath
>alas...@hyperlink.com wrote:
>: In article <6lmlat$k...@panix3.panix.com>,
>: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>: So in order for an snding to be good or satisfying, it must be happy?
>Well, to me, yeah, this particular one I would have preferred to be happy
>in order for ME to be satisfied.
>In order for an ending to be "good" in an objective sense, though, I think
>closure is a necessity, which EMPIRE didn't have. It wasn't a complete
>story.
I always liked Empire personally. Call me a cynic, but the idea of a
Hollywood movie where the good guys are doing well to get away by the skin
of their teeth (most of them) and with (most of) their limbs intact made a
pleasant change. Especially after the somewhat sickeningly triumphal
ending of the first movie.
>: Personally, I've always felt that ESB has the strongest ending of all the
>: three...
>Well, like I said, I know I'm in the minority here.
I wouldn't say the strongest, just perhaps the most satisfying. Mainly
because Empire did what Star Wars didn't - opened the audience's eyes to
the scope of the conflict.
>: > things, then. :) I tend to *despise* incompleteness. I feel like I
>: > wasted my money if I get something incomplete. (Of course, this is
>: > different than deliberately leaving something vague and open-ended, or
>: > having a few things resolved but others dangling.)
>: That's exactly waht ESB did, though. It's not incomplete, merely unresolved.
>It's incomplete *because* it's not resolved. People shouldn't have HAD to
>see RETURN OF THE JEDI, but when Lucas made EMPIRE that was probably the
>assumption, that since he figured SW fans would anyway, why bother with a
>real ending? Feh. That's a cheat, to me.
That I disagree with - and its a matter of planning, not wussing out.
Lucas *had* to provide an ending to the first movie, simply because he
didn't know whether any more would ever be made. Star Wars is incomplete
in itself because we see Darth Vader spinning off in his ship, righting
himself, and flying off into the void and revenge.
At the time Empire was made, the success of Star Wars had made a it a
virtual certainty that all three planned movies would be made. He could
afford to make Empire what it was - a middle of a story, a lead-up to the
denouement. In my mind, if he had been guaranteed the three movies from
the get go, there would have been a further scene at the end of Star Wars
- with Vader landing his fighter on what appears to be an ordinary Star
Destroyer Hangar - until an outside shot reveals only part of a much
larger ship, with a Star Destroyer in the foreground.
That's how I'd have done it anyway.
Ciaran J. McGrath - Then again, maybe I'm just a wannabe galactic tyrant.
--
Marty Blase
alas...@hyperlink.com wrote:
> > Ciaran J. McGrath - Then again, maybe I'm just a wannabe galactic tyrant.
> Isn't everyone?
Well, some of our fellow posters are trees, by admission. I'm not sure they
really want to tyre over anything, but I've never really asked one myself,
so I can't honestly be sure.
- Blaze: never been a tree or a galactic tyrant, but is willing
to try anything once
Andyg3129
Robin...@dial.pipex.com (Robin Riggs) writes:
>andy...@aol.com (Andyg3129) wrote:
>
>At it's most simple a story has to introduce characters, situation and
>conflict and then resolve the conflict. If there is no resolution then it's
>not a story. Even episodes benefit from resolution
Alright then? Let's take a generic story which
has three plot threads.
If episode #xx advances the plot of each thread,
surely that engenders a sense of fulfillment?
The story has moved foreward.
>>What about The Empire Strikes Back?
>>That's commonly touted as having a middle, middle and a middle.
>
>Good example. I was DEEPLY disappointed by Empire. It has some fun points
>when watching it but at the end I felt cheated. Star Wars is the perfect
>counter example though, it's episode 4 of 9 but would have been perfectly
>acceptable without any of the others.
Which is precisely why I prefer Empire.
Star Wars was too tidy.
Art imitates life, and life doesn't get neat little resolutions.
It's messy, and vibrant, and that's why I know I'm alive.
>Why do you have to abandon what's already established as good storytelling
>in order to achieve this? It's not an either/or situation.
Within the context of one issue?
It is.
You can't both have and not have closure.
>Leaving a cliffhanger ending has nothing at all to do with an issue having
>closure. Some say that the archetypal formula for a Marvel comic is a 20
>page story with a 2 page set up tacked on the end to leave a cliffhanger
>for next issue.
The Quantum Leap format, you mean?
That's alright, and it works in its own context,
but wouldn't it be dull if all programmes followed
the same constraints?
The first 20 pages gives you the satisfaction of reading
>something complete and the desire to see more. The last 2 give you the
>sense of urgency to be clamouring for more.
So the ideal combination has both satisfaction and clamour.
I can understand that.
But why can't the clamour provide the satisfaction?
>I honestly couldn't say as I don't remmeber episodes by their title. It may
>be one I have on tape so I'll get back to you on it.
It's the Borg one.
>> it's like it captures
>>your imagination - it's full of potential, rather than being
>>maybe a bit of a letdown.
>
>That still doesn't mean it wouldn't be even better if it stood alone.
Careful. You're leaning towards a "it would be better
if it was better" argument.
>There's a difference between leaving room for the imagination, which can
>undoubtably be a good thing, and just not executing the job as well as it
>could be done.
Yeah, that's kinda what this discussion's all about ;-)
>It's still possible to have a really classic multi-part story where the
>episodes satisfy completely on their own but are even better when read as a
>whole.
Yes, but it's also possible for other formulae to be
equally classic.
>>>My point is that it ought to satisfy everyone.
>
>>I'm not convinced that's possible.
>>(In fact, hanging around _this_ crowd, I'm fairly
>>certain it's impossible ) ;-)
>
>Okay. :) You shouldn't be REQUIRED to read what's gone before or comes
>after in order to be satisfied. Empire Strikes Back entertained me but it
>sure didn't satisfy me, Star Wars did both.
>
>>Why do you think it should satisfy _everyone_ though?
>>What's wrong with knowing your audience and aiming
>>for it?
>
>I think it's our obligation to do our best to satisfy anyone who chooses to
>pick up one of our issues. That doesn't mean that you can guarantee that
>they'll like it but that shouldn't be because you didn't supply all the
>neccessary ingredients.
I think you should make intelligent stories that you
enjoy, and trust people to be aware enough to gravitate
towards the stories they enjoy.
The worst that could happen is the book doesn't
sell well, and you try something different in its place.
It's not a tragedy if someone reads your book and doesn't
enjoy it. That's just embracing diversity.
I picked up Heroes For Hire this month, and thought
it was terrible. So I won't be buying it again.
However, I know there are several people on here
who do enjoy it, and that's fine. Different strokes for
different folks, as they say.
I don't reflect the fact that I didn't enjoy the book
to mean that the book is no good.
If the title attempted to include the elements necessary
to satisfy me (namely, lose the puerile narrative) it would
be removing elements that others enjoy so much (namely,
the refreshingly witty narrative).
I feel that trying to please everyone is something
of a grailquest.
>>I agree, but I'm not convinced that an issue has to
>>have closure to satisfy me.
>
>Maybe not for you, but as a general rule it does.
There I go, bucking the trend again :-)
> If the story is well told
>you may not even notice it. You don't have to bang someone over the head
>with "this is the end of this part of the story" to achieve closure. Just
>resolve a conflict that has been previously established.
How about _enhance_ the conflict.
Taking it to a new level.
<snip xmen trilogy following the "quantum leap" format>
>(Note that unlike Empire
>Strikes Back the villains victory was absolute and far more satisfactory
>because of it.)
Yes, but that's because the tradition of periodicals means that
the audience is more accepting of cliffhanger perils.
There's no real shock value, we all know the heroes will
get out of it next issue.
Taking it to the basic, the old episodes of Flash Gordon
and King of the Rocket Men weren't above attaching a
completely different cliffhanger to the start of the next show
so that it's easily resolved.
Comics have to use much more definative cliffhangers precisely
because we're all so enured to them.
Film, on the other hand, is traditionally wrapped up neatly
after 90 minutes. Thus a cliffhanger holds more sway
over the audience, because it's unexpected.
And seeing as Star Wars was created precisely to recreate
the excitement of the satuday afternoon serials, you can't
blame it for using the cliffhanger motif.
The more traditional form of
<Darth Vaders hand depresses the button activating
the Carbonite chamber. Clouds of cold go woosh. Episode
ends>
then next week
< Luke comes sweeping in through the window,
and rescue Han, just as Darth presses the button,
whilst the hordes of highly trained troops fail to shoot at him.>
just doesn't work if you have to wait three years for the
denoument.
So a more concrete danger is needed to carry the distance
between movies.
Ironically, this means the cliffhanger requires more
resolution. ;-)
Rather than the threat of danger hanging over the protagonist's
head, the danger has already occured, and we wait anxiously
to see how they cope with the aftermath.
>Robin.
> hasn't typed so much in years... :)
heh. You should meet Brucha. ;-)
Andy.
Andrew Wheeler
Marty Blase wrote:
>
> Well, some of our fellow posters are trees, by admission.
Y'know, of all the many things I've attempted in this life, I never
thought claiming identification with our arboreal cousins would be the
one to garner the most controversy. You live, you learn. Anyway, I'm not
a tree anymore. Gotta keep moving. Can't go putting down roots.
Andrew Wheeler - His bark is worse than his bite.
The fastest gnu in the west.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Please note new email address - xe...@yahoo.com
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wheeler conquers America, Summer '98.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Andyg3129 (andy...@aol.com) wrote:
: Robin...@dial.pipex.com (Robin Riggs) writes:
: >andy...@aol.com (Andyg3129) wrote:
: >
: >At it's most simple a story has to introduce characters, situation and
: >conflict and then resolve the conflict. If there is no resolution then it's
: >not a story. Even episodes benefit from resolution
: Alright then? Let's take a generic story which
: has three plot threads.
: If episode #xx advances the plot of each thread,
: surely that engenders a sense of fulfillment?
: The story has moved foreward.
Advancing the plot isn't the same as resolving a conflict.
: Art imitates life, and life doesn't get neat little resolutions.
Art does NOT always imitate life. It may REFLECT life or, like the best
escapist art, provide an ideal alternative to life. One of the things I
specifically LOOK for in escapist entertainment is happy and fulfilling
resolution-- 'cause I don't necessarily get that in reality.
- Elayne
--
What I mean by deviant: completely lacking in the social skills and
knowledge possessed by most of the rest of humanity... Most of us are
perfectly normal most of the time. We only become jerks and morons on
Usenet, like other decent people. -- Andrew C. Lannen
KJ Sampson
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 alas...@hyperlink.com wrote:
> In article <6m2uai$j...@web3.tcd.ie>,
> mcgr...@tcd.ie (Ciaran John McGrath) wrote:
>
> > Ciaran J. McGrath - Then again, maybe I'm just a wannabe galactic tyrant.
>
> Isn't everyone?
See the last line of my .sig...
Khari J. Sampson,
aka Chickenhawk Joey, stepchild 6th member of G-Force
--"Even if you were the only sinner in the world, Jesus still would've
died to save you."
--"No, go away. I don't want an invisible friend." --Bruno (by C.Baldwin)
--"Who CARES about ruling the world?! Who wants to do that much WORK?"
--Moonstone, in "Thunderbolts"