John Byrne on Alan Moore
Andrew Black
Effective as a writer/artist when staying within narrow parameters
(books like FF #236 are fondly remembered by myself), he seems to be
squeezing his work into tighter and tighter circles to (IMO) lesser
ends.
Over the past few years he's given the impression that he's trying to
act as comics' 'protector', (instanced by 'renewing' the demon to
Kirby's original specs - despite Kirby's reported ambivalence at his
own characters under different creators' hands and twenty odd years of
history).
This impression has been compounded by his last few assignments, where
John has essentially eschewed his own creations (Next Men, Danger
Unlimited et al) and has gone back over the early career of Spiderman,
Batman/Cap, SA & GA stuff through WW, the upcoming Generations
elseworlds etc).
So, with that as a background, I was intrigued to read a continuing
conversation on AOL's Byrne Ward at the moment, concerning John
Byrne's thoughts on Alan Moore's work.
======
First off, John is asked his opinion of:
1. The Killing Joke
2. V for Vendetta
3. The Watchmen
4. From Hell
To which he replies:
"1) Dreadful, but with great art.
2) Interesting, but seemed "anti-climactic" since I read it after I
read Watchmen
3) Overly mannered and deconstructionist
4) Have not read it."
[I'm most confused by number 2. Other than being out of the typewriter
of the same person, I'm kinda flummoxed as to how - having read
Watchmen - one would be let down by reading V. Does the same hold true
for reading Danger Unlimited after Byrne's FF run? The latter two are,
in my estimation, *far* more equable than Watchmen/V in treatment.]
In a later post he goes on to say:
"I don't think the British mentality is properly attuned to the notion
of SuperHeroes. There is a doom-and-gloom attitude -- aped by so many
American writers now! -- that pervades all the British stuff I've seen
in the last twenty years or so. (Remember, in England Judge Dredd is
thought of as a bad guy). It makes it very hard for them to wrap
their (frequently very talented) brains around the simple notion of a
guy who Does The Right Thing, and For The Right Reason. Marvel
introduced us to heroes with feet of clay -- but the Brits have
extended the clay content to somewhere near the collarbone!"
[Rightio, all you British writer chappies. It's back to Ol' Blighty.
And not another peep out of you!]
Further on in the thread...
Juliesback >>I think the Joker's orgin, as presented, was quite
poignant. I think people object to it because it makes them see this
monster as a human being at one point, which is difficult. But the
point of the story, it seems is that while the Joker is a victim of
his past, he's not as strong as Jim Gordon, who survives the awful
things that happens to him.<<
"This was precisely my objection. I don't want the Joker to have a
'poignant' background. Apart from being a hoary old cliche now, in
comics, it takes away, imho, much more than it adds.
I was also troubled, juxtaposing Killing Joke and Watchmen, that
Moore's "message" seemed to be that badguys are victims of their own
bad circumstance, while goodguys are, almost by definition, damaged
goods from the get-go.
To borrow a line from John Cage, 'I'm troubled'."
[NB to all aspiring comics creators: Heroes must wear white capes.
Villains must wear black. This lessens confusion.]
Again later...
Lordcoyote >>Of the work that Alan Moore has done, what have you
liked? I take it you do think he is talented by the,"I will do some
darn fine stories with them," comment but simply not a fan of his
approach to writing comics.<<
To me, Alan's stuff is a lot like the Judge Dredd movie. If you could
turn off the part of your brain that knew anything at all about Judge
Dredd, it was really a pretty fun ride, and even had some memorable
moments, largely courtesy of Max von Sydow. However, if you went in
expecting Judge Dredd, you would have been sorely disappointed. So
too with Moore's writing. What he did with Swamp Thing was very
interesting, even fascinating in places.
But was it "really" Swamp Thing? No. Nor was that really Superman in
"Whatever Happened to...", or Batman in "The Killing Joke". And so I
come to that brick wall I always slam into when a writer takes an
existing character and changes him or her in to a different character
"in order to tell good stories". Why not tell good stories with the
character as is?"
[Me again]
Yeah. Tell that to the the Kryptonians, John.
When Moore was in charge of his 'incorrect' version of Swamp Thing
(under the auspices of the damned thing's original writer), he had the
recently promoted rhymer Etrigan recite: "Oh kettle! Thou art Black!"
The pot exclaims. I know one more ambivalent far than I...", but
perhaps John missed that. :)
Cheers,
Andrew.
--
"S-Superman...?"
"Since when did Superman have a blue face and crackle with electricity, pal?"
Professor Hamilton & Livewire - Superman Adventures #23
Dino Mike
with Chris Claremont (who was born in England) had anything to do with
this anti-Brit prejudice? :)
It's odd that no one asked John Byrne about Alan Moore's SUPREME.
Moore's current thinking echoes what Byrne is saying - too much doom
and gloom in comics from the '80s, a loss of the "sense of wonder"
prevalent at the dawn of comics.
Dino Mike
Nick Eden
wrote:
>You don't suppose John Byrne having well-known creative differences
>with Chris Claremont (who was born in England) had anything to do with
>this anti-Brit prejudice? :)
I always get very confused by the way that a British emigre like Byrne
separates himself so utterly from 'British' people. Sorry John, you
ARE one of us, even if you moved to Canada and then America later. As
several writers have pointed out, the most important things in shaping
a writer are the ones that happened before they were ten. And those
things happened in Walsall, West Midlands.
-------------------------------------------------
Driving for Loons
The American Southwest: Too many miles in too few days
http://www.pheasnt.demon.co.uk/Driving.html
Alan Travis
> Over the past few years he's given the impression that he's trying to
> act as comics' 'protector', (instanced by 'renewing' the demon to
> Kirby's original specs - despite Kirby's reported ambivalence at his
> own characters under different creators' hands and twenty odd years of
> history).
Whether or not Kirby was ambivalent towards the future of his creations
is irrelevant. Byrne desires to bring things back the Kirby origin
point. In his mind, that's how the character works best.
> [I'm most confused by number 2. Other than being out of the typewriter
> of the same person, I'm kinda flummoxed as to how - having read
> Watchmen - one would be let down by reading V. Does the same hold true
> for reading Danger Unlimited after Byrne's FF run? The latter two are,
> in my estimation, *far* more equable than Watchmen/V in treatment.]
Yeah, you could very well say that DU is anti-climactic after reading
FF. DU was just another game in the same ballpark. Sure, it's a fun
game, but it's nothing terribly new, either.
> "I don't think the British mentality is properly attuned to the notion
> of SuperHeroes. There is a doom-and-gloom attitude -- aped by so many
> American writers now! -- that pervades all the British stuff I've seen
> in the last twenty years or so. (Remember, in England Judge Dredd is
> thought of as a bad guy). It makes it very hard for them to wrap
> their (frequently very talented) brains around the simple notion of a
> guy who Does The Right Thing, and For The Right Reason. Marvel
> introduced us to heroes with feet of clay -- but the Brits have
> extended the clay content to somewhere near the collarbone!"
>
> [Rightio, all you British writer chappies. It's back to Ol' Blighty.
> And not another peep out of you!]
While I like a great amount of material done by British writers, I have
to agree with John here. There was a time a couple years ago when we
were experiencing a British invasion in comics. Most of these guys
landed in Vertigo books, where their different view on things could find
the best arena for expression. However, they were using some
traditional superheroes characters in the books. Is this a bad thing?
Not in the slightest, unless you disapprove on a subjective basis. I
found much of this material to be steeped in a "doom and gloom" mood.
It's fine. I liked some of it. Gaiman's Sandman, for one example. I
also got rather sick of it rather fast. Like almost all trends, there
are a very small few doing interesting stuff and a lot of crap coming
along in the wake. It's subjective. It's not Byrne's cup of tea and
they did ask him.
> "This was precisely my objection. I don't want the Joker to have a
> 'poignant' background. Apart from being a hoary old cliche now, in
> comics, it takes away, imho, much more than it adds.
I disagree with this. I thought that KILLING JOKE was incredible for
exactly the reasons that the questioner pointed out. Of course, John's
opinion is his own. I don't think he likes his heroes or villains to
have quite THIS much depth.
> To me, Alan's stuff is a lot like the Judge Dredd movie. If you could
> turn off the part of your brain that knew anything at all about Judge
> Dredd, it was really a pretty fun ride, and even had some memorable
> moments, largely courtesy of Max von Sydow. However, if you went in
> expecting Judge Dredd, you would have been sorely disappointed. So
> too with Moore's writing. What he did with Swamp Thing was very
> interesting, even fascinating in places.
Nothing wrong with this analogy when used only for his opinion. He
likes the technique, just not when the technique is applied to heroes or
villains that he thinks are incongruous with the technique.
> But was it "really" Swamp Thing? No. Nor was that really Superman in
> "Whatever Happened to...", or Batman in "The Killing Joke". And so I
> come to that brick wall I always slam into when a writer takes an
> existing character and changes him or her in to a different character
> "in order to tell good stories". Why not tell good stories with the
> character as is?"
> Yeah. Tell that to the the Kryptonians, John.
Right here, we see why Byrne has all his foes. John is a creator with a
very clear idea of what is right and wrong with a character. To him,
his view is right. His view is based on the way the characters were
when he first fell in love with them. He doesn't seem to like many
other creator's additions to those characters that had been applied over
the years. Also, he invariably adds his own touches to the characters,
not to make them his own, but to be put in a position to share them with
those great creators of yesteryear.
Is this hypocritical? Very often. Does it tick fans off? Constantly.
Is it a bad thing? Maybe. It depends on how much you, as the reader,
care about the continuity that he may or may not be dispensing with.
Alan Moore fans were up in arms about his Demon redo. And yet, many
fans didn't care. It's all subjective.
Remember, Byrne is the guy that will bring Aunt May back in a heartbeat
simply because he thinks that she is essential to Peter Parker's
character. It's a view I share. She should never have been killed off.
However, other people are outraged that they would bring her back. Some
because they believe that the books were better off without her and
others because it required a rather large suspension of their disbelief.
Byrne justs wants the character back where he thinks it should be.
> When Moore was in charge of his 'incorrect' version of Swamp Thing
> (under the auspices of the damned thing's original writer), he had the
> recently promoted rhymer Etrigan recite: "Oh kettle! Thou art Black!"
> The pot exclaims. I know one more ambivalent far than I...", but
> perhaps John missed that. :)
Calling John a hypocrite is the easiest thing to do in comics. Let's
worry less about the man and more about the pros and cons of what
exactly it is that he is doing. ---Alan
Alan Travis
>
> Wow, my esteem for John Byrne couldn't drop any lower!
And why is that exactly? I read the post and I saw someone saying that
he didn't like certain works of fiction because he didn't feel they were
representative of his vision of the characters. You do the same every
time you read a comic. If Spider-man suddenly started making racist
remarks, you wouldn't like it. If the book was popular and critically
acclaimed, should that sway your opinion on it?
I read honest opinions.
---Alan
Bryant Durrell
Personally, I have lower esteem for people with stupid or hypocritical
opinions, no matter how honest they are.
--
Bryant Durrell [] dur...@innocence.com [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell
[----------------------------------------------------------------------------]
"The ultimate test of a relationship is to disagree but hold hands."
-- Alexander Penney
Alan Travis
> Personally, I have lower esteem for people with stupid or hypocritical
> opinions, no matter how honest they are.
Well, that's why opinions are great. They aren't right or wrong. If
you think someone's opinions are "stupid", well, I guess you won't find
yourself having much in common with that person. If you find their
opinions hypocritical, you might want to avoid their work.
I had to make a choice long ago to either not read interviews with
creators (comic, fiction, music, movies, etc.) or to not allow their
opinions to overshadow my feelings of the quality of the work.
Sometimes, it's impossible. Ginger Rogers wrote in a later
autobiography that she supported her mother's actions in the Hollywood
blacklist (her mother was turning in people left and right). I try to
watch BACHELOR MOTHER (great Ginger Rogers comedy) and it bugs me just a
little bit. When I read interviews with people like Fiona Apple that
reek of youthful self-importance and naivete, it doesn't stop me from
liking her song on the radio, though. When I read interviews with Byrne
(and I have read a ton of them), I smirk occasionally at the way he
seems to deliberately be challenging fans not to like him. He says
things that seem calculated to annoy. Does that change my feelings
about the great Batman / Cap crossover he did recently? No. Does it
make me like his flawed WW run anymore? No. Any less? No. It's not
easy. I tend to think that, if what you don't like about the man is
evident in the work, you wouldn't have liked the work if you hadn't
known anything about the man. And, therefore, if what you don't like
about the man is not evident in the work, there's no reason to hold the
work responsible for the creator's ramblings.
---Alan
Alan Travis
>
> I guess your are right in the sense that everything is subjective. I just
> have a hard time believing that anyone could so easily dismiss Moore's
> work. I think Alan Moore has a great understanding of comic's history
> and the changes he makes are excellent tributes and progressions.
> Alan has brought a literary sensibility to comics that they previously
> were lacking. So I guess Byrne just likes to wax nostalgia and doesn't
> like this extra dimension that Moore brings to his works. Moore brings
> a sense of awe and wonder to his superhero works that I feel Byrne
> no longer does in his.
Well, it all comes back to opinion. I've been reading comics for almost
25 years now and there are institutions in this field that I simply
don't care for, despite the constant prodding my friends to like the
work.
I have a friend that keeps shoving the EC reprint books in my face. He
loves them. I read them. They're nice. I get a chuckle or I like a
panel or two. That's it. Whatever is juicing him up is leaving me
flat.
On the other side of the coin, I have shoved USAGI YOJIMBO at him time
and time again. He sees it, he recognizes the quality of the art and
writing, but he simply doesn't feel the need to read the books.
To tell the truth, the only Moore work I've read is Watchmen and Killing
Joke. I like KJ very much. I think happen to agree with Byrne that
pulling the wings off superheroes, as Moore does in Watchmen, is not my
cup of tea. I can appreciate it, but I don't necessarily enjoy it.
> Having said the above I expect Byrne's upcoming four part Superman
> Batman: Generations to be enjoyable as was his Batman / Captain
> America a couple of years ago. But I'm more (pun not intended) excited
> about Moore's upcoming League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and the
> other four books he's doing for Wildstorm. These books are sure to
> bring a sense of fun and new perspectives to the sameness that often
> permeates this medium.
Actually, I forgot that I read a handful of Supreme's by Moore and liked
those quite a bit, especially the one with Zsaz or whatever his name
was. I am looking forward to the League (based mainly on the strength
of the concept) and Promethea (based mainly because JH WILLIAMS and MICK
GRAY are doing the art). ---Alan
Steven Grant
>with Chris Claremont (who was born in England) had anything to do with
>this anti-Brit prejudice? :)
John was also born in England.
--
Rough Beast Entertainment - http://www.premier1.net/~sdgrant
Steven Grant
>Personally, I have lower esteem for people with stupid or hypocritical
>opinions, no matter how honest they are.
I'm not suggesting you should like John's work or his opinions -- it's
irrelevant to my life either way -- but please bear in mind that everyone
has stupid and hypocritical opinions. Hypocrisy is the natural state of
humanity.
Steven Grant
>So I guess Byrne just likes to wax nostalgia and doesn't
>like this extra dimension that Moore brings to his works. Moore brings
>a sense of awe and wonder to his superhero works that I feel Byrne
>no longer does in his.
Obviously John doesn't share your opinion, but so what? It's not like he's
calling for a ban on Alan's work, or banishing Alan from the business. It's
just his opinion.
While no one's admiration of Alan's work is greater than mine, I don't think
the possibility should automatically be discounted that John is right. It's
entirely possible. There are comics I read 30 years ago that I thought were
utterly brilliant then, and when I read them now I see what obvious sewage
they truly are. (No, I'm not naming names, I'm not looking to get into any
feuds right now.) It's entirely possible that what is currently seen as
"the extra dimension that Moore brings to his work" will be revealed, on
sober reflection, as the chimera that John suggests. The idea isn't
instantly dismissible simply because it conflicts with opinions you or I may
hold.
Steven Grant
>If you find their opinions hypocritical, you might want to avoid their
work.
Why? Hypocrisy has rarely ever stood in the way of great work -- or any
other kind. Just because you don't share someone's opinions -- or even
disdain someone's opinions -- doesn't mean you won't enjoy their work, as,
conversely, just because you agree with someone's opinions doesn't mean
you'll like their work, or even should like their work.
Alt_Real
Ralph Mathieu
Alternate Reality Comics
Las Vegas, NV
Nick Eden wrote in message <3636feff...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 16:02:50 GMT, nospa...@email.com (Dino Mike)
>wrote:
>
>>You don't suppose John Byrne having well-known creative differences
>>with Chris Claremont (who was born in England) had anything to do with
>>this anti-Brit prejudice? :)
>
Alt_Real
have a hard time believing that anyone could so easily dismiss Moore's
work. I think Alan Moore has a great understanding of comic's history
and the changes he makes are excellent tributes and progressions.
Alan has brought a literary sensibility to comics that they previously
like this extra dimension that Moore brings to his works. Moore brings
a sense of awe and wonder to his superhero works that I feel Byrne
no longer does in his.
Having said the above I expect Byrne's upcoming four part Superman
Batman: Generations to be enjoyable as was his Batman / Captain
America a couple of years ago. But I'm more (pun not intended) excited
about Moore's upcoming League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and the
other four books he's doing for Wildstorm. These books are sure to
bring a sense of fun and new perspectives to the sameness that often
permeates this medium.
Ralph Mathieu
Alternate Reality Comics
Las Vegas, NV
Alan Travis wrote in message <36324A...@earthlink.net>...
>Alt_Real wrote:
>>
>> Wow, my esteem for John Byrne couldn't drop any lower!
>
>
>And why is that exactly? I read the post and I saw someone saying that
>he didn't like certain works of fiction because he didn't feel they were
>representative of his vision of the characters. You do the same every
>time you read a comic. If Spider-man suddenly started making racist
>remarks, you wouldn't like it. If the book was popular and critically
>acclaimed, should that sway your opinion on it?
>
>I read honest opinions.
>
>---Alan
Mikko Aittola
"Alt_Real" <Alt_...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> I guess your are right in the sense that everything is subjective. I just
> have a hard time believing that anyone could so easily dismiss Moore's
> work. I think Alan Moore has a great understanding of comic's history
> and the changes he makes are excellent tributes and progressions.
> Alan has brought a literary sensibility to comics that they previously
> were lacking. So I guess Byrne just likes to wax nostalgia and doesn't
> like this extra dimension that Moore brings to his works. Moore brings
> a sense of awe and wonder to his superhero works that I feel Byrne
> no longer does in his.
I haven't read much Moore's work. I think Killing Joke is
well written and drawn and I think I can see what Moore was trying
to say with the story.
But still turning Batman to some idiot lunatic - that's not what
I'd call "tribute" or "progression". I didn't find any "sense
of wonder" in that book either.
For me Batman has always been hero, and in Killing Joke he
wasn't.
> But I'm more (pun not intended) excited about Moore's upcoming League
> of Extraordinary Gentlemen and the other four books he's doing for
> Wildstorm.
I've read Rich Johnston's column on that and call me idiot,
but I really don't find anything interesting in getting
Captain Nemo, Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde, The Invisible Man
and Mina Harker together. Well, maybe I check out the
first issue, but somehow it sounds like Secret Wars.
/Mikko
Andrew Black
myself that this is the week I'm going to catch up with all my current
reading. I've spent most of the weekend hoeing through a couple of
large boxes, and have just hit DC 1Mil.)
On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:37:58 -0700, Alan Travis
<amtr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Andrew Black wrote:
>> Over the past few years he's given the impression that he's trying to
>> act as comics' 'protector', (instanced by 'renewing' the demon to
>> Kirby's original specs - despite Kirby's reported ambivalence at his
>> own characters under different creators' hands and twenty odd years of
>> history).
>Whether or not Kirby was ambivalent towards the future of his creations
>is irrelevant. Byrne desires to bring things back the Kirby origin
>point. In his mind, that's how the character works best.
>> [I'm most confused by number 2. Other than being out of the typewriter
>> of the same person, I'm kinda flummoxed as to how - having read
>> Watchmen - one would be let down by reading V. Does the same hold true
>> for reading Danger Unlimited after Byrne's FF run? The latter two are,
>> in my estimation, *far* more equable than Watchmen/V in treatment.]
>Yeah, you could very well say that DU is anti-climactic after reading
>FF. DU was just another game in the same ballpark. Sure, it's a fun
>game, but it's nothing terribly new, either.
I wouldn't have thought that V & Watchmen were in that same ballpark
though, which is what surprised me with the statement.
>> "I don't think the British mentality is properly attuned to the notion
>> of SuperHeroes. There is a doom-and-gloom attitude -- aped by so many
>> American writers now! -- that pervades all the British stuff I've seen
>> in the last twenty years or so. (Remember, in England Judge Dredd is
>> thought of as a bad guy). It makes it very hard for them to wrap
>> their (frequently very talented) brains around the simple notion of a
>> guy who Does The Right Thing, and For The Right Reason. Marvel
>> introduced us to heroes with feet of clay -- but the Brits have
>> extended the clay content to somewhere near the collarbone!"
>>
>> [Rightio, all you British writer chappies. It's back to Ol' Blighty.
>> And not another peep out of you!]
>
>While I like a great amount of material done by British writers, I have
>to agree with John here. There was a time a couple years ago when we
>were experiencing a British invasion in comics. Most of these guys
>landed in Vertigo books, where their different view on things could find
>the best arena for expression. However, they were using some
>traditional superheroes characters in the books. Is this a bad thing?
>Not in the slightest, unless you disapprove on a subjective basis. I
>found much of this material to be steeped in a "doom and gloom" mood.
>It's fine. I liked some of it. Gaiman's Sandman, for one example. I
>also got rather sick of it rather fast. Like almost all trends, there
>are a very small few doing interesting stuff and a lot of crap coming
>along in the wake. It's subjective. It's not Byrne's cup of tea and
>they did ask him.
I've actually got no probs whatsoever with Byrne liking or disliking
anything.
However, the notion that this bunch of writers came along and through
their nihilistic ministrations ruined the traditional DC Superhero
line isn't really borne out by the assignments they were given, as
very few had the chance to play around with any of the big boys. Most
of the 'damage' they did were limited to minor characters or their own
creations.
Alan Moore: Swamp Thing: An out and out horror book, with only tenuous
connections (mainly through Batman) to the main DCU. This run was
notable, however, in the consolidation of DC's theology which helped
co-ordinate their supernatural line. He did a very few Superman
stories, Killing Joke and a couple of more Batmans and some Green
Lantern corps stories. I'm glad, however, that he was disabused of the
notion of going ahead with Twilight. :)
Grant Morrison: Initially got a fairly minor character Animal Man, and
a decent sized Silver Age hit in Doom Patrol, which had recently been
revamped as a younger team ala X-Men. Batman with Arkham Asylum and
Gothic. Then Aztek, before getting the JLA gig.
Neil Gaiman: Began with an obscure character in Black Orchid, before
creating a new Sandman. A few lesser DCU characters were used, as well
as the horror hosts.
Delano, Ellis & Milligan were essentially entirely Vertigo writers.
Milligan did some Batman and Ellis did Hellstorm and Druid on the
Marvel side.
Alan Grant, probably the most 'traditional' of the Brit writers has
had the long Batman run.
Mark Millar had the final issues of Swamp Thing, Zauriel and now is
doing an increasingly fine job on Superman Adventures.
>> "This was precisely my objection. I don't want the Joker to have a
>> 'poignant' background. Apart from being a hoary old cliche now, in
>> comics, it takes away, imho, much more than it adds.
>I disagree with this. I thought that KILLING JOKE was incredible for
>exactly the reasons that the questioner pointed out. Of course, John's
>opinion is his own. I don't think he likes his heroes or villains to
>have quite THIS much depth.
Yeah. I think John's are perfectly valid objections re: the Killing
Joke. I don't mind it, actually. But there's a ton of better Moore
stuff out there.
>> To me, Alan's stuff is a lot like the Judge Dredd movie. If you could
>> turn off the part of your brain that knew anything at all about Judge
>> Dredd, it was really a pretty fun ride, and even had some memorable
>> moments, largely courtesy of Max von Sydow. However, if you went in
>> expecting Judge Dredd, you would have been sorely disappointed. So
>> too with Moore's writing. What he did with Swamp Thing was very
>> interesting, even fascinating in places.
>Nothing wrong with this analogy when used only for his opinion. He
>likes the technique, just not when the technique is applied to heroes or
>villains that he thinks are incongruous with the technique.
Y'see, here's where the contradiction arises.
The major incongruity between the pre & post-Moore Swamp Thing is that
in the non-Wein section of the first series, Swampy is shown
transforming back into Holland which, if he is actually just a bunch
of moss held together by force of will, is impossible.
These changes Moore wrought in the series however, were supervised by
Len Wein. So the man who wrote Swampy's origin and first ten issues of
the series is happy with Moore's take, but Byrne (who has shown
himself to be not averse to drastically change the characters under
his stewardship decides that it's not 'right'.
>> But was it "really" Swamp Thing? No. Nor was that really Superman in
>> "Whatever Happened to...", or Batman in "The Killing Joke". And so I
>> come to that brick wall I always slam into when a writer takes an
>> existing character and changes him or her in to a different character
>> "in order to tell good stories". Why not tell good stories with the
>> character as is?"
>> Yeah. Tell that to the the Kryptonians, John.
>Right here, we see why Byrne has all his foes. John is a creator with a
>very clear idea of what is right and wrong with a character. To him,
>his view is right. His view is based on the way the characters were
>when he first fell in love with them. He doesn't seem to like many
>other creator's additions to those characters that had been applied over
>the years. Also, he invariably adds his own touches to the characters,
>not to make them his own, but to be put in a position to share them with
>those great creators of yesteryear.
>Is this hypocritical? Very often. Does it tick fans off? Constantly.
>Is it a bad thing? Maybe. It depends on how much you, as the reader,
>care about the continuity that he may or may not be dispensing with.
>Alan Moore fans were up in arms about his Demon redo. And yet, many
>fans didn't care. It's all subjective.
Yep. Byrne, like us all, decides what he likes or doesn't like via
that little subjective voice in his head. Unfortunately, the variance
between his words and deeds is what tends to rile.
>Remember, Byrne is the guy that will bring Aunt May back in a heartbeat
>simply because he thinks that she is essential to Peter Parker's
>character. It's a view I share. She should never have been killed off.
>However, other people are outraged that they would bring her back. Some
>because they believe that the books were better off without her and
>others because it required a rather large suspension of their disbelief.
>Byrne justs wants the character back where he thinks it should be.
>> When Moore was in charge of his 'incorrect' version of Swamp Thing
>> (under the auspices of the damned thing's original writer), he had the
>> recently promoted rhymer Etrigan recite: "Oh kettle! Thou art Black!"
>> The pot exclaims. I know one more ambivalent far than I...", but
>> perhaps John missed that. :)
>Calling John a hypocrite is the easiest thing to do in comics. Let's
>worry less about the man and more about the pros and cons of what
>exactly it is that he is doing. ---Alan
With his own words John *does* tend to give us a regular supply of
baseball bats to whomp him over the head with. :)
As for his later stuff, I'm not getting the Spider-book, as I doubt
there's little that Byrne could add to what Lee & Busiek have already
done to that period. However, I *am* going to pick up the Generations
book.
Cheers,
Andrew.
--
As for the stuffed dog, I'm afraid that's a sensitive subject with me; my work on
stuffed dogs has been callously overlooked in the past and it hurts to pick at
those old wounds. Where were the awards for the heartwarming portrayal of Sheba,
the stuffed German Shepherd in DOOM PATROL #45, for instance? And no one even got
to see my stuffed dog magnum opus GORILLAS A-GO-GO, in which Rex the Wonder Dog,
stuffed with cocaine and mounted on casters, trundled obliviously through a story
of treachery, psychedelia and lost love.
Grant Morrison - Invisibles v1 #12
Mikel Midnight
abl...@mediawave.com.au (Andrew Black) wrote:
> Juliesback >>I think the Joker's orgin, as presented, was quite
> poignant. I think people object to it because it makes them see this
> monster as a human being at one point, which is difficult. But the
> point of the story, it seems is that while the Joker is a victim of
> his past, he's not as strong as Jim Gordon, who survives the awful
> things that happens to him.<<
>
> "This was precisely my objection. I don't want the Joker to have a
> 'poignant' background. Apart from being a hoary old cliche now, in
> comics, it takes away, imho, much more than it adds.
Actually, on this one point I agreed with Byrne. I am no fan of _The
Killing Joke_, and I think it diminished the character of the Joker. Nice
art, though.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"She always had a terrific sense of humor" Mikel Midnight
(Valerie Solonas, as described by her mother)
blak...@best.com
__________________________________________________http://www.best.com/~blaklion
Richard Pace
I think the main point of contention here is ho people want their
superheroes. Some, like Byrne, want them to remain much the way they were
when they were children reading them. Others, like myself, have little
nostalgia for the literary merits of those stories and want to read more
thematically or structuraly evolved stories. This isn't a slam against the
first group, comics fandom is a very nostalgic assembly by and large.
However, Byrne has yet to add the depth to any of his characters that
Mooreadds with apparent effortlessness. This depth, or humanity, often
dimishes the purely heroic aspect of these characters to some, much like
Bond fans who object to the superspy characterised as a woman hating
sociopath.
I much prefer Moore to Byrne, but I also prefered LA CONFIDENTIAL to
TITANIC.
Take care,
Richard Pace
Bradly E. Peterson
>Alt_Real wrote:
>>
>> Wow, my esteem for John Byrne couldn't drop any lower!
>
>And why is that exactly? I read the post and I saw someone saying that
>he didn't like certain works of fiction because he didn't feel they were
>representative of his vision of the characters. You do the same every
>time you read a comic. If Spider-man suddenly started making racist
>remarks, you wouldn't like it.
Unless it was a typo, in which case the fanboys would scramble
like maddened rats to get a copy at $5 apiece before it the
"value" soars and they end up having to get it at a convention
for $75. heh...
Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
(Remove OMELETTEDUFROMAGE from address to reply)
<http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama>
"Obscene" = 'It turns me on and I don't like it'.
(Samael)
Bradly E. Peterson
Spoilers for the first "Robin the Boy Wonder" story ahead!
Spoilers for the first "Robin the Boy Wonder" story ahead!
Spoilers for the first "Robin the Boy Wonder" story ahead!
Spoilers for the first "Robin the Boy Wonder" story ahead!
Spoilers for the first "Robin the Boy Wonder" story ahead!
Spoilers for the first "Robin the Boy Wonder" story ahead!
Spoilers for the first "Robin the Boy Wonder" story ahead!
Mikko Aittola <mait...@jade.hut.fi> done said this here deal:
> I haven't read much Moore's work. I think Killing Joke is
> well written and drawn and I think I can see what Moore was trying
> to say with the story.
>
> But still turning Batman to some idiot lunatic - that's not what
> I'd call "tribute" or "progression". I didn't find any "sense
> of wonder" in that book either.
>
> For me Batman has always been hero, and in Killing Joke he
> wasn't.
See, here's the deal... Alan Moore didn't TURN Batman into a
lunatic. He's always BEEN a lunatic. He used to pack a gun, and
he killed his enemies. Even in the first story that featured
Robin, the Boy Wonder was pretty sick stuff. Batman hung one of
the bad guys off the edge of a building until he agreed to sign a
confession. The guy signed the confession, which fingered his
employer, Boss Zucco. Zucco then kills the squealer underling,
by chucking him off the building, which Batman has had Robin take
a picture of. He baited Zucco into killing the guy, as he knew
he would do. Batman then used the picture and confession to send
Zucco to death row.
Now you tell me, Mikko... That sound very heroic to you?
Nick Eden
<amtr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Andrew Black wrote:
>> Over the past few years he's given the impression that he's trying to
>> act as comics' 'protector', (instanced by 'renewing' the demon to
>> Kirby's original specs - despite Kirby's reported ambivalence at his
>> own characters under different creators' hands and twenty odd years of
>> history).
>
>Whether or not Kirby was ambivalent towards the future of his creations
>is irrelevant. Byrne desires to bring things back the Kirby origin
>point. In his mind, that's how the character works best.
The problem with Byrne's position, is that he's not a full on
'Original is Best' person like this. It's essential that things should
be put back to the original position, except where Byrne is concerned.
Etrigan becoming a Rhymer? Bad, very bad. Dr Octopus being the creator
of Spiderman? That's cool.
>Right here, we see why Byrne has all his foes. John is a creator with a
>very clear idea of what is right and wrong with a character. To him,
>his view is right. His view is based on the way the characters were
>when he first fell in love with them. He doesn't seem to like many
>other creator's additions to those characters that had been applied over
>the years. Also, he invariably adds his own touches to the characters,
>not to make them his own, but to be put in a position to share them with
>those great creators of yesteryear.
>
>Is this hypocritical? Very often. Does it tick fans off? Constantly.
>Is it a bad thing? Maybe. It depends on how much you, as the reader,
>care about the continuity that he may or may not be dispensing with.
>Alan Moore fans were up in arms about his Demon redo. And yet, many
>fans didn't care. It's all subjective.
As far as I can tell it's only the die hard Byrne loyalists (and I was
one once) that maintain that his Demon redo really happened. One of
the most refreshing stories of the whole time was the recent Demon
appearance in Starman, just at the point Byrne had happily removed all
those things about the Demon that had been added (rhyming, Jason and
the Demon disliking each other and trying to score points off each
other whenever they got the chance) and just went on and used them,
when according to the Byrne retcon they were just a recent foible that
the Demon had acquired since the seventies.
The problem is that Byrne seems to regard all changes to characters as
blemishes that should be rubbed out, except for the ones he's done,
where they are enhancements.
And yet, when he's on form, he does produce batter stories than a
dedicated comics historian like Roy Thomas. Alas, recently he seems to
have fallen into th same trap that Thomas did - letting the sorting
out of continuity be the driving force in his comic, not the telling
of good stories.
Bring back the Next Men. That's what I say.
Bryant Durrell
Andrew Black <abl...@mediawave.com.au> wrote:
>However, the notion that this bunch of writers came along and through
>their nihilistic ministrations ruined the traditional DC Superhero
>line isn't really borne out by the assignments they were given, as
>very few had the chance to play around with any of the big boys. Most
>of the 'damage' they did were limited to minor characters or their own
>creations.
<snip>
>Delano, Ellis & Milligan were essentially entirely Vertigo writers.
>Milligan did some Batman and Ellis did Hellstorm and Druid on the
>Marvel side.
This is true on the DC side. Over in Marvel-land, you'll find some
X miniseries done by Milligan, and of course Ellis had Excalibur and
a run on Doom 2099.
--
Bryant Durrell [] dur...@innocence.com [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell
[----------------------------------------------------------------------------]
"Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage."
-- H. L. Mencken
Bryant Durrell
Alan Travis <amtr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Bryant Durrell wrote:
>> Personally, I have lower esteem for people with stupid or hypocritical
>> opinions, no matter how honest they are.
>
>you think someone's opinions are "stupid", well, I guess you won't find
>opinions hypocritical, you might want to avoid their work.
Yup. I snipped your other paragraph, but in general I agree with it.
There are plenty of authors whose views I dislike, and who I hold in
low esteem, but whose writing I enjoy. The two things are different.
In some cases, political views can slop over and affect the writing for
me, and that seems to be true whether or not I agree with said views.
Alan Travis
> I much prefer Moore to Byrne, but I also prefered LA CONFIDENTIAL to
> TITANIC.
Oh, I wouldn't go so far as to compare Byrne to Titanic. I usually
liken him to RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Byrne can usually make a
character as rounded as Indiana Jones. The characters on TITANIC might
as well have had placards hanging around their neck indicating their
position in the story.
---Alan
Alan Travis
> The problem with Byrne's position, is that he's not a full on
> 'Original is Best' person like this. It's essential that things should
> be put back to the original position, except where Byrne is concerned.
> Etrigan becoming a Rhymer? Bad, very bad. Dr Octopus being the creator
> of Spiderman? That's cool.
Right. We've addressed this earlier in the thread. When Byrne is
saying that he respects the original creator, he means that he wants to
be the one to add to their original work. Everyone else that had a hand
on the Demon since Kirby is whisked away because he doesn't like what
they've added. His excuse for this action? He wants to get back to the
original creator's vision. However, Byrne wants to take the characters
forward (as much as he feels they need to go) as the next guy. He
simply wants to take the handoff from the original creator and not the
19th guy down the line.
All writers change the character from the version they have been given
by their previous creator. I don't think Byrne is showing disrespect to
Lee/Ditko anymore than Moore was showing disrespect to Kirby when he
made his changes. It all comes back to a vision of the character.
Byrne sees how he can utilize that character if he was the one to
immediately follow their original work.
Byrne said in an interview a few years ago that he felt he would need a
time machine to work for Marvel again. I think he found it. ---Alan
> >Right here, we see why Byrne has all his foes. John is a creator with a
> >very clear idea of what is right and wrong with a character. To him,
> >his view is right. His view is based on the way the characters were
> >when he first fell in love with them. He doesn't seem to like many
> >other creator's additions to those characters that had been applied over
> >the years. Also, he invariably adds his own touches to the characters,
> >not to make them his own, but to be put in a position to share them with
> >those great creators of yesteryear.
> >
> >Is this hypocritical? Very often. Does it tick fans off? Constantly.
> >Is it a bad thing? Maybe. It depends on how much you, as the reader,
> >care about the continuity that he may or may not be dispensing with.
> >Alan Moore fans were up in arms about his Demon redo. And yet, many
> >fans didn't care. It's all subjective.
>
Alan Travis
> I wouldn't have thought that V & Watchmen were in that same ballpark
> though, which is what surprised me with the statement.
I haven't read V, so I can't say for sure. However, Byrne did find them
to be of the same vein.
> However, the notion that this bunch of writers came along and through
> their nihilistic ministrations ruined the traditional DC Superhero
> line isn't really borne out by the assignments they were given, as
> very few had the chance to play around with any of the big boys. Most
> of the 'damage' they did were limited to minor characters or their own
> creations.
I don't think anyone raised the arugmentative bar by saying that Byrne
considered the traditional DC superhero line ruined. I think we can
safely say that he was speaking of his feelings towards the overall tone
of these creators. A tone that is not compatible with what he looks for
from comics. Since he has said that he hardly reads comics, I don't
find this all too surprising. I think we are simply seeing a
disagreement in subjective views.
> Alan Moore: Swamp Thing: An out and out horror book, with only tenuous
> connections (mainly through Batman) to the main DCU. This run was
> notable, however, in the consolidation of DC's theology which helped
> co-ordinate their supernatural line. He did a very few Superman
> stories, Killing Joke and a couple of more Batmans and some Green
> Lantern corps stories. I'm glad, however, that he was disabused of the
> notion of going ahead with Twilight. :)
And you can write volumes on how well it was done and how valuable his
work has been to DC and the larger market, but the simple fact of the
matter is that if you don't like it, you don't like it. I can't imagine
that Byrne would say that Moore is a talentless writer, but that he uses
his talent in a way that doesn't appeal to him.
> Grant Morrison: Initially got a fairly minor character Animal Man, and
> a decent sized Silver Age hit in Doom Patrol, which had recently been
> revamped as a younger team ala X-Men. Batman with Arkham Asylum and
> Gothic. Then Aztek, before getting the JLA gig.
I'm sure Byrne was annoyed by Morrison's DOOM PATROL run. This is a
book that he has professed a liking towards before GM's run. Byrne has
expressed an interest in working on the title but DC claimed to want to
distance the new matertial from the Morrison run by an unknown length of
time. If Byrne does get his hands on the book, expect him to either
completely ignore or completely trash everything Morrison had done. I
expect that he will simply ignore it, because Morrison's DP and Byrne's
would have next to know shared ground.
> Neil Gaiman: Began with an obscure character in Black Orchid, before
> creating a new Sandman. A few lesser DCU characters were used, as well
> as the horror hosts.
While I don't know whether or not Sandman is Byrne's cup of tea, since
Gaiman's creation is essentially a new character and doesn't affect
Kirby's Sandman or the GA Sandman in a very profound way. I don't
imagine that he has that much of a problem with it.
> Delano, Ellis & Milligan were essentially entirely Vertigo writers.
> Milligan did some Batman and Ellis did Hellstorm and Druid on the
> Marvel side.
None of these guys did anything to garner Byrne's attention or creative
scorn.
> Alan Grant, probably the most 'traditional' of the Brit writers has
> had the long Batman run.
Grant's work on Batman is easily dismissed since he made no changes to
the character. He simply kept it going for however many years. On a
personal note, I really don't like Grant's Batman stories.
> Mark Millar had the final issues of Swamp Thing, Zauriel and now is
> doing an increasingly fine job on Superman Adventures.
Same for Millar as for Grant. Although I haven't read his Swamp Thing
work, I have liked his Flash work and really enjoyed his Superman
Adventures material.
> The major incongruity between the pre & post-Moore Swamp Thing is that
> in the non-Wein section of the first series, Swampy is shown
> transforming back into Holland which, if he is actually just a bunch
> of moss held together by force of will, is impossible.
>
> These changes Moore wrought in the series however, were supervised by
> Len Wein. So the man who wrote Swampy's origin and first ten issues of
> the series is happy with Moore's take, but Byrne (who has shown
> himself to be not averse to drastically change the characters under
> his stewardship decides that it's not 'right'.
Right. Of course, it's irrelevant because I doubt that Byrne cares a
whit about Swamp Thing or what has been done to the character. He did
care about the the use of the Demon and how it was deviated from the
Kirby original.
> Yep. Byrne, like us all, decides what he likes or doesn't like via
> that little subjective voice in his head. Unfortunately, the variance
> between his words and deeds is what tends to rile.
See, I don't think there is real variance between his words and deeds.
Technically, sure, but when you look at what Byrne is doing, I think you
can see a pattern in his actions. I think he simply wants to work on
the book as if he was the person that took control when the original
creators left. All writers change the characters. It doesn't
necessarily mean that they disrespect those that came before (although
I'm sure it has in the past). Byrne simply wants to be the one that
took the handoff from Kirby when he works on the Demon. To do so, he
has to ignore all the continuity that has come since. He seems ready to
do this or to explain it away. He uses the "Getting back to the
original creator's vision" as an excuse for doing this. Is it wrong?
I'm sure if you are a fan of the Alan Moore DEMON, it is. If not, you
might not care about the retcon or you might even enjoy the it.
> With his own words John *does* tend to give us a regular supply of
> baseball bats to whomp him over the head with. :)
Yep. He hands out the bats.
> As for his later stuff, I'm not getting the Spider-book, as I doubt
> there's little that Byrne could add to what Lee & Busiek have already
> done to that period. However, I *am* going to pick up the Generations
> book.
Yeah, that's been my feeling as well. On top of being familiar with
those stories and reading UNTOLD, I just don't see a reason to be doing
this material right now. Or, at least, I'm just not ready for it.
Whether or not, it's needed these days is unknown to me because I
haven't been reading the Spidey books for years.
Generations? You bet. ---Alan
Matthew Herper <mjherper@mit.
> See, here's the deal... Alan Moore didn't TURN Batman into a
> lunatic. He's always BEEN a lunatic. He used to pack a gun, and
> he killed his enemies. Even in the first story that featured
> Robin, the Boy Wonder was pretty sick stuff. Batman hung one of
> the bad guys off the edge of a building until he agreed to sign a
> confession. The guy signed the confession, which fingered his
> employer, Boss Zucco. Zucco then kills the squealer underling,
> by chucking him off the building, which Batman has had Robin take
> a picture of. He baited Zucco into killing the guy, as he knew
> he would do. Batman then used the picture and confession to send
> Zucco to death row.
>
> Now you tell me, Mikko... That sound very heroic to you?
>
It probably won't sound like a hero to him, but it sounds like one to
me. No, I don't think I consider acting in such a way admirable,
but I recognize it as archetypical heroic behavior which is still
used a lot outside of comics.
Look at a Steven Seagal movie. Or Bruce Willis in Die Hard. Or, if
you want older examples, look at Odysseus and Akhilleus in the Oddyssey
and the Iliad. Akhilleus' claim to heroism was _exactly_ the fact that
when he went berserk, he was godlike in his aspect and power and blood
flowed in rivers and bodies piled up like mountains.
There's nothing insane about Batman and Superman acting in a similar
manner. In fact, if it's neccesary for a man to dress up like,
as Moore's Joker eloquently puts it, "a flying rat" in order to fight
crime, we should expect a little trickery from him. The real
insanity comes when we take the violence out of the character.
Maybe it's because of the cartoony style of the 40s Batman. Maybe it's
because comics became, more and more, a youth-oriented medium instead
of pulps in pictures. For whatever reason, Batman's rage, the veins
popping out of his neck, the gun on his belt, became anathema to the
comic-book idea of a hero as a man who could always fix things without
having to kill.
But, if we look at Batman in anything close to a real-life context,
it's not insane for him to be packing. It's insane for him not
to be carrying a gun. It's insane for him to have this strict
code against killing. Really, he's a brilliant and well-equipped
detective, but he's still human. Would we expect a human hero like
Eliot Ness to go up against gangsters without so much as a gun?
And maybe Superman could have this code against killing, but it
serves to underscore not simply how heroic he is but the fact that
he is not human. Sure, if you're invulnerable and super-fast and
can fly, maybe you don't ever have to kill.
But if a normal man, say a cop or a private detective, came upon
a crazed madman dressed as a clown who was about to kill a bunch of
cute toddlers whom he'd been sexually abusing not out of lust but
because it was _funny_, what would we expect him to do? Outsmart the
clown? Do a triple Judo-Tae-Kwan-Karate somersault-flip-kick which
resulted in the clown being magically bound hand and foot?
No. Those aren't really options. They're not that likely to save
the kids. This guy's a madman. It's not crazy for our hero to aim
carefully and blast a bullet right between the clown's eyes, exploding
his brain and making a mess of his green hair.
Batman's more insane to try to solve that kind of problem without
killing the Joker. Perhaps he's heroic, but that heroism is a form
of insanity. In a lot of Batman adventures, that's ignored.
The Killing Joke does something I think is pretty unique.
Psychologically and visually, it's terribly realistic. (If the
batmobile and particularly the batcave were toned down a little more,
that realism would be unbroken.) Bolland's art is almost photo-
realistic.
And Moore acknowledges that you'd have to be crazy to be the Batman,
that, in a sense, you're more like the Joker than Jim Gordon, that
even if you're the good-guy, you're crazy. That maybe being the good-
guy _is_ crazy.
But a realistic world destroys a lot of what people like about comics,
about serial media. It means that Batgirl can be randomly and
capriciously paralyzed. And permanently. There's no Sherlock Holmes
magically reappearing after falling to his death, no "that wasn't
really me."
It would also mean that Superman can jump, not fly, and that when he
hit's the ground it will probably shake. Think about it -- this guy
must weigh at least 200 pounds. Think about a 200 pound object falling
from 1/8 of a mile up. Even if his legs absorb the shock...
Personally, this is the way I've always thought superheroes are most
interesting. In another thread somewhere on RAC, someone commented
that if a human being could run at 60 mph they could run on water.
That's as fast as a super-speedster needs to go to beyond our
comprehension!
But that kind of limitation violates many of the conventions of
superhero comics, which tend to make the fantastic normal so that
they can find new levels of fantastic. Which is all right, but
is also probably limiting, and probably part of the reason the
superhero market is shrinking.
Perhaps the future of comics is in Brian Talbot's One Bad Rat
and Howard Cruse's work. Precisely because the serial medium seems
to have become enclosed in itself, and is now simply one big
nostalgia trip.
Which is neither here nor there. But I'll take my batmen crazy,
thank you very much.
Matt.
Jamie Coville
<sdg...@premier1.net> wrote:
>>You don't suppose John Byrne having well-known creative differences
>>with Chris Claremont (who was born in England) had anything to do with
>>this anti-Brit prejudice? :)
>
>John was also born in England.
But was raised in Canada. Not that we Canucks have anything with the
Brits.
Regards, | The History of Superhero Comic Books
Jamie Coville | http://members.xoom.com/comichistory/
Alt_Real
than people that enjoy Alan Moore's work. So it's really kind of
pointless to try to argue Moore's strengths over Byrne's.
I enjoy the nostalgic superhero work that Moore does like
Supreme, but also really enjoy his psychological works like
Killing Joke and Watchmen. I also enjoy Byrne's Superman
and expect to enjoy Batman / Captain America. I liked some
of his Wonder Woman, but thought Genesis was horribly boring
and pointless and his recent Spider-Man work is adding nothing
new (despite the changes in origin) to this character. Maybe if
this was my first exposure to Spider-Man I would enjoy this.
Mikko is there anything that Byrne has done that you didn't like?
I can name several hack jobs by Moore (Spawn / Wildcats, Voodoo,
Violator,etc.), but I don't think you have any obectivity when it
comes to Byrne.
--
Ralph Mathieu
Alternate Reality Comics
>
> I haven't read much Moore's work. I think Killing Joke is
> well written and drawn and I think I can see what Moore was trying
> to say with the story.
>
> But still turning Batman to some idiot lunatic - that's not what
> I'd call "tribute" or "progression". I didn't find any "sense
> of wonder" in that book either.
>
> For me Batman has always been hero, and in Killing Joke he
> wasn't.
>
>
twis...@hotmail.com
Mikko Aittola <mait...@jade.hut.fi> wrote:
>
> But still turning Batman to some idiot lunatic - that's not what
> I'd call "tribute" or "progression". I didn't find any "sense
> of wonder" in that book either.
>
> For me Batman has always been hero, and in Killing Joke he
> wasn't.
Frank Miller's Dark Knight series has an interesting take on that.
Seriously, a guy whose parents were murdered by a mugger dedicates his life to
fighting against that, dressing up as a bat to do so and endangering the lives
of teenage companions in the process? There's got to be some psychological
issues to be dealt with there.
Hmmm.... idea for Elseworld, Bruce Wayne grows uup to be a serial killer. Has
this been done by anyone?
> I've read Rich Johnston's column on that and call me idiot,
> but I really don't find anything interesting in getting
> Captain Nemo, Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde, The Invisible Man
> and Mina Harker together. Well, maybe I check out the
> first issue, but somehow it sounds like Secret Wars.
Secret Wars... that's exactly what it is! I LIKED Secret Wars...
Rich Johnston
http://www.twistandshoutcomics.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mikko Aittola
dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net (Bradly E. Peterson) writes:
> See, here's the deal... Alan Moore didn't TURN Batman into a
> lunatic. He's always BEEN a lunatic.
No he hasn't.
If Batman is violent, it doesn't mean he's a lunatic.
Sure Batman can act crazy sometimes, lose his temper
completely and so forth, but the message I got from
Killing Joke is that actually Batman is just as lunatic
as Joker and that they both belong to Arkham Asylym.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
"Matthew Herper <mjherper@mit." <"remove-me>.edu"> writes:
> And Moore acknowledges that you'd have to be crazy to be the Batman,
> that, in a sense, you're more like the Joker than Jim Gordon, that
> even if you're the good-guy, you're crazy. That maybe being the good-
> guy _is_ crazy.
And that's exactly what was wrong with Killing Joke and
Alan Moore's portrayal of Batman.
Cause Batman isn't crazy.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
"Alt_Real" <Alt_...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> Mikko is looking for something entirely different from comics
> than people that enjoy Alan Moore's work.
I'm ever amazed by the people who tell me what I think.
For starters, where did you get the idea that I don't
enjoy Alan Moore's work???
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
Batman's a hero in Dark Knight. Sure, it's a story where Bruce
acts crazy, is violent, bitter and all that. Inner struggle.
But in the end he does the good thing. That last scene in the
Batcave when they start planning the future - I think that's
a powerful moment.
You have to realize that at the start of the story Bruce isn't
a hero anymore. He's changed, retired. But in the end the Bruce we
all "know" is back. That's what the story is all about.
On the other hand, in Killing Joke we saw Batman and Joker laughing to
each others like lunatics of same caliber. And without any good reason.
/Mikko
Mikel Midnight
<Alt_...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Mikko is there anything that Byrne has done that you didn't like?
> I can name several hack jobs by Moore (Spawn / Wildcats, Voodoo,
> Violator,etc.), but I don't think you have any obectivity when it
> comes to Byrne.
I'd be interested in hearing the answer to this myself, as Mikko has been
Byrne's most consistent apologist on racdcu.
I didn't mind Spawn/WildCATS, but not only dis I dislike Supreme, it is one
of my least favorite comics of all time. In fact, I dislike it more than I
dislike *anything* Byrne has actually written.
Mikko Aittola
ni...@pheasnt.dont_spam_me.demon.co.uk (Nick Eden) writes:
> The problem with Byrne's position, is that he's not a full on
> 'Original is Best' person like this. It's essential that things should
> be put back to the original position, except where Byrne is concerned.
> Etrigan becoming a Rhymer? Bad, very bad. Dr Octopus being the creator
> of Spiderman? That's cool.
I think you're confusing some things here.
First, I think Etrigan starting to rhyme changes the character
somewhat.
If Dr. Octopus' accident caused the radioactive spider to bite
Peter, it doesn't mean Dr. Octopus becomes a different character.
Whoever conducted the radiation experiment has nothing to do with
what kind of character Spider-Man is.
Now, personally I don't care what other writers do to Demon.
But I also think that Byrne can use his interpretation of the
Kirby "version" if he wants to.
Also, I don't think Etrigan's rhyming was The issue for Byrne.
At the start of Byrne's WW run Etrigan didn't rhyme because
he was under the spell of Morgaine LeFay. At the end of the
story he rhymed again. He also rhymed in later appearances
in the book, until the "implanted false memories" stuff kicked
in. I think it was explained that Etrigan wasn't quite himself :)
and that's what caused the rhyming. Whatever, I don't care.
(Althought I chuckled after I pictured an angry fanboy hitting
his head to the wall now that Byrne had "retconned" lots
of Etrigan stories in one tiny panel. That was real work
of art!!!)
IIRC, The issue with Etrigan for Byrne was his origin, what
kind of character he is. According to Byrne, in Kirby's version
and in Arthurian Legend Merlin summons Etrigan and gaves
(via magic) Etrigan a human form. I understood that some
later writers had changed that into: Jason Blood is a normal
human being and Merlin strucks Etrigan inside him.
Byrne thinks a demon turned into human is something
"remotely original". He also thinks that human possessed
by demon is a cliche. I agree.
Now, let me use your Spider-Man analogue.
If Byrne had changed as much the Spider-Man's origin as
other writers changed Demon, the origin would go something
like this: "Young innocent geek-spider gets bitten by radioactive
Peter Parker..." I think you can figure out the rest!
/Mikko
Alleigh
wrote:
>
>"Matthew Herper <mjherper@mit." <"remove-me>.edu"> writes:
>> And Moore acknowledges that you'd have to be crazy to be the Batman,
>> that, in a sense, you're more like the Joker than Jim Gordon, that
>> even if you're the good-guy, you're crazy. That maybe being the good-
>> guy _is_ crazy.
>
> And that's exactly what was wrong with Killing Joke and
> Alan Moore's portrayal of Batman.
>
> Cause Batman isn't crazy.
>
The guy dresses up like a bat - and you say he isn't crazy - okay
Bryant Durrell
Steven Grant <sdg...@premier1.net> wrote:
>Bryant Durrell wrote
>>Personally, I have lower esteem for people with stupid or hypocritical
>>opinions, no matter how honest they are.
>
>irrelevant to my life either way -- but please bear in mind that everyone
>has stupid and hypocritical opinions. Hypocrisy is the natural state of
>humanity.
I'm torn between agreeing with this (thus displaying my cynicism) and
arguing for the natural nobility of humanity, but either would be
off-topic, so I guess I'll just let it lie. *grin*
--
Bryant Durrell [] dur...@innocence.com [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell
[----------------------------------------------------------------------------]
Thou shalt eat green eggs and ham -- obey thy God, I-am-that-I-am.
Mikko Aittola
rog...@airmail.net (Alleigh) writes:
> The guy dresses up like a bat - and you say he isn't crazy - okay
I can't quite figure out what costume has to do with sanity.
/Mikko
Duncan
>
> Alan Travis <amtr...@earthlink.net> done said this here deal:
> >Alt_Real wrote:
> >>
> >> Wow, my esteem for John Byrne couldn't drop any lower!
> >
> >And why is that exactly? I read the post and I saw someone saying that
> >he didn't like certain works of fiction because he didn't feel they were
> >representative of his vision of the characters. You do the same every
> >time you read a comic. If Spider-man suddenly started making racist
> >remarks, you wouldn't like it.
>
> Unless it was a typo, in which case the fanboys would scramble
> like maddened rats to get a copy at $5 apiece before it the
> "value" soars and they end up having to get it at a convention
> for $75. heh...
>
that's what I reckon...
Alt_Real
remember you mentioning any Alan Moore work that
you do like. You also dismissed his upcoming League
of Extraordinary Gentlemen as a boring idea. Have you
read his Supreme run?
Ralph Mathieu
Alternate Reality Comics
Las Vegas, NV
Mikko Aittola wrote in message ...
Andrew Black
wrote:
>
>ni...@pheasnt.dont_spam_me.demon.co.uk (Nick Eden) writes:
>> The problem with Byrne's position, is that he's not a full on
>> 'Original is Best' person like this. It's essential that things should
>> be put back to the original position, except where Byrne is concerned.
>> Etrigan becoming a Rhymer? Bad, very bad. Dr Octopus being the creator
>> of Spiderman? That's cool.
>
> I think you're confusing some things here.
>
> First, I think Etrigan starting to rhyme changes the character
> somewhat.
Umm, Mikko.
From Demon #1 (1972)....
"Change! Change, O' Form of Man!
Release the might from fleshy mire!
Boil the blood in heart of fire
Gone! Gone! --- The form of Man-!
Rise, the Demon Etrigan!"
Cheers,
Andrew.
--
"... but the rings of Saturn sing epithalamium the sea-beast's dower"
Mikko Aittola
abl...@mediawave.com.au (Andrew Black) writes:
> Umm, Mikko.
Umm. Umm.
> From Demon #1 (1972)....
>
> "Change! Change, O' Form of Man!
> Release the might from fleshy mire!
> Boil the blood in heart of fire
> Gone! Gone! --- The form of Man-!
> Rise, the Demon Etrigan!"
That's a spell.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
Where???????????????????????????????????
Please use dejanews and re-read my post.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
> front of him. He was just a kid. He obsesses on this, and
> dedicates his life to bringing down bad guys.
Batman is lunatic because he wants to be good and
bring down bad guys?
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
>
> Halloween is approaching. On what other day of the year could
> you dress up in rubber underwear, a leather cape and mask, and
> prowl around at night, jump out from behind trees, grab people by
> the collar pull them to your face and say (ala Keaton) "I'm
> Batman", and they don't lock your ass up and have a psychiatrist
> look you over?
The difference is: the people you're referring to are not
Batman.
I guess, in your opinion, Native Americans, Arabs etc. are
lunatics also because they don't dress like you do? What
about police? They have "uniform" also. What about priests?
Batman is not a lunatic.
/Mikko
Drew Melbourne
: Let me put it this way... He saw his parents murdered right in
: front of him. He was just a kid. He obsesses on this, and
: outfit designed to scare the crap out of the bad guys, who he
: ends up killing or beating senseless.
Okay so:
1, He obsesses about his parents' death.
Good. That's healthy. If your parents were shot in front of your face,
you would, too.
2, Dedicates his life to bringing down bad guys.
Postive Sublimation. Cool. It was probably either that or crack, so this
is a good choice.
3, He dresses in an outfit designed to scare the crap out of bad guys.
Good idea. This makes his work easier.
4, He ends up killing them and beating them senseless.
Better than making friends with them.
All of the above strikes me as *extremely* sane and rational. I'm taking
it that that WASN'T your point?
--
Drew Melbourne, melb...@sas.upenn.edu, http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~melbourn
-->>NOW ALSO AVAILABLE AT "melb...@dept.english.upenn.edu"!!!<<--
"*You're* an RA? You're an *RA*? Oh dear God... " -- John Hogan
Andrew Black
wrote:
> Umm. Umm.
> That's a spell.
Look, Mikko. You're not an idiot. If needs be, rush down to the
library and get them to point you towards a poetry manual.
Moore just didn't pluck the rhyming out of his backside. It was an
element that was present in the *first* story.
Cheers,
Andrew.
--
"Jane? Jane, it's me."
"Cliff?"
"Didn't I promise? We're going home now. Come in out of the rain."
Doom Patrol #63
Richard Pace
however using realworld psychology and analyzing Bruce Wayne (his obsessions
with crime and punishment, dual personalities, child endangerment,
masochism, sadism, fetishism, et al) would reveal several psychotic elements
that would have him inhabiting the cell right next to the Joker.
Batman's crazy as a look, but that's why we all love him.
Richard Pace
Mikko Aittola wrote in message ...
>
Richard Pace
Drew Melbourne wrote in message <714q0u$nmq$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>Bradly E. Peterson (dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net) wrote:
>: Let me put it this way... He saw his parents murdered right in
>: front of him. He was just a kid. He obsesses on this, and
>: dedicates his life to bringing down bad guys. He dresses in an
>: outfit designed to scare the crap out of the bad guys, who he
>: ends up killing or beating senseless.
>
>Okay so:
>
>1, He obsesses about his parents' death.
>
>Good. That's healthy. If your parents were shot in front of your face,
>you would, too.
No, sorry -- you're wrong. Getting over an obsession about your parents'
murder is healthy. Twisting your, and the lives around you, into being a
weapon to enact vengeance on the hoards of criminals who had nothing to do
with the dead folks - that's sick. You would suffer severe emotional trauma
witnessing such an act, however, life is for the living.
>
>2, Dedicates his life to bringing down bad guys.
>
>Postive Sublimation. Cool. It was probably either that or crack, so this
>is a good choice.
>
A good choice would have been joining the police, FBI, some other law
enforcement branch or starting up a criminal consulting group. Becoming a
criminal is rarely considered the better choice over "cracking" - which
probably would have led BW to the psychotherapy he still needs.
>3, He dresses in an outfit designed to scare the crap out of bad guys.
>
>Good idea. This makes his work easier.
So would shooting them with a sniper rifle. Just because he's somewhat
clever about some of his choices, it doesn't make him any more sane.
>
>4, He ends up killing them and beating them senseless.
>
>Better than making friends with them.
As opposed to allowing the criminal justice system do it's job?
>
>All of the above strikes me as *extremely* sane and rational. I'm taking
>it that that WASN'T your point?
>
You probablythink The Shadow was a pleasant hero as well. Just because Bats
is batty doesn't make him less of an interesting fictional character.
Take care,
Richard Pace
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: Batman is lunatic because he wants to be good and
: bring down bad guys?
No, I should think he's a bit loony because HE DRESSES UP AS A BAT in
order to do so. I'm surprised I have to explain this.
- Elayne
--
Girls, girls. You're both pretty! Now take it to email, please.
- Chris Pierson <cpie...@tiac.net>
commenting on a Usenet flamewar
("I stole it from Homicide anyway")
bsvit...@mln.lib.ma.us
> well written and drawn and I think I can see what Moore was trying
> to say with the story.
>
> I'd call "tribute" or "progression". I didn't find any "sense
> of wonder" in that book either.
>
> For me Batman has always been hero, and in Killing Joke he
> wasn't.
>
If you thought The Killing Joke depicted Batman as an "idiot lunatic", I
don't think you saw what more was trying to say. In my opinion, this story is
one of the best illustrations of the point that Batman is *not* a lunatic,
and in fact that Batman's career is in many ways a successful struggle
against the insanity represented by the Joker.
Both Bruce Wayne and Joe (the Joker) had "a bad day" that marked their lives.
The Joker was entirely destroyed by his misfortunes, but Batman was not - he
had the strength to lead a positive life despite his personal tragedy. Jim
Gordon, too, had the strength to stick to his principles even after the
torments inflicted upon him - thereby disproving the Joker's point that
anyone would be as bad as him if they'd been through as much as he had.
True, the Batman isn't entirely unmarked by insanity - he knows that life can
be random and irrational, and that sometimes laughter is an appropriate
response to it. But he's not overwhelmed by the madness of the world, and
it's that difference between him and the Joker which makes him a hero.
Hernan Espinoza
>Mikko Aittola <mait...@beta.hut.fi> done said this here deal:
>>
>>rog...@airmail.net (Alleigh) writes:
>>> The guy dresses up like a bat - and you say he isn't crazy - okay
>>
>> I can't quite figure out what costume has to do with sanity.
>Well, let's just put it this way...
>Halloween is approaching. On what other day of the year could
>you dress up in rubber underwear, a leather cape and mask, and
>prowl around at night, jump out from behind trees, grab people by
>the collar pull them to your face and say (ala Keaton) "I'm
>Batman", and they don't lock your ass up and have a psychiatrist
>look you over?
Didn't grow up in New Orleans, eh? 8-)
-Hernan
Duncan
>
> Bradly E. Peterson (dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net) wrote:
> : Let me put it this way... He saw his parents murdered right in
> : front of him. He was just a kid. He obsesses on this, and
> : dedicates his life to bringing down bad guys.
Fuckinell. Up to here I thought you were still talking about John
Byrne...
> He dresses in an
> : outfit designed to scare the crap out of the bad guys, who he
> : ends up killing or beating senseless.
Right, right, *now* I gotcha. This is Tom Spurgeon, isn't it?
Mikko Aittola
abl...@mediawave.com.au (Andrew Black) writes:
> Moore just didn't pluck the rhyming out of his backside. It was an
> element that was present in the *first* story.
Etrigan rhyming the whole time wasn't. Etrigan rhyming a spell
was.
The spell was something special. It had a special meaning.
The rhyming wasn't special after that was all he did.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
> No, I should think he's a bit loony because HE DRESSES UP AS A BAT in
> order to do so. I'm surprised I have to explain this.
Let me guess, Spider-Man is a lunatic because HE DRESSES UP
AS A SPIDER?
Shall I go on?
Believe me, Batman isn't lunatic. He's world's greatest detective.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
"Richard Pace" <rp...@idirect.com> writes:
> No, sorry -- you're wrong. Getting over an obsession about your parents'
> murder is healthy. Twisting your, and the lives around you, into being a
> weapon to enact vengeance on the hoards of criminals who had nothing to do
> with the dead folks - that's sick.
No, sorry -- you're wrong. Batman wanted vengeance when he
first became Batman, at the start of his career. He wanted
to avenge his parent's deaths.
But after that he got over it and wanted to prevent
that other people wouldn't suffer like he did. He wants to protect
people so that some other kid's parents don't get killed.
It could be that DC and some writers has forgot about the second part,
but still, Batman never was a madman.
/Mikko
Tom Galloway
>No, I should think he's a bit loony because HE DRESSES UP AS A BAT in
>order to do so. I'm surprised I have to explain this.
True. Dressing up as a bat is looney tunes. Me, I dress up as a Sherman
tank to battle the bad guys. :-)
tyg t...@netcom.com
Richard Pace
people writing and drawing Batman realise he's as much a whack-job as the
lunatics that he opposes and most of the fans like the character so much
they refuse to see the 'flaws' in the characters personality. Much like
some people dislike the drug addiction aspect of Sherlock Holmes.
Take care,
Richard Pace
Mikko Aittola wrote in message ...
>
tsunami_tal
>
>Mikko Aittola (mait...@jade.hut.fi) wrote:
>: Batman is lunatic because he wants to be good and
>: bring down bad guys?
>
>order to do so. I'm surprised I have to explain this.
As for me, I'm completely stunned.
Actually, Bruce dresses up in a dark, skintight costume with a scary cape and
cowl. If you placed a bat next to Batman, it is really quite easy to tell the
difference. Batman really looks nothing at all like a bat, and for anyone to
say that HE DRESSES UP LIKE A BAT better go have their eyes examined.
I'm surprised I even tried to explain this.
Talon T M
;)
Brian Hance
> No, sorry -- you're wrong. Batman wanted vengeance when he
> first became Batman, at the start of his career. He wanted
> to avenge his parent's deaths.
> But after that he got over it and wanted to prevent
> that other people wouldn't suffer like he did. He wants to protect
> people so that some other kid's parents don't get killed.
Then why didn't he use is rather impressive intelligence to become a
cop, or a lawyer, or even a politician? Hell, as a judge or a
politician he could have a much more effect on ALL crime instead of
instead of just beating up the same few loonies over and over and over
again.
Brian Hance * http://www.primenet.com/~bhance * bha...@primenet.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Love is 90% responsibility. Whatever that other 10 percent is, it
must be quite something."
from TAXI DRIVER WISDOM
Mark Schlesinger
Mikko Aittola <mait...@beta.hut.fi> wrote:
>
>fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>> No, I should think he's a bit loony because HE DRESSES UP AS A BAT in
>> order to do so. I'm surprised I have to explain this.
>
> AS A SPIDER?
>
Yes.
>
> Shall I go on?
>
Please do.
>
> Believe me, Batman isn't lunatic. He's world's greatest detective.
>
been placed into an asylum years ago.
Mark
--
Mark Schlesinger When criminals in this world appear
schl...@primenet.com And break the laws that they should fear
Typical Boring Sig And frighten all who see and hear
The cry goes up both far and near for Underdog
Ken Arromdee
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>No, I should think he's a bit loony because HE DRESSES UP AS A BAT in
>order to do so. I'm surprised I have to explain this.
In the context of superheroes, dressing up in a costume to fight bad guys
is not insanity. There are all sorts of superheroes, both powered and not,
and _they're_ not considered nuts.
--
Ken Arromdee |They said it was *daft* to build a space
arro...@inetnow.net |station in a swamp, but I showed them! It
karr...@nyx.nyx.net |sank into the swamp. So I built a second
http://www.inetnow.net/~arromdee|space station. That sank into the swamp too.
--------------------------------+My third space station sank into the swamp.
So I built a fourth one. That fell into a time warp and _then_ sank into the
swamp. But the fifth one... stayed up! --Monty Python/Babylon 5
Richard Pace
all the others followed suit (heh), wouldn't that just make him the guy near
the front of the line to the asylum?
If a score of people were delusional and believed they were the Emperor
Napoleon, would that make them more sane by volume?
Take care,
Richard Pace
Ken Arromdee wrote in message <36364...@news.inetnow.net>...
Paul O'Brien
<mait...@jade.hut.fi> writes
>
> Batman is lunatic because he wants to be good and
> bring down bad guys?
Batman is a lunatic because he lives his life around an obsession
deriving entirely from a childhood event, and he has no life other
than his obsession, except to provide himself with a cover identity
and resources to fuel his obsession. And he dresses as a bat.
Paul O'Brien
pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk, www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/
Buy Belle and Sebastian records.
tsunami_tal
>Batman is a lunatic because he lives his life around an obsession
>deriving entirely from a childhood event, and he has no life other
>than his obsession, except to provide himself with a cover identity
>and resources to fuel his obsession. And he dresses as a bat.
Again, no, he does not dress as a bat...he dresses as a costumed super-hero. If
he dressed as a bat he would be naked because bats don't dress.
Talon T M
tsunami_tal
>
>Mikko Aittola <mait...@jade.hut.fi> wrote:
>
>> No, sorry -- you're wrong. Batman wanted vengeance when he
>> first became Batman, at the start of his career. He wanted
>> to avenge his parent's deaths.
>
>> But after that he got over it and wanted to prevent
>> that other people wouldn't suffer like he did. He wants to protect
>> people so that some other kid's parents don't get killed.
>
>Then why didn't he use is rather impressive intelligence to become a
>cop, or a lawyer, or even a politician? Hell, as a judge or a
>politician he could have a much more effect on ALL crime instead of
>instead of just beating up the same few loonies over and over and over
>again.
Because he knew, way back then, that his comics wouldn't sell like hotcakes
anymore, since all the other cop/lawyer/politician comics were selling for a
dime a dozen...literally.
Talon T M
:)
Alan Travis
>
> Alan Travis wrote
>
> >If you find their opinions hypocritical, you might want to avoid their
> work.
>
> Why? Hypocrisy has rarely ever stood in the way of great work -- or any
> other kind. Just because you don't share someone's opinions -- or even
> disdain someone's opinions -- doesn't mean you won't enjoy their work, as,
> conversely, just because you agree with someone's opinions doesn't mean
> you'll like their work, or even should like their work.
Okay... How about you avoid their work if you find them hypocritical
and it bothers you? ---Alan
tsunami_tal
>
>In article <idnemrt...@beta.hut.fi>,
>Mikko Aittola <mait...@beta.hut.fi> wrote:
>>
>>fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>>> order to do so. I'm surprised I have to explain this.
>>
>> AS A SPIDER?
>>
> Yes.
>>
>> Shall I go on?
>>
> Please do.
>>
>> Believe me, Batman isn't lunatic. He's world's greatest detective.
>>
> Batman is a fictional character who, if he were real, would have
>been placed into an asylum years ago.
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! There are kids here, doofus!
Talon T M
Next you'll be dissing Santa
tsunami_tal
>>order to do so. I'm surprised I have to explain this.
>
>is not insanity. There are all sorts of superheroes, both powered and not,
>and _they're_ not considered nuts.
I'm surprised you had to explain this to me.
Talon T M
Steven Grant
>Too true. The Presbeteryans were right...
>People are just no damn good. heh... Lyin' bastids, all of us.
I know you're just kidding, Bradley, but that's kind of my point. It's time
we (as a species) stopped putting marks of good or bad on this stuff. Save
'em for the outcome of hypocrisy. But most "hypocrisy" is innocuous, and
mere self-contradiction. We're all just mortals, we do that.
--
Rough Beast Entertainment - http://www.premier1.net/~sdgrant
Steven Grant
>Okay... How about you avoid their work if you find them hypocritical
>and it bothers you?
Fine, if you want to. But, like I said, pretty much everyone is
hypocritical in some manner or another, and if you start down that road,
there will be an awful lot you'll shut yourself away from.
Bradly E. Peterson
>dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net (Bradly E. Peterson) writes:
>> See, here's the deal... Alan Moore didn't TURN Batman into a
>> lunatic. He's always BEEN a lunatic.
>
> No he hasn't.
>
> If Batman is violent, it doesn't mean he's a lunatic.
>
> Sure Batman can act crazy sometimes, lose his temper
> completely and so forth, but the message I got from
> Killing Joke is that actually Batman is just as lunatic
> as Joker and that they both belong to Arkham Asylym.
Let me put it this way... He saw his parents murdered right in
front of him. He was just a kid. He obsesses on this, and
dedicates his life to bringing down bad guys. He dresses in an
outfit designed to scare the crap out of the bad guys, who he
ends up killing or beating senseless. Read the early stuff.
Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
(Remove OMELETTEDUFROMAGE from address to reply)
<http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama>
"Obscene" = 'It turns me on and I don't like it'.
(Samael)
Bradly E. Peterson
>Bradly E. Peterson wrote:
>> Alan Travis <amtr...@earthlink.net> done said this here deal:
>> >If Spider-man suddenly started making racist
>> >remarks, you wouldn't like it.
>>
>> Unless it was a typo, in which case the fanboys would scramble
>> like maddened rats to get a copy at $5 apiece before it the
>> "value" soars and they end up having to get it at a convention
>> for $75. heh...
>>
>You're such a goddamn cynic, Brad. Too much Moore, not enough Byrne,
>that's what I reckon...
Nah. It comes from being molested as a kid, raped as an adult,
and spending far too much time on the street. I got this way
LONG before I knew who Moore and Byrne even were. heh...
Semi Off-topic: Did you know that Adolf Hitler and I actually
have something in common? We both spent some years homeless, he
sleeping on park benches in Vienna, and I in abandoned houses and
once between a building and a dumpster during an icestorm in Fort
Worth, Tx. Just thought I'd throw that in there, as both of us
started to form very rigid opinions about some things, not the
same things, mind you, but you get the idea.
Bradly E. Peterson
here deal:
>It probably won't sound like a hero to him, but it sounds like one to
>me. No, I don't think I consider acting in such a way admirable,
>but I recognize it as archetypical heroic behavior which is still
>used a lot outside of comics.
No, it's archetypical anti-hero behavior, and so are the examples
you give below (action movie guys). Let's not mix 'em up, now.
Bradly E. Peterson
>
>rog...@airmail.net (Alleigh) writes:
>> The guy dresses up like a bat - and you say he isn't crazy - okay
>
> I can't quite figure out what costume has to do with sanity.
Well, let's just put it this way...
Halloween is approaching. On what other day of the year could
you dress up in rubber underwear, a leather cape and mask, and
prowl around at night, jump out from behind trees, grab people by
the collar pull them to your face and say (ala Keaton) "I'm
Batman", and they don't lock your ass up and have a psychiatrist
look you over?
I think that about covers it. heh...
Bradly E. Peterson
>Bryant Durrell wrote
>
>>Personally, I have lower esteem for people with stupid or hypocritical
>>opinions, no matter how honest they are.
>
>I'm not suggesting you should like John's work or his opinions -- it's
>irrelevant to my life either way -- but please bear in mind that everyone
>has stupid and hypocritical opinions. Hypocrisy is the natural state of
>humanity.
Too true. The Presbeteryans were right...
People are just no damn good. heh... Lyin' bastids, all of us.
Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
Bradly E. Peterson
>Steven Grant <sdg...@premier1.net> wrote:
>>I'm not suggesting you should like John's work or his opinions -- it's
>>irrelevant to my life either way -- but please bear in mind that everyone
>>has stupid and hypocritical opinions. Hypocrisy is the natural state of
>>humanity.
>
>I'm torn between agreeing with this (thus displaying my cynicism) and
>arguing for the natural nobility of humanity, but either would be
>off-topic, so I guess I'll just let it lie. *grin*
Let it lie! I get it! Lie! heh... Good un.
Andrew Black
wrote:
Okay then, Mikko. Let's remove the spells from the rhyme equation, and
find a few other examples.
Demon #3: - Demon to Jason Blood
"Etrigan! Etrigan is my name!
Your body and soul do I claim"
or
Demon #4
"What stays my hand from your throat!
From a voice inside me. Strident -- yet remote!"
So Kirby had Etrigan rhyming even then.
Cheers,
Andrew
--
Peter Meilinger
: In article <7152mf$8...@panix3.panix.com> fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
: >No, I should think he's a bit loony because HE DRESSES UP AS A BAT in
: >order to do so. I'm surprised I have to explain this.
: True. Dressing up as a bat is looney tunes. Me, I dress up as a Sherman
: tank to battle the bad guys. :-)
North Dakota. Ain't a two-bit punk in the world that can take me
when I got my North Dakota costume on!
Pete
Jason Fliegel
You dress up like that detective from that Marvel comic?
--
Jason Fliegel
j-fl...@uchicago.edu
3L, University of Chicago Law School
thad a doria
>: In article <7152mf$8...@panix3.panix.com> fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>: >No, I should think he's a bit loony because HE DRESSES UP AS A BAT in
>: >order to do so. I'm surprised I have to explain this.
>
>: True. Dressing up as a bat is looney tunes. Me, I dress up as a Sherman
>: tank to battle the bad guys. :-)
You are The Great and Powerful Turtle and I claim my 5 pounds.
--
-Thad Doria
"This is Precious Roy and I like the fresh hot donuts! Suckers!"
David J. Snyder
thad a doria <do...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>You are The Great and Powerful Turtle and I claim my 5 pounds.
Hey, where the heck does this five pound claiming thing come from
anyway?
-Dave
--
The original crew is making a guest appearance on the new Love Boat.
It's kind of like "Crisis on QE2."
Peter Meilinger
: In article <715tem$5lj$1...@news1.bu.edu>,
: Peter Meilinger <mell...@bu.edu> wrote:
: >Tom Galloway (t...@netcom.com) wrote:
: >: In article <7152mf$8...@panix3.panix.com> fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
: >: >No, I should think he's a bit loony because HE DRESSES UP AS A BAT in
: >: >order to do so. I'm surprised I have to explain this.
: >
: >: True. Dressing up as a bat is looney tunes. Me, I dress up as a Sherman
: >: tank to battle the bad guys. :-)
: >North Dakota. Ain't a two-bit punk in the world that can take me
: >when I got my North Dakota costume on!
: You dress up like that detective from that Marvel comic?
Y'know, there was a little voice in the back of my head telling me
that using North Dakota would come back to bite me in the ass, but
for the life of me I couldn't figure out why, so I did it anyways.
Maybe I should listen to my subconscious next time. Or maybe I
just like getting my ass bitten.
Anyways, to answer your question: Yes. Yes I do.
Pete
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
: > No, I should think he's a bit loony because HE DRESSES UP AS A BAT in
: > order to do so. I'm surprised I have to explain this.
: Let me guess, Spider-Man is a lunatic because HE DRESSES UP
: AS A SPIDER?
Well, when he did it at first, it was a wrestling costume. :)
- Elayne
--
Girls, girls. You're both pretty! Now take it to email, please.
- Chris Pierson <cpie...@tiac.net>
commenting on a Usenet flamewar
("I stole it from Homicide anyway")
Richard Pace
Take care,
Richard Pace
Peter Meilinger wrote in message <717ckm$emu$1...@news1.bu.edu>...
>Jason Fliegel (jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: In article <715tem$5lj$1...@news1.bu.edu>,
>: Peter Meilinger <mell...@bu.edu> wrote:
>: >Tom Galloway (t...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: >: In article <7152mf$8...@panix3.panix.com> fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>: >: >No, I should think he's a bit loony because HE DRESSES UP AS A BAT in
>: >: >order to do so. I'm surprised I have to explain this.
>: >
Duncan
interested in his comments unfiltered. He's definitely one of the most
interesting creators in mainstream comics today:
Andrew Black wrote:
>
> John Byrne's a strange case, isn't he?
>
[Snip. No offence Andrew, I agree with all you said, fwiw]
> I was intrigued to read a continuing
> conversation on AOL's Byrne Ward at the moment, concerning John
> Byrne's thoughts on Alan Moore's work.
> >
> First off, John is asked his opinion of:
>
> 1. The Killing Joke - Dreadful, but with great art.
Dreadful? My guess is he particularly didn't like the bit when the
comissioner's daughter's back gets broken (not supposed to happen).
> 2. V for Vendetta - Interesting, but seemed "anti-climactic" since I read it after I read Watchmen
I'd agree with that. V was written some time before Watchmen & it shows.
> 3. The Watchmen - Overly mannered and deconstructionist
Given Byrne's point of view on the way comics have changed (for which he
presumably holds Moore somewhat responsible) that'd be fair enough.
> 4. From Hell - Have not read it.
Amazing. One of the most talked about comics for years & he hasn't read
it. Not exactly a good sign...
> In a later post he goes on to say:
>
> "I don't think the British mentality is properly attuned to the notion
> of SuperHeroes.
"Properly"? What's "properly"? But then, being British I guess I'd have
to ask.
> There is a doom-and-gloom attitude -- aped by so many
> American writers now! -- that pervades all the British stuff I've seen
> in the last twenty years or so.
True, but a lot of it is intended to be ironic.
> (Remember, in England Judge Dredd is
> thought of as a bad guy).
That is crazy. Judge Dredd is (inasmuch as the term means anything) a
*good* guy. All the characters in 2000AD/British Vertigo etc. are amoral
anti-heroes, but the people they fight are even worse so we (the
readers) support them. If Byrne hasn't sussed that out it doesn't look
good for his arument.
> It makes it very hard for them to wrap
> their (frequently very talented) brains around the simple notion of a
> guy who Does The Right Thing, and For The Right Reason.
Like Chuck Heston. Does Byrne know what decade this is? I'm starting to
think this whole interview of his is an elaborate piss-take, playing up
to the view of him as some kind of Silver Age throwback. And what's so
British about discerning human complexity? Presumably just about every
great or good American writer, from Melville to Delillo just doesn't
exist, then.
> Marvel
> introduced us to heroes with feet of clay -- but the Brits have
> extended the clay content to somewhere near the collarbone!"
Very flattering to be a drop in the fount of all evil, but this is
cobblers.
>
> "I don't want the Joker to have a
> 'poignant' background. Apart from being a hoary old cliche now, in
> comics, it takes away, imho, much more than it adds.
>
> I was also troubled, juxtaposing Killing Joke and Watchmen, that
> Moore's "message" seemed to be that badguys are victims of their own
> bad circumstance, while goodguys are, almost by definition, damaged
> goods from the get-go.
>
> To borrow a line from John Cage, 'I'm troubled'."
>
This is pathetic. If Byrne can't recognise that he's imposing his own
bad guy/good guy schema on to someone else's work where it doesn't
belong, maybe he should take up a job in advertising.
>
> To me, Alan's stuff is a lot like the Judge Dredd movie. If you could
> turn off the part of your brain that knew anything at all about Judge
> Dredd, it was really a pretty fun ride, and even had some memorable
> moments, largely courtesy of Max von Sydow.
[God, I felt sorry for von Sydow when i saw that movie. This is the guy
who Ingmar Bergman trusted and used most and now he's reduced to
appearing in shite like Judge Dredd.]
> However, if you went in
> expecting Judge Dredd, you would have been sorely disappointed. So
> too with Moore's writing.
What a giveaway. Byrne starts reading Moore (and presumably anyone else)
"expecting" something, his own preconceived idea of how superheroes
should behave. In other words, he's already started with a closed mind,
unwilling to admit that there could be other ways of doing the job. Not
a good place to start.
> What he did with Swamp Thing was very
> interesting, even fascinating in places.
>
> But was it "really" Swamp Thing? No. Nor was that really Superman in
> "Whatever Happened to...", or Batman in "The Killing Joke". And so I
> come to that brick wall I always slam into when a writer takes an
> existing character and changes him or her in to a different character
> "in order to tell good stories". Why not tell good stories with the
> character as is?"
>
Well, I guess that's a good enough manifesto for Byrne himself. He wants
to be the guy who takes comics back to how they "should" be, presumably
when Ditko was doing Spiderman and Kirby the FF. I wish him luck (I
loved those comics; they're the primary reason I still read them) but
his lack of understanding of his fellow writer's artisic intentions is
incredible.
And frankly, I don't think he'll be able to do it, not at Marvel anyway,
and not for long. After all, the main market for comics nostalgia these
days is precisely those people (like me) who read the Silver Age
classics as a kid but who then came to realise that the medium had to
both grow up and to admit other ideas, other visions. When it did, with
Watchmen, Dark Knight etc. they went back to reading them.
In other words, a large part of Byrne's readership will probably turn
out to be Alan Moore fans. It's called irony, John, if that's not being
too "British".
Jason Fliegel
Bradly E. Peterson <dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net> wrote:
>
>No, I'm saying that Bruce Wayne / Batman has serious mental
>issues to address. This is obsessive behavior. If he wants to
>be good and bring down bad guys, why didn't he join the police
>academy and become a cop?
Because the police are so effective in Gotham, right?
The difference between the DC Universe and our own (or, more accurately,
one difference), is that vigilantism works, at least sometimes. Batman
gets results, and he doesn't do so at the expense of criminals' rights.
He doesn't target minorities, he doesn't deprive criminals of the right to
a fair trial, and so on.
David Mosley
> Mikko Aittola <mait...@jade.hut.fi> done said this here deal:
>
> >dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net (Bradly E. Peterson) writes:
> >> Let me put it this way... He saw his parents murdered right in
> >> front of him. He was just a kid. He obsesses on this, and
> >> dedicates his life to bringing down bad guys.
> >
> > Batman is lunatic because he wants to be good and
> > bring down bad guys?
>
> No, I'm saying that Bruce Wayne / Batman has serious mental
> issues to address. This is obsessive behavior. If he wants to
> be good and bring down bad guys, why didn't he join the police
> academy and become a cop? No, he feels himself to be above the
> law, and he's not accountable for all of his actions. He needs
> help.
I seem to recall that pre-CRISIS, Bruce Wayne supposed to have trained as a police cadet, but quit
over issues of legality and justice. I think that the basic argument went something like, if two
people steal a car and go for a joyride, and part way one of them decides that he's had enough, but
before the driver can stop to let him out, the car hits a pedestrian and kills them, is the
passenger guilty of murder? According to Bruce's lecturer under the law he would be, but Bruce
didn't believe this was fair or just and so decided to quit the police force and discover his own
method of fighting crime. According to this, Batman isn't concerned about the law, but about what is
just (which, btw, makes him a tremendous foil to Judge Dredd who *is* the Law! (Creeps, and don't
you forget it.)
Of course, this has probably been thrown out post-CRISIS.
I also think it was Dennis O'Neil in the '70s who first came up with the notion that Bruce Wayne
wasn't completely sane. I think the idea was that Batman *wasn't* a mask that Bruce Wayne put on,
Bruce Wayne was the mask that the *Batman* put on when he wasn't going out at night and beating
people up. This idea has been used on and off ever since in the comics. Iirc, during the Alan
Grant/Norm Breyfogle run in _Detective_ Bruce Wayne hardly featured at all some years.
Best regards,
David Mosley
Bradly E. Peterson
>dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net (Bradly E. Peterson) writes:
>> Well, let's just put it this way...
>>
>> Halloween is approaching. On what other day of the year could
>> you dress up in rubber underwear, a leather cape and mask, and
>> prowl around at night, jump out from behind trees, grab people by
>> the collar pull them to your face and say (ala Keaton) "I'm
>> Batman", and they don't lock your ass up and have a psychiatrist
>> look you over?
>
> The difference is: the people you're referring to are not
> Batman.
Neither is the guy who dresses up like Batman 365 days a year.
He's Bruce Wayne, and he's a couple of fries short of a happy
meal. heh... Think about it a second...
> I guess, in your opinion, Native Americans, Arabs etc. are
> lunatics also because they don't dress like you do? What
> about police? They have "uniform" also. What about priests?
With the notable exception of the police, these people don't go
out at night and bag bad guys, but if they did, then I would
seriously suggest that they seek professional mental help.
> Batman is not a lunatic.
Riiiiight. heh... What can I say, Mikko. We differ. My
advice? Read "Bratpack", Rick Veitch's brilliant examination of
the anti-hero and the "kid sidekick". (In fact, read all of the
King Hell Heroica)
Oh, and tell me this... What sort of person would allow a kid to
go out and pummel bad guys with him, putting that kid into mortal
danger? Certainly not anyone who had their head on right.
Consider the "bat symbol", the black bat on the yellow
background? The reason for this thing being on his chest is that
his body armour is strongest at this point, and the bright color
gives the bad guy a target to aim for... That said, you'll
notice the colors that he had his sidekick wearing... Yellow,
and red and green. HELLO???
Bradly E. Peterson
>dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net (Bradly E. Peterson) writes:
>> Let me put it this way... He saw his parents murdered right in
>> front of him. He was just a kid. He obsesses on this, and
>> dedicates his life to bringing down bad guys.
>
> Batman is lunatic because he wants to be good and
> bring down bad guys?
No, I'm saying that Bruce Wayne / Batman has serious mental
issues to address. This is obsessive behavior. If he wants to
be good and bring down bad guys, why didn't he join the police
academy and become a cop? No, he feels himself to be above the
law, and he's not accountable for all of his actions. He needs
help.
Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
Bradly E. Peterson
>Mikko Aittola <mait...@jade.hut.fi> wrote:
>> No, sorry -- you're wrong. Batman wanted vengeance when he
>> first became Batman, at the start of his career. He wanted
>> to avenge his parent's deaths.
>> But after that he got over it and wanted to prevent
>> that other people wouldn't suffer like he did. He wants to protect
>> people so that some other kid's parents don't get killed.
>
>Then why didn't he use is rather impressive intelligence to become a
>cop, or a lawyer, or even a politician? Hell, as a judge or a
>politician he could have a much more effect on ALL crime instead of
>instead of just beating up the same few loonies over and over and over
>again.
Another good point, there. Batman is treating symptoms, and
ignoring the disease completely.
Bradly E. Peterson
>I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this, especially when most of the
>people writing and drawing Batman realise he's as much a whack-job as the
>lunatics that he opposes and most of the fans like the character so much
>they refuse to see the 'flaws' in the characters personality. Much like
>some people dislike the drug addiction aspect of Sherlock Holmes.
Yep. Not to mention the fact that rather than cut down on crime,
that he ATTRACTS crime. All these costumed supergoons appear and
what happens? Suddenly a ton of costumed crooks shows up.
hmm...
Bradly E. Peterson
>schl...@primenet.com says...
>>Mikko Aittola <mait...@beta.hut.fi> wrote:
>>> Believe me, Batman isn't lunatic. He's world's greatest detective.
>>>
>> Batman is a fictional character who, if he were real, would have
>>been placed into an asylum years ago.
>
> SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! There are kids here, doofus!
>
>Talon T M
>Next you'll be dissing Santa
Wasn't he a druid? heh... OOP! forgot. kids. sorry.
Bradly E. Peterson
>In article <7152mf$8...@panix3.panix.com> fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>>No, I should think he's a bit loony because HE DRESSES UP AS A BAT in
>>order to do so. I'm surprised I have to explain this.
>
>True. Dressing up as a bat is looney tunes. Me, I dress up as a Sherman
>tank to battle the bad guys. :-)
So, what's your super secret codename? Sherman??? heh...
Bradly E. Peterson
>Interesting, but conversely, since Bats was one of the first to dress up and
>all the others followed suit (heh), wouldn't that just make him the guy near
>the front of the line to the asylum?
>
>If a score of people were delusional and believed they were the Emperor
>Napoleon, would that make them more sane by volume?
Yeah, but they're NUTS! They aren't Napoleon. I AM! hEEE!
No, not really. I just couldn't pass up the punchline. Please
forgive me. heh...
Bradly E. Peterson
>Drew Melbourne wrote:
>> Bradly E. Peterson (dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net) wrote:
>> : Let me put it this way... He saw his parents murdered right in
>> : front of him. He was just a kid. He obsesses on this, and
>> : dedicates his life to bringing down bad guys.
>
>Fuckinell. Up to here I thought you were still talking about John
>Byrne...
Who says I'm not? heh... Maybe he does it at night! That's why
he uses such a sparse artstyle! He's VERY quick, you know.
heh...
>> He dresses in an
>> : outfit designed to scare the crap out of the bad guys, who he
>> : ends up killing or beating senseless.
>
>Right, right, *now* I gotcha. This is Tom Spurgeon, isn't it?
I can neither confirm nor deny this, as Tom has not revealed his
secret codename to me as of this post. heh...
Bradly E. Peterson
>Bradly E. Peterson
>>Too true. The Presbeteryans were right...
>>People are just no damn good. heh... Lyin' bastids, all of us.
>
>I know you're just kidding, Bradley, but that's kind of my point. It's time
>we (as a species) stopped putting marks of good or bad on this stuff. Save
>'em for the outcome of hypocrisy. But most "hypocrisy" is innocuous, and
>mere self-contradiction. We're all just mortals, we do that.
True. I'm only sort of kidding, though. I believe that it's in
our nature to lie. And like you said, much of the time, we don't
give it a second thought, because we're really not thinking about
it when we say it, not realizing that we're not in complete
agreement with uh... ourselves. heh... We ARE just folks, and
as you said, we do that.
Mikko Aittola
Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Batman is a lunatic because he lives his life around an obsession
> deriving entirely from a childhood event, and he has no life other
> than his obsession, except to provide himself with a cover identity
> and resources to fuel his obsession.
Batman got over that obsession a long time ago. DC and some
"writers" there just seem to have forgotten it.
/Mikko
Alleigh
wrote:
>
>dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net (Bradly E. Peterson) writes:
>> Well, let's just put it this way...
>>
>> Halloween is approaching. On what other day of the year could
>> you dress up in rubber underwear, a leather cape and mask, and
>> prowl around at night, jump out from behind trees, grab people by
>> the collar pull them to your face and say (ala Keaton) "I'm
>> Batman", and they don't lock your ass up and have a psychiatrist
>> look you over?
>
> The difference is: the people you're referring to are not
> Batman.
>
> I guess, in your opinion, Native Americans, Arabs etc. are
> lunatics also because they don't dress like you do? What
> about police? They have "uniform" also. What about priests?
>
> Batman is not a lunatic.
Um you do get that cultural costumes are not in the same category as a
grown billionaire (who is might strange to begin with) chosing to
dress up as a bat to scare common thugs