"Calliope" Script vs. Comic

James Dawson

unread,

Jan 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/21/97

to av...@lafn.org

Over the weekend I (finally) got a copy of the Sandman "Dream Country"
collection, which includes Gaiman's original script for the "Calliope"
issue. I was amazed at what a poor job Kelley Jones, the artist on that
issue, did of following Gaiman's "instructions" for how the book should
look. Over and over, minutely detailed descriptions of what should
be going on in panels were studiously ignored by Jones -- whose
alternative was always (a) worse looking, (b) skimpier, and/or
(c) glaringly inappropriate, to the point of subverting the scenes'
intent. (Most notably, Jones' depiction of Calliope herself was devoid
of any subtlety, grace or expression whatsoever.)

As I read the script, I envisioned what the comic should look like based
on Gaiman's text. After I finished reading each page of script, however,
I would flip back and see how Jones had rendered it. No exaggeration, I
was disappointed EVERY SINGLE TIME. The biggest letdown was seeing the
total lack of detail in panels that Gaiman had gone to great lengths to
describe. There were times when the difference between script and art
was absolutely shocking -- to the point where I wondered if Gaiman,
upon seeing the art, reacted with, "Is this some kind of cruel joke?"

Obviously, an artist should be allowed some leeway to bring a little of
his own artistic sensibility to adapting a comics script. In this case,
though, the "cook" definitely should have stuck to the "recipe." There
are cases, for example, where Gaiman described the layout of whole pages
but Jones substituted his own designs. In every instance, the Jones
version is worse than what it replaced, to the degree that the
substitution seems to have been made simply to defy the script's
"authority." Asserting artistic independence is one thing, but Jones'
"artistic license" was more akin to "script sabotage."

"Calliope" certainly was not one of the better issues of Sandman --
the script was nothing more than a well-done version of a pretty shopworn
"House of Mystery"-type plot, when you come right down to it. But the
writing definitely was not well-served by Jones' art, which kept it from
having any chance of transcending its roots.

One thing I am curious about: Do copies of any other original Gaiman
Sandman scripts exist anywhere on the WWW? I would love to see how some
of the better issues looked in text form. (Of course, this might result
in nothing but more frustration...)

--James Dawson
av...@lafn.org

Bradly E. Peterson

unread,

Jan 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/23/97

to

James Dawson <av...@lafn.org> done said this here deal:

>Over the weekend I (finally) got a copy of the Sandman "Dream Country"
>collection, which includes Gaiman's original script for the "Calliope"
>issue. I was amazed at what a poor job Kelley Jones, the artist on that
>issue, did of following Gaiman's "instructions" for how the book should
>look. Over and over, minutely detailed descriptions of what should
>be going on in panels were studiously ignored by Jones -- whose
>alternative was always (a) worse looking, (b) skimpier, and/or
>(c) glaringly inappropriate, to the point of subverting the scenes'
>intent. (Most notably, Jones' depiction of Calliope herself was devoid
>of any subtlety, grace or expression whatsoever.)

There seems to be a school of thought (of which Jones apparently
is a part) where the full script are merely viewed as
"suggestions", and that it is the artist's idea of how it should
be that is more important.

I can't stand it. The writer is the one who first envisioned the
story and the characters and should be the template for every
damned detail. Sure, a capable artist should be able to take the
script and find things that he can add, but should go to the
writer first to be sure they are on the same page, so to speak.

Also, it would have been nice if they had chosen a capable artist
in the first place. (oooh... He's takin' pot shots! look out!)

I've never liked Kelley's art, as it desperately longed to look
like Berni Wrightson's stuff but seldom came close to it. I
don't know if Neil had any say as to who drew the issue or not,
but Jones was apparently the wrong choice.

Later yah'll...

Spread Love...
Play Nice...
Read Comics!!!

Bradly E. Peterson
(marv...@barefactsbbs.com)
Psychodrama Press
"I stared long and hard into the abyss...
...and saw myself staring back"

"Great spirits have always encountered
violent opposition from mediocre minds"
(Albert Einstein)

gold...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/23/97

to

James Dawson <av...@lafn.org> done said this here deal:

>Over the weekend I (finally) got a copy of the Sandman "Dream Country"
>collection, which includes Gaiman's original script for the "Calliope"
>issue. I was amazed at what a poor job Kelley Jones, the artist on that
>issue, did of following Gaiman's "instructions" for how the book should
>look. Over and over, minutely detailed descriptions of what should
>be going on in panels were studiously ignored by Jones -- whose
>alternative was always (a) worse looking, (b) skimpier, and/or
>(c) glaringly inappropriate, to the point of subverting the scenes'
>intent. (Most notably, Jones' depiction of Calliope herself was devoid
>of any subtlety, grace or expression whatsoever.)

Just one question:

Before you read the script what did you think of "Calliope"?

- Dave

David Glen

unread,

Jan 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/23/97

to

In article <5c7t8i$c...@news2.nkn.net>, marv...@barefactsbbs.com (Bradly
E. Peterson) wrote:

>snip<

>
>There seems to be a school of thought (of which Jones apparently
>is a part) where the full script are merely viewed as
>"suggestions", and that it is the artist's idea of how it should
>be that is more important.
>
>I can't stand it. The writer is the one who first envisioned the
>story and the characters and should be the template for every
>damned detail. Sure, a capable artist should be able to take the
>script and find things that he can add, but should go to the
>writer first to be sure they are on the same page, so to speak.
>
>Also, it would have been nice if they had chosen a capable artist
>in the first place. (oooh... He's takin' pot shots! look out!)
>
>I've never liked Kelley's art, as it desperately longed to look
>like Berni Wrightson's stuff but seldom came close to it. I
>don't know if Neil had any say as to who drew the issue or not,
>but Jones was apparently the wrong choice.
>

Personally, I have always thought that Kelly Jones was a good artist. He
happens to be a hell of a nice guy as well. I understand your point of view
about looking like Wrightson. However, just to give it a different
perspective, one could say that Muth, Williams, and even (gasp) McKean's
art all desperately longed to look like Bill Sienkewicz's stuff but seldom
came close... that doesn't make it a true statement. Jones is obviously
inspired by Wrightson, but I don't think he's trying to be Wrightson. As
long as he doesn't draw Batman (I hate the ears) I think he's a very
capable artist. Even if you don't like his art, you must agree that:

1. His style does fit with the other artist of the series and the whole
"feel" of Sandman in general.

2. Surely the world of Sandman could have done a lot worse..

As for the art not matching what the writer put down in the script. Well, I
think to a certain degree that the points are valid. But if through the
course of Sandman's run we only saw Neil's interpretation, the experience
might not have been as rewarding. Don't misunderstand... I've always felt
that Neil is a crackling ball of pure talent...but I don't believe that
just because he looks at a piece of paper that the virgin Mary would be
proud to wipe her ass with it. Sure, maybe Jones (and other artists)
strayed from or completely ignored Neil's guidlines. Maybe Neil hated it
and it caused him deep emotional problems. Maybe he liked it and felt the
issue was better for it. Maybe it doesn't matter. We've all gotten to read
the series.. and I think we're all better for it..

James Dawson

unread,

Jan 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/24/97

to av...@lafn.org

gold...@aol.com wrote:
>Just one question:
>
>Before you read the script what did you think of "Calliope"?
>
>- Dave

I thought it was a very generic, nothing-special, "Twilight-Zone"ish
piece -- the type of story that would not be out of place in DC's old
"House of Mystery" horror comic (although with more classical allusions
than those tales usually contained).

The script, however, had more of an "artistic" bent than the
published comic; it seemed to be striving to rise above itself, if only
through fancier window dressing than Jones supplied.

(Translation: The tale told in the script was as much a "genre" piece as
the one that ended up in the comic, but the difference in "set design"
was the difference between "Lost in Space" and "Alien" -- and in comics,
looks do count for a lot, after all.)

I wonder if Vertigo has considered publishing "remakes" of Gaiman
scripts, now that he has amassed enough of a reputation that his
back issues are kept permanently in print. If a new artist were given the
chance to draw an all-new version of "Calliope" from the same original
script, the difference could be as dramatic as that between the
hokey 1950s version of "The Fly" and David Cronenberg's brilliant 1980s
version. Okay, they weren't from the same scripts, but I think the point
still works...

--James "It would be funny, if life weren't so sacred" Dawson
av...@lafn.org

Mike Comeau

unread,

Jan 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/24/97

to

Bradly E. Peterson wrote:
>
> James Dawson <av...@lafn.org> done said this here deal:
>
> >Over the weekend I (finally) got a copy of the Sandman "Dream Country"
> >collection, which includes Gaiman's original script for the "Calliope"
> >issue. I was amazed at what a poor job Kelley Jones, the artist on that
> >issue, did of following Gaiman's "instructions" for how the book should
> >look. Over and over, minutely detailed descriptions of what should
> >be going on in panels were studiously ignored by Jones -- whose
> >alternative was always (a) worse looking, (b) skimpier, and/or
> >(c) glaringly inappropriate, to the point of subverting the scenes'
> >intent. (Most notably, Jones' depiction of Calliope herself was devoid
> >of any subtlety, grace or expression whatsoever.)
>

> There seems to be a school of thought (of which Jones apparently
> is a part) where the full script are merely viewed as
> "suggestions", and that it is the artist's idea of how it should
> be that is more important.
>
> I can't stand it. The writer is the one who first envisioned the
> story and the characters and should be the template for every
> damned detail. Sure, a capable artist should be able to take the
> script and find things that he can add, but should go to the
> writer first to be sure they are on the same page, so to speak.
>

Two points in reaction:

First, I also wish that an artist would follow a scripter's instructions
to the letter. If s/he's asked to work with a writer who gives detailed
instructions, and doesn't take such instruction well, s'he should
decline the invitation. (I understand that many writers do *not* give
detailed instructions.) See, what I love most about comics is the
writing (story, dialogue, character development); the visuals complement
the writing, for me. (Yes, I know others say "Comics are a visual
medium; the visuals come first!", but hey, to each his or her own,
right? Right?)

Second, this thread points to why I don't read original scripts
(including "Calliope", even though I own the trade) -- I enjoy the
stories (or I don't) as they're published, and it sort of spoils the fun
for me to read how the story might have been different.

Kelly Hills

unread,

Jan 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/24/97

to

Augh, *snip* *snip* *snip*

Follow the thread, there are too many posts for me to deal with.. :)

Nkay, first of all... lemme get this straight.. some of you feel that this
story evokes House of Mystery.. and some of you say that Kelley Jones's
work reminds you of Wrightson (I happen to agree.. very Swamp Thing ish)
.... didn't Wrightson do House of Mystery? Huh... seems fitting, then,
that the story and the art (of Calliope) bring you to think of the same
thing (Wrightson and House of Mystery)... ??

Secondly... uhm, maybe it;s just me, but I think if Gaiman and Jones had a
disagreement over the way Jones drew Sandman, Jones wouldn't have drawn
Sandman for as long as he did.

If Sandam were a photocopy of what Gaiman saw in his head as he wrote it,
the story arc wouldn't have been so interesting... one of the joys of
Sandman is seeing all of the different interpretations and ideas these
artists have for a character who appears in different form to everyone...

Besides, it coulda been an Image artist....

-Kelly

*The above reflects the views of the author, and in no way represent the views of Apple Computer, Inc.*

Luis

unread,

Jan 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/24/97

to

James Dawson <av...@lafn.org> wrote:

>One thing I am curious about: Do copies of any other original Gaiman
>Sandman scripts exist anywhere on the WWW? I would love to see how some
>of the better issues looked in text form. (Of course, this might result
>in nothing but more frustration...)

>--James Dawson
>av...@lafn.org

Could you indicate where to find Calliope's script in the Web?

Thanks
Luis =)

Sam Kelly

unread,

Jan 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/25/97

to

Bradly E. Peterson (marv...@barefactsbbs.com) wrote:
: James Dawson <av...@lafn.org> done said this here deal:

: I was amazed at what a poor job Kelley Jones, the artist on that

: >issue, did of following Gaiman's "instructions" for how the book should
: >look. Over and over, minutely detailed descriptions of what should
: >be going on in panels were studiously ignored by Jones -- whose
: >alternative was always (a) worse looking, (b) skimpier, and/or
: >(c) glaringly inappropriate, to the point of subverting the scenes'
: >intent. (Most notably, Jones' depiction of Calliope herself was devoid
: >of any subtlety, grace or expression whatsoever.)

Neil himself does mention some of these things in his annotations. To
my mind, he doesn't seem to resent the changes Jones made - and
surely, for the medium of a comic, if the writer is to be completely
in control, he should draw it himself. The spines of the TPBs
don't just say Gaiman: they say Gaiman, Kieth, Dringenberg (etc.) or
whatever. This is the idea of cooperation, and I'd say that if
you insisted that an artist drew exactly as you said, then you would
be, not to put too fine a point on it, forcing them to prostitute
their talent and artistic integrity. Eventually we'll be able to do
it by giving the writer's suggestions to a computer, but that will
totally remove any concept of the artist as co-creator. Gaiman has
said himself that he won't work on a script until he knows who the
artist will be, and I think we can assume that he subscribes to the
'artist as co-creator' school of thought.

In the script, as I recall (not having it in front of me) Gaiman
mentions that Jones obligingly toned down the first image of Calliope
as being too shocking, but the end result (which I think Gaiman was
satisfied with) was still more shocking than Gaiman envisioned.
As for subtlety and grace, this is a prisoner. To all appearances,
she could be a real girl. One of the recurring motifs of the
Sandman arc is the 'boundary' between illusion/mythology/dream and
reality. How would a real girl react in that sort of situation? I
wouldn't expect her to show grace under pressure. She'd be frightened,
slowly gaining in dignity over time as she got used to it.
Madoc is raping his Muse, and for this to happen the Muse has to be
mostly reality - the mythology only shows around the edges and as
a luminous, numinous halo.

I was enormously impressed by Calliope, and almost as much by the
script - watching the development of the story was fascinating.
Analyzing the comments, I didn't find any hint of a particularly
strained relationship between Gaiman and Jones.

OK, end of rant.

-Sam

shb...@york.ac.uk http://www.york.ac.uk/~shbk100/

listen: there's a hell of a good universe next door; let's go

James Dawson

unread,

Jan 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/25/97

to av...@lafn.org

hi...@apple.com (Kelly Hills) wrote:
(snip)

>If Sandam were a photocopy of what Gaiman saw in his head as he wrote it,
>the story arc wouldn't have been so interesting... one of the joys of
>Sandman is seeing all of the different interpretations and ideas these
>artists have for a character who appears in different form to everyone...

Have you actually read the "Calliope" script and compared it with the
Jones-drawn version? If you do so, I don't think that you will be as
eager to say that Jones' interpretation was "interesting."

Sometimes, "bad" is just plain "bad."

--James Dawson
av...@lafn.org

darby

unread,

Jan 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/25/97

to

Kelly Hills wrote:
>
> Augh, *snip* *snip* *snip*
>
> Follow the thread, there are too many posts for me to deal with.. :)

> Besides, it coulda been an Image artist....

OUCH! damn good point.
--
darby
who doesn't play well with others...

Tannhauser

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

to

On 24 Jan 1997, James Dawson wrote:

>
> I wonder if Vertigo has considered publishing "remakes" of Gaiman
> scripts, now that he has amassed enough of a reputation that his
> back issues are kept permanently in print. If a new artist were given the
> chance to draw an all-new version of "Calliope" from the same original
> script, the difference could be as dramatic as that between the
> hokey 1950s version of "The Fly" and David Cronenberg's brilliant 1980s
> version. Okay, they weren't from the same scripts, but I think the point
> still works...
>

"Hokey"? How dare you? Vincent Price...goddamn master of horror...
(10 points to whoever gets that reference, children. No cheating).

Wei-Hwa Huang

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

to

shb...@york.ac.uk (Sam Kelly) writes:
>surely, for the medium of a comic, if the writer is to be completely
>in control, he should draw it himself. The spines of the TPBs
>don't just say Gaiman: they say Gaiman, Kieth, Dringenberg (etc.) or
>whatever. This is the idea of cooperation, and I'd say that if
>you insisted that an artist drew exactly as you said, then you would
>be, not to put too fine a point on it, forcing them to prostitute
>their talent and artistic integrity. Eventually we'll be able to do
>it by giving the writer's suggestions to a computer, but that will
>totally remove any concept of the artist as co-creator. Gaiman has
>said himself that he won't work on a script until he knows who the
>artist will be, and I think we can assume that he subscribes to the
>'artist as co-creator' school of thought.

I agree with this completely, but I'll put a different bent on it.
This is why I prefer reading Japanese comics to American comics
(with the exception of Sandman); that in Japan, to survive in the
highly competitive comics market, you have to draw, write, and
do it quickly on a week-by-week basis. The overall effect is that
instead of a writer/artist clash or continuity problems, you have
unified stories that are written and drawn by the same person,
have a definie ending after so many episodes, and don't get picked
up again except in rare circumstances.

On the other hand, Gaiman is such a good storyteller his story
supersedes the art, IMHO. (That is, I can overlook the art and
let my own imagination detail the story).

If I ever learn to draw comics, I'm going to redraw the entire
Sandman storyline the way I like it. Haw! (Not that I'll ever
learn to draw comics.)
--
Wei-Hwa Huang, whu...@ugcs.caltech.edu, http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~whuang/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mystics believe in all statements that are equivalent to their negation.
(Of course, this set is empty, but if and only if it isn't.)

Sean C

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

to

On 24 Jan 1997, James Dawson wrote:

> gold...@aol.com wrote:
> >Just one question:
> >
> >Before you read the script what did you think of "Calliope"?
> >
> >- Dave

> I wonder if Vertigo has considered publishing "remakes" of Gaiman
> scripts, now that he has amassed enough of a reputation that his
> back issues are kept permanently in print. If a new artist were given the
> chance to draw an all-new version of "Calliope" from the same original
> script, the difference could be as dramatic as that between the
> hokey 1950s version of "The Fly" and David Cronenberg's brilliant 1980s
> version. Okay, they weren't from the same scripts, but I think the point
> still works...

Ooohh. Scarily good, commercialist idea.

Sean C.

Roland Rat

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

to

darby wrote:
>
> Kelly Hills wrote:
> >
> > Augh, *snip* *snip* *snip*
> >
> > Follow the thread, there are too many posts for me to deal with.. :)
>
> > Besides, it coulda been an Image artist....
>
> OUCH! damn good point.

Like Sam Keith? Hmm ...

David Glen

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

to

In article <32ECF7...@eleceng.ucl.ac.uk>, Roland Rat
<eeu...@eleceng.ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

I wouldn't call Sam Keith an Image artist... Admittedly, he joined up and
did the Maxx.. but the support was never really there and he never quite
fit in with those guys.. When you saw pictures of the Image artists, he
was never included..

At the very least, Sam Keith wasn't a Marvel artist who was whining about
not having enough control of the characters.. really, Image is (was, I
guess) Liefeld, Lee, McFarlane, Larson, Valentino, and Silvestri.. and I
suppose to a certain degree Portacio and Keown... However, I wouldn't call
Jeff Smith an Image artist.. or Gaiman, Moore, or Simm Image writers..
>shrug<

Kelly Hills

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

to

In article <5cbpeu$g...@zook.lafn.org>, James Dawson <av...@lafn.org> wrote:

> hi...@apple.com (Kelly Hills) wrote:
> (snip)
> >If Sandam were a photocopy of what Gaiman saw in his head as he wrote it,
> >the story arc wouldn't have been so interesting... one of the joys of
> >Sandman is seeing all of the different interpretations and ideas these
> >artists have for a character who appears in different form to everyone...
>
>
> Have you actually read the "Calliope" script and compared it with the
> Jones-drawn version? If you do so, I don't think that you will be as
> eager to say that Jones' interpretation was "interesting."
>

Yah, as a matter of fact, I did that when I first had the oppurtinity to,
after reading Calliope..... and I still maintain that the Jones version
is interesting..

> Sometimes, "bad" is just plain "bad."
>
> --James Dawson
> av...@lafn.org

Bad is a matter of opinion, as is interesting :)

Tiresias

Peace.
Roxanne...who really enjoyed *Gregory*!

Roxanne

unread,

Jan 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/29/97

to

On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:56:24 -0800, hi...@apple.com (Kelly Hills)
wrote:

>Actually, from various things I've read, I got the distinct impression
>Gaiman had full creative control from the get go,.. and also had planned a
>variety of artists from the beginning....
>
>-Kelly
>
>-Kelly

I'm with you Kelly! I heard the same from Shawn McManus who was the
artist on "Game of You". I asked him what it was like to work with
Neil and he stated that Neil gives *very* detailed instructions on
what he wants to see depicted in the comic book. The operative word
is "detailed". I got the impression that this was preferable for the
artist. Imho Michael Zulli, Craig P. Russell and Kelly Jones did the
best work on the series.

Considering the fact that Neil's relationship with DC is unprecedented
in the comic industry, it's not a stretch of the imagination to
surmise that he probably had *full* creative control. Considering the
fact he used Kelly Jones for a nice chunk of the series...I'm guessing
that he was *very* pleased with the results.

Just my $0.02. Heh.

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

to

Sean C wrote:
>
> On 29 Jan 1997, James Dawson wrote:
>
> >
> > In fact, I did feel that "Calliope" was sort of cheesy-looking the first
> > time I read it. In fact, as someone else on this NG pointed out (Cian?),
> > it is surprising to realize just how many issues of Sandman had pretty
> > lousy art. But that, also, is open to interpretation, I suppose...and
> > the stories more than made up for any shortcomings, for the most part.
>

> You know, I can't help but agree. I've always found Kelley Jones to be a
> bit overstated. ANd Mike Dringdenberg just doesn't do a thing for me.
> You can notice a dramatic improvement when they stop looking for the ONE
> Sandman artist and start looking for the right artist for the story.
> Then you get things like Charles Vess and Marc Hempel.
>

> Sean C.

Marc Hempel?!! His "Kindly Ones" all had characters with chins that
could cut through steel! And cheekbones that looked like crossbow arms!!

Though I like his drawings of Morpheus a lot(the sharp, brooding,
intense lines and the drawn, half-starved looking features were very
appropriate), the Corinthian somewhat and Lucifer.

Charles Vess... no disagreement there.

Kelly Hills

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

to

In article <32F08C...@eleceng.ucl.ac.uk>, Roland Rat
<eeu...@eleceng.ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

*snip*

> The blanket label of 'Image Artists' is not fair. They do have a
> range of styles (over the company, not just one section). Have you
> seen Travis Charest's work on WildCATS? Better than any
> penciller at Vertigo by far (IMHO), but also very far from being
> the clone that he once was, well away from any house style.
>
> (I suppose knowing about Image means that while I read Vertigo
> comics, I don't appreciate them fully :) ).

Well, when I mentioned Image artists, I really was referring to the ones
who STARTED the whole thing, before Image kinda split into two companies
and before people started leaving for Marvel again... I suppose I meant
the ones Peter David was slamming in But I Digress , for working crowds
into dangerous frenzies n such... back when Image, was, well... new I
guess.... :)

But you are right, any blanket label is going to have holes

James Dawson

unread,

Jan 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/31/97

to av...@lafn.org

ro...@tiac.net (Roxanne) wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:56:24 -0800, hi...@apple.com (Kelly Hills)
>wrote:
>>Actually, from various things I've read, I got the distinct impression
>>Gaiman had full creative control from the get go,.. and also had planned a
>>variety of artists from the beginning....
>>
>>-Kelly

>I'm with you Kelly! I heard the same from Shawn McManus who was the

>artist on "Game of You". I asked him what it was like to work with
>Neil and he stated that Neil gives *very* detailed instructions on
>what he wants to see depicted in the comic book. The operative word
>is "detailed". I got the impression that this was preferable for the
>artist. Imho Michael Zulli, Craig P. Russell and Kelly Jones did the
>best work on the series.
>
>Considering the fact that Neil's relationship with DC is unprecedented
>in the comic industry, it's not a stretch of the imagination to
>surmise that he probably had *full* creative control. Considering the
>fact he used Kelly Jones for a nice chunk of the series...I'm guessing
>that he was *very* pleased with the results.

I never said that Gaiman did not write very detailed scripts, nor that
he did not want to know who would be drawing a book before he wrote
its script.

I said that I would be VERY surprised if Gaiman had so much control at
the time of "Calliope"'s printing that he could have had a whole book
redrawn if he was displeased with the result.

THAT would be full creative control: The ability to get Vertigo to pay
to have a book redrawn by a different artist if Gaiman was
displeased with what the original artist produced.

--James Dawson
av...@lafn.org

Ed S Leung

unread,

Jan 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/31/97

to

Kelly Hills (hi...@apple.com) wrote:

: Secondly... uhm, maybe it;s just me, but I think if Gaiman and Jones had a
: disagreement over the way Jones drew Sandman, Jones wouldn't have drawn
: Sandman for as long as he did.

I believe this was one of the first if not the first time Jones had
worked with Gaiman and was among the first batch of stories after
"regular" artists Sam Keith and Mike Dringenberg (sp?) had departed.

Gaiman has said that he likes to gear his scripts towards an artists
strengths. Sam Kieth left after the first couple of issues because he
just wasn't drawing what he wanted to draw in the first two issues. Neil
tried to remedy this somewhat with the Hell issue. Even if we don't
think that Jones was appropriate for Calliope, he subsequently proved
better in Season of Mist and a Dream of a thousand Cats. I believe
Season of Mist was written to suite Jones' strengths. I think it was
around this time that Gaiman refused to start a script until he knew
which artist was working on it and he had a chance to talk with the artist.

: If Sandam were a photocopy of what Gaiman saw in his head as he wrote it,

: the story arc wouldn't have been so interesting... one of the joys of
: Sandman is seeing all of the different interpretations and ideas these
: artists have for a character who appears in different form to everyone...

Agreed. Some work better than others, but in the overall picture,
Sandman has a better average than most in regards to appropriate choices
of artists for any given story.

: Besides, it coulda been an Image artist....

Now who do we think SHOULD have drawn the story?

Russell Miller

unread,

Jan 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/31/97

to

On 31 Jan 1997 02:54:08 GMT, James Dawson <av...@lafn.org> wrote:

>THAT would be full creative control: The ability to get Vertigo to pay
to have a book redrawn by a different artist if Gaiman was
displeased with what the original artist produced.

Maybe he should join image.............

////////....../

Cian O'Connor

unread,

Feb 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/2/97

to

Lance "Squiddie" Smith (squi...@visi.com) wrote:
: The ever trivial Tannhauser <trin...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes:

: > "Hokey"? How dare you? Vincent Price...goddamn master of horror...

: > (10 points to whoever gets that reference, children. No cheating).

: I prefer,

: "We then debated the "Vampire LeStat" casting debacle...and No,
: No, Pete, we will not discuss it anymore tonight! Really,
: Pete--Christoper-Fucking-Lee?!? Okay, he's certain old enough to be a
: vampire, but let's get real, Hah?"

: "Fuck you, Bill! Lee is a modern master of horror!"

: "So's yer mother, Pete!"

: "So's your face, Bill..."

: No points. This isn't for credit.

Edwin Dorkin isn't it? Can't remember the comic.

Cian

Tannhauser

unread,

Feb 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/3/97

to

Is it worth it, I ask myself?

>
>