Sandman: Wake Art
David Crotty
I really don't like the way this arc looks. Zulli's wispy lines look
like the stylings of a 13 year old girl with a Narnia (or Tolkien)
fixation. All his excessive scratchy spidery lines make the characters
look like they're sprouting out random tufts of hair (especially
Matthew).
After Hempel's clean lines and extremely stylized characters, all this
Fantasy Novel Business bugs me.
dave
Carl Fink
dacr...@cco.caltech.edu (David Crotty) wrote:
>Maybe it's just me (I've seen alot of praise for Zulli's art), but
It's just you. This is, at least for me, the best drawn arc of any in
Sandman. I'll go further -- #70 was the best drawn single issue I've
seen in years. As I posted then, Delirium's expression alone was
worth the price of admission.
The one I could never see was "Ramadan", where I thought the art was
average and everyone else raved.
--
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com madsci...@genie.com
Assistant Sysop, GEnie's First and Fourth Science Fiction RoundTables
The SFRT page has moved to http://sfrt.greyware.com/sfrt
Katherine E. Martin
>Maybe it's just me
It's just you. *grin*
>(I've seen alot of praise for Zulli's art), but
>I really don't like the way this arc looks. Zulli's wispy lines look
>like the stylings of a 13 year old girl with a Narnia (or Tolkien)
>fixation. All his excessive scratchy spidery lines make the characters
>look like they're sprouting out random tufts of hair (especially
>Matthew).
Worried or tense or angry birds _DO_ puff up, though. Also sexually
aroused birds, but we won't mention that right now.
>After Hempel's clean lines and extremely stylized characters, all this
>Fantasy Novel Business bugs me.
Yes, well, Hempel annoyed me no end.
-kate
--
Kate Martin - k...@gnu.ai.mit.edu jul...@haven.org
"Dear Sue: Yes, there are more difficult things than combining a family and
a career. Swimming the Amazon covered in peanut butter, for one." - "Sylvia"
"Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis" - allegedly Emerson
Marc Singer
>In article <409279$k...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
>dacr...@cco.caltech.edu (David Crotty) wrote:
>>Maybe it's just me (I've seen alot of praise for Zulli's art), but
>>I really don't like the way this arc looks. [specifics deleted]
>
>It's just you. This is, at least for me, the best drawn arc of any in
>Sandman. I'll go further -- #70 was the best drawn single issue I've
>seen in years. As I posted then, Delirium's expression alone was
>worth the price of admission.
I also think it's very well suited to the story. They don't need dark,
disturbed fantasy like Jones in Season of Mists, or the stylized "cool"
of Marc Hempel (which I didn't really enjoy without the Case inks anyway).
The people in the Wake need the soft and somber touch that Zulli gives them.
>The one I could never see was "Ramadan", where I thought the art was
>average and everyone else raved.
I agree with you. Well, actually, I think it was more a mediocre story
for me -- the art just never rose above the level of the story it was
shackled to.
Marc
Shawn Hill
: Maybe it's just me (I've seen alot of praise for Zulli's art), but
: like the stylings of a 13 year old girl with a Narnia (or Tolkien)
: fixation. All his excessive scratchy spidery lines make the characters
: look like they're sprouting out random tufts of hair (especially
: Matthew).
Hey, finally, a Hempel fan! We're in the minority here, buddy, I hate to
tell you. I think people like Zulli because of the naturalistic affect
of his work--it's easy to understand because it's trying to be
"realistic." Personally, if my dreams were realistic I'd stay awake.
The fantastic, surreal aspect of them is what I like, and Hempel did an
admirable job of capturing that symbolic, multi-leveled, Jungian realm.
People also were generally bummed out by what they perceived as the
rambling nature of TKO. I have a theory as to why: most posters are still
youngish males, and TKO was an incredibly Woman-centered story. It was
the Furies getting revenge just cause they don't LIKE a guy, it was Lyta,
Thessaly, and Desire (a feminine force in appearance, generally) getting
revenge, it was Rose on a personal journey, and it was legions and legions
of males being ineffectual (Loki, FG, Cain, paramilitary Mervyn*, Dream
himself. It was a circular, reflective narrative rather than a
traditional, dramatic linear one (no climax and denouement, or, rather,
many climaxes and a delayed denouement). Notice how it ended where it
began.
Also, Nuala played a major role in Dream's demise but mostly
because she was naive and immature (a faerie trying to be a woman). This
makes people see Dream's death as bitterly unfair, and then they can't
relate many of the stories to their own power fantasies either.
People also like the novelty of Zulli without inks (definitely an
improvement over his first crappy appearance at Hob's intro with sketchy,
sloppy inks).
Hey, is this a good place for a favourite artist poll? Do you prefer the
surreal or the seemingly real? Who was best? Here's all the ones I
remember:
Mike Drindenberg
Sam Keith
Kelley Jones
Jill Thompson
Shawn McManus
Hempel
Chris Bachalo
P. Craig Russell
Michael Zulli
I know there were many others. My faves were Jones, McManus and Hempel.
*IMHO, the whole brilliantly designed (by Gaiman and Hempel) demise of
Mervyn is the whole POINT of TKO in a nutshell.
Shawn Hill, amateur psychologist but professional art critic
*******************************************************
"It must be a REAL name that people can say."
"PLIPPY PLOPPY CHEESENOSE?"
"No. Try again."
"EBLIS O'SHAUGNESSY?"
"Okay."
--Neil Gaiman/the Sandman
*********Shawn**Hill*******sh...@husc.harvard.edu******
Shawn Hill
: >Maybe it's just me (I've seen alot of praise for Zulli's art), but
: It's just you. This is, at least for me, the best drawn arc of any in
It's NOT just you.
Sorry, couldn't resist. There's a majority opinion on Zulli in this
group, but it's not the same thing as a unanimity.
Shawn Hill
Susannah Mandel
: In article <0YOAmWUd...@panix.com>, Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
: >In article <409279$k...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
: >dacr...@cco.caltech.edu (David Crotty) wrote:
: >>Maybe it's just me (I've seen alot of praise for Zulli's art), but
: >>I really don't like the way this arc looks. [specifics deleted]
: >It's just you. This is, at least for me, the best drawn arc of any in
: >Sandman.
: I also think it's very well suited to the story. They don't need dark,
: disturbed fantasy like Jones in Season of Mists, or the stylized "cool"
: of Marc Hempel (which I didn't really enjoy without the Case inks anyway).
Look, y'all, you know what? I'm really starting to think that this is...
;)... all _a matter of taste_. Honest.
For example, I really loved Hempel's work on 'The Kindly Ones'
(though I agree that it was _definitely_ stronger with Case on inks). I
thought it was a brilliantly welcome change, and I think that seeing
lots of _widely_ varying interpretations of the Dream-King and his
stories can only add to whole idea behind it -- that deities and other
beings are shaped by the observer; that Morpheus is only one facet of a
larger stone; that there are two sides to every sky.
I opened up the first issue of 'The Kindly Ones' and, I confess,
I was highly displeased -- nearly shocked, actually. Then I read the
issue; and I read it again. And I discovered that I loved Hempel's take
on things. I think this is one of the most beautifully rendered story
arcs yet (not least of all because of the way Hempel/Case's work lets
the colors glow...)
Similarly, I hated Jill Thompson's work on 'Brief Lives' the
first time through; but ten or twelve readings later, I decided that I
actually rather liked it. (On the other hand, I think rather less of
Jones's 'Season of Mists' now than I did when I first read it; and I
simply never have liked Kieth's 'Preludes and Nocturnes' -- the style
is... interesting, and dark, but not really right for Sandman, in my
opinion.) 'A Game of You' has always left me more or less neutral. 'A
Doll's House' varies vastly in quality within the tale; but the story
itself is so strong, you see, that to me it hardly matters at all.
Well, at any rate: I liked Hempel's run on the book. And --
surprise! -- I also like Zulli's, very much (though I perceive niggling
flaws in his otherwise heavenly work which prevent me from raving about
it the way some of you do.) But, well, please allow Susannah to
emphasize her opinion that it's really all a matter of taste: My
favorite Sandman was Dringenberg's. Always has been, always will be. I
thought his take on ol' Morpheus was perfect (not to mention _very_
beguiling ;).
I am sure some will disagree; but, as I said -- it's subjective.
All a matter of... perception. ;)
cheers,
--;-;--@ susannah };&)
liked Ramadan, but thought the sheer complexity and beauty of the design
far outmatched any splendor in the actual rendering. On the other hand,
the Orpheus tale was just plain _ugly_. *shrug*
========================================================================
The Devil, having nothing else to do,
Went off to tempt My Lady Poltagrue.
My Lady, tempted by a private whim,
To his extreme annoyance, tempted him.
-- Hilaire Belloc: 'On Lady Poltagrue, a Public Peril.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Susannah R Mandel * sma...@fas.harvard.edu * (508) 877-6666
************************************************************************
"My God!" ejaculated Phelps.
David Crotty
Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>Hey, finally, a Hempel fan! We're in the minority here, buddy, I hate to
>tell you. I think people like Zulli because of the naturalistic affect
>of his work--it's easy to understand because it's trying to be
>"realistic." Personally, if my dreams were realistic I'd stay awake.
>The fantastic, surreal aspect of them is what I like, and Hempel did an
>admirable job of capturing that symbolic, multi-leveled, Jungian realm.
>
Well said. I like Hempel's work because it seems so extreme. The Sandman
should indeed be surreal, not flowery (and hairy-looking) as Zulli has
made it look. Maybe I'm just being crabby, but his work is a little
too lame-fantasy-novel-cover looking for me. In a perfect world, the
comic, like the Sandman, would appear differently to each reader.
>Hey, is this a good place for a favourite artist poll? Do you prefer the
>surreal or the seemingly real? Who was best? Here's all the ones I
>remember:
>
Put me down for Hempel. Where's the t-shirt of his "I'm your master's
sister." frame?
dave
Marc Singer
Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>Hey, finally, a Hempel fan! We're in the minority here, buddy, I hate to
>tell you. I think people like Zulli because of the naturalistic affect
>of his work--it's easy to understand because it's trying to be
>"realistic." Personally, if my dreams were realistic I'd stay awake.
>The fantastic, surreal aspect of them is what I like, and Hempel did an
>admirable job of capturing that symbolic, multi-leveled, Jungian realm.
And your dreams look anything like Hempel art? Hey, I think there's a spare
room in Arkham... :)
While I suppose that everybody dreams differently, I find that more "surreal"
art captures the way I view dreams -- "surreal" in its true sense of "sur-
real", super-real, images that look perfectly naturalistic but simply don't
fit together. I think Dringenberg might have been the best at capturing
that feeling, but Zulli can also do it quite well. His centaurs and severed
heads and ravens all seem to fit together somehow, despite the fact that
they shouldn't, and that seems to be a major quality of dreams.
Also, I wouldn't say there was much that was "multi-leveled" in Hempel's
style. In the images he drew, perhaps, but that was dictated by the script.
The style itself struck me as being very much the opposite of multi-layered;
the "overdesigning" bled everything together into one stylistic wash.
>People also were generally bummed out by what they perceived as the
>rambling nature of TKO. I have a theory as to why: most posters are still
>youngish males, and TKO was an incredibly Woman-centered story. It was
>the Furies getting revenge just cause they don't LIKE a guy, it was Lyta,
>Thessaly, and Desire (a feminine force in appearance, generally) getting
>revenge, it was Rose on a personal journey, and it was legions and legions
>of males being ineffectual (Loki, FG, Cain, paramilitary Mervyn*, Dream
>himself. It was a circular, reflective narrative rather than a
>traditional, dramatic linear one (no climax and denouement, or, rather,
>many climaxes and a delayed denouement). Notice how it ended where it
>began.
>
>Also, Nuala played a major role in Dream's demise but mostly
>because she was naive and immature (a faerie trying to be a woman). This
>makes people see Dream's death as bitterly unfair, and then they can't
>relate many of the stories to their own power fantasies either.
Won't Katie Schwarz and the other women who criticized TKO be surprised to
hear this. Or do they qualify as "honorary men" because they didn't like
TKO? But let's take a step back here for a minute, Shawn.
Some people can praise the works they like for their own merits. Some
people can attack the works they don't like for their own flaws. Some people,
unfortunately, will attack the works they don't like for other people's (who
do like those works) perceived flaws. But even *that* is a sounder argument
than "praising" a work for the flaws of its detractors.
Now, specificially to the Kindly Ones. Plenty of female-centered stories
have had positive responses; generally, these female-centered stories differ
from TKO in *other* ways, explaining why they might be received differently.
A Game of You, which was *clearly* more interested in women and gender than
TKO was, was also a six-part story which generally knew where it was going,
and got there. And obviously, nobody would say the many one-issue stories
about women (E-Girl's death, Ishtar's last dance, etc.) were rambling.
Maybe Shawn, just maybe, people say The Kindly Ones rambled *because it
rambled.* Heretical, I know, but consider it!
Also, I disagree with many of the statements you accept as facts. I don't
think the Furies were getting revenge "just because they don't like a guy,"
it was because *he killed his son*. Them's the rules. Desire didn't get
revenge on *anybody*, and is not any more feminine than he/she is masculine.
(Drawn feminine, perhaps, but not written that way.) Loki was pretty
effectual at first, and Corinthian was even more effective. The final issues
dwelled on the Dream/Matt relationship. Most of all, though, I find
your implication that a circular narrative is somehow more "feminine" than
a linear one to be hogwash. How can you characterize one gender as circular
and one as linear? (And wouldn't Joyce, Beckett, Proust, and plenty of
other men be surprised to hear that?)
Finally, what makes you think that (male) Sandman readers only enjoy
works they can relate to their power fantasies? By this reasoning, those
nasty young men would also have slammed on Brief Lives's ending (Orpheus
dies, Morpheus is doomed), A Game of You (the skerry is destroyed, Wanda
dies), most of Distant Mirrors (various mortals die and empires fall), even
a Season of Mists (Dream gives up Hell, doesn't get to live with Nada, and
there's no big fight at the end -- which is true of most Sandman stories).
These works haven't attracted the criticism TKO has, which maybe, just maybe,
might be due to something other than your half-baked pop-psych explanation.
I would suggest that you stop making generalizations about your fellow
readers, and keep to the stories themselves. Frankly, any work which you
can only compliment by detracting those who disagree probably isn't worth
defending anyway.
>Hey, is this a good place for a favourite artist poll? Do you prefer the
>surreal or the seemingly real? Who was best? Here's all the ones I
>remember:
As I said above, I think Zulli, Dringenberg, etc. are surreal precisely
because they are seemingly real.
>*IMHO, the whole brilliantly designed (by Gaiman and Hempel) demise of
>Mervyn is the whole POINT of TKO in a nutshell.
The best Sandman stories -- and TKO as well :) -- tend to be harder to
summarize than nutshells will allow. Mervyn's scene captures the "men
failing to stop women" theme well enough, but there's a lot more in TKO
that doesn't get summarized in that scene. Lyta's journey, which is all
but abandoned in the later issues, into the madness of revenge. Dream's
unwillingness -- not, as Death clearly stated, his inability -- to do
anything to save himself. Zelda. And I won't even try to guess how the
boggart fits in...
>Shawn Hill, amateur psychologist but professional art critic
Don't quit the day job, eh? ;-) (Although, considering this relates to
the day job too...)
Marc
Buzz940850
really do think it's beautiful, and I can't think of any other words to
describe it.
Talking about the Kindly Ones, I am a 19 year old male who did not
especially enjoy the story, but not because it involved women. I didn't
like it as much as the other storys because the characters and the story
seemed to just be wandering around, with no real purpose or role. The
story dragged on and on, with no end in site. The issue with Rose hearing
the fairy tail is a perfect example. I know Gaiman loves those things,
but that was just pointless. Anyway, it's over, and no point blasting it
now.
As for my favorite Sandman artists:
1) Mike Drienberg: draws the best vision of Morpheus yet.
2) Jill Thompson
3) Michael Zulli
Honorable mention to Kelly Jones.
***********************************************************
Ben Butler - butl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu -buzz9...@aol.com
Univ of Minnesota - Gaiman and Zulli and the best team since Englehart and
Milgrom. Long live the Foo Fighters!
***********************************************************
Shawn Hill
: Also, I wouldn't say there was much that was "multi-leveled" in Hempel's
: style. In the images he drew, perhaps, but that was dictated by the script.
: The style itself struck me as being very much the opposite of multi-layered;
: the "overdesigning" bled everything together into one stylistic wash.
Multi-layered in that he drew simple symbols for complex themes, in a kind
of code, an iconographic language that was logical and consistent with
itself. Dream's brooding face, the Kindly Ones' shadow form, the many
different singular point-of-view shots, the glamour of Lux vs. the
grandeur of Destiny's garden vs. the ever-changing facets of the Dreaming
vs. the shabbiness of Thessaly's pad; the correspondence/dissonance
between Lyta's dream-journey and her "real" one, etc. Dictated by the
script maybe but REALIZED by Hempel.
: Won't Katie Schwarz and the other women who criticized TKO be surprised to
: hear this. Or do they qualify as "honorary men" because they didn't like
: TKO? But let's take a step back here for a minute, Shawn.
I said "most" . Not all. I admitted it was a generalized supposition
from the start. And I saw plenty of evidence for it in the posts I was
reading.
: Some people can praise the works they like for their own merits. Some
: people can attack the works they don't like for their own flaws. Some people,
: unfortunately, will attack the works they don't like for other people's (who
: do like those works) perceived flaws. But even *that* is a sounder argument
: than "praising" a work for the flaws of its detractors.
You misunderstand. I was trying to explain WHY a work I thought so
successful might HAVE detractors at all. I wasn't trying to praise it (I
take TKO's success as a given), but to understand why others did not.
: Now, specificially to the Kindly Ones. Plenty of female-centered stories
: have had positive responses; generally, these female-centered stories differ
: from TKO in *other* ways, explaining why they might be received differently.
: A Game of You, which was *clearly* more interested in women and gender than
AGOY was interested in GIRLS and gender, and BOYS and gender. TKO was
about the journeys of several different WOMEN.
: TKO was, was also a six-part story which generally knew where it was going,
: and got there. And obviously, nobody would say the many one-issue stories
: about women (E-Girl's death, Ishtar's last dance, etc.) were rambling.
: Maybe Shawn, just maybe, people say The Kindly Ones rambled *because it
: rambled.* Heretical, I know, but consider it!
I think what others perceive as rambling I perceived as richness, detail,
embellishment, etc.
: Also, I disagree with many of the statements you accept as facts. I don't
: think the Furies were getting revenge "just because they don't like a guy,"
: it was because *he killed his son*. Them's the rules. Desire didn't get
Well, check out their response to Lyta when she wants revenge for Daniel,
as they are attacking dream. It's like Morpheus' killing his son was a
technicality that allowed them to kill this guy they disliked. And they
hated the very Orpheus they were avenging.
: revenge on *anybody*, and is not any more feminine than he/she is masculine.
: (Drawn feminine, perhaps, but not written that way.)
But why is s/he always drawn as a woman-in-a-suit, rather than as a man
in a dress, for example?
: a linear one to be hogwash. How can you characterize one gender as circular
: and one as linear? (And wouldn't Joyce, Beckett, Proust, and plenty of
: other men be surprised to hear that?)
This is always hard for me to explain. I see my psyche as divided into
male and female sides (though I'm a male). I think everyone has both
facets of the gender/dichotomy in their heads, and choses which part to
listen to/develop. A work like Ulysses, while in content touches on many
masculine and feminine issues, in form I would find it more
relational/subjective/interactive/reflective/discursive. I would classify
it's structure as being feminine (it was a groundbreaking work in that it
dispensed with the linear narrative that still dominates literature).
Lots of people don't agree with me on this, and I've yet to find the words
to make myself clear.
: Finally, what makes you think that (male) Sandman readers only enjoy
: works they can relate to their power fantasies? By this reasoning, those
: nasty young men would also have slammed on Brief Lives's ending (Orpheus
: dies, Morpheus is doomed), A Game of You (the skerry is destroyed, Wanda
: dies), most of Distant Mirrors (various mortals die and empires fall), even
: a Season of Mists (Dream gives up Hell, doesn't get to live with Nada, and
: there's no big fight at the end -- which is true of most Sandman stories).
: These works haven't attracted the criticism TKO has, which maybe, just maybe,
: might be due to something other than your half-baked pop-psych explanation.
: I would suggest that you stop making generalizations about your fellow
: readers, and keep to the stories themselves. Frankly, any work which you
: can only compliment by detracting those who disagree probably isn't worth
: defending anyway.
As I said, I wasn't trying to compliment, but to understand the
criticisms of others. Also, I didn't call anyone "nasty young men."
More like naive and in-experienced.
: >*IMHO, the whole brilliantly designed (by Gaiman and Hempel) demise of
: >Mervyn is the whole POINT of TKO in a nutshell.
: The best Sandman stories -- and TKO as well :) -- tend to be harder to
: summarize than nutshells will allow. Mervyn's scene captures the "men
: failing to stop women" theme well enough, but there's a lot more in TKO
: that doesn't get summarized in that scene. Lyta's journey, which is all
: but abandoned in the later issues, into the madness of revenge. Dream's
: unwillingness -- not, as Death clearly stated, his inability -- to do
: anything to save himself. Zelda. And I won't even try to guess how the
: boggart fits in...
But WHY was Dream unwilling to save himself? And I think it was because
he was so broken-hearted at failing so often at love with WOMEN. The
Mervyn thing was a fragment that contained the whole, which is how I
viewed Hempel's art is well. Each piece/panel/etc. contains/is
completely consistent with the entire narrative.
Shawn
***********************************************************
"You coming, Pats?"
"Oh, he wouldn't want ME there, Eddy."
"....if you want the HOUSE, sweetie ...."
"Oh, yeah, HE'D WANT ME THERE--!"
sh...@husc.harvard.edu -----------------Shawn-------------
Roland Wong
[snip]
Buzz940850> As for my favorite Sandman artists:
Buzz940850> 1) Mike Drienberg: draws the best vision of Morpheus
Buzz940850> yet. 2) Jill Thompson 3) Michael Zulli
Buzz940850> Honorable mention to Kelly Jones.
ok, you can count me as a hempel fan. love that clean, stark look.
but i have a general question out there for you all--which is your
favorite representation of dream? i think he looks the coolest in
'soft places', with his appearances in 'the kindly ones' a neat
second.
roland
Jessica A. Piscitelli
Roland Wong (rol...@mithril.ulib.albany.edu) wrote:
: roland
His appearance in a doll's house was the coolest. He looked like sid
vicious or daniel ash. He also looked pretty good in the poster page at
the end of ramadan when he's standing half naked with that cat woman.
The last year has been pretty bad becauyse I haven't liked the last
artists work at all. Too angled, But I got used to it and might
actually miss it. It definitely had the right effect.
jessica
dor...@cats.ucsc.edu
I _think_ my favorite representation of Dream, and of all of the Endless
for that matter, is on the "Still Life With Cats" poster, which is
conveniently hanging right over my computer. I say "I think" because I
haven't gone back through my Sandmans for a while now (though now's as good
a time as any!), but this one has always had quite an effect on me.
-K.
Abhay Khosla
> Talking about the Kindly Ones, I am a 19 year old male who did not
> especially enjoy the story, but not because it involved women. I didn't
Someone actually accused someone of this?
> story dragged on and on, with no end in site. The issue with Rose hearing
> the fairy tail is a perfect example. I know Gaiman loves those things,
Hrm, I liked that story... It didn't help the arc, though, I guess...
> As for my favorite Sandman artists:
>
> 1) Mike Drienberg: draws the best vision of Morpheus yet.
> 2) Jill Thompson
> 3) Michael Zulli
I didn't much care for Thompson there. Okay enough. She's a good
artist but i get tired of her quickly...
I'd say....
1) Mike Drienberg
2) John Watkiss - i just like both of the stories he's done quite a bit
3) Maybe Zulli...he had a dream in Rare Bit Fiends that was wonderful,
by the way...The Beast or something..
Honorable mentions to Charles Vess for being ... Charles Vess and for P.
Craig Russel because the P stands for Piss Off I Liked Ramadan...
-Abhay
akh...@umich.edu
Katie Schwarz
>Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>
>: Also, I wouldn't say there was much that was "multi-leveled" in Hempel's
>: style. In the images he drew, perhaps, but that was dictated by the script.
>: The style itself struck me as being very much the opposite of multi-layered;
>: the "overdesigning" bled everything together into one stylistic wash.
>
>Multi-layered in that he drew simple symbols for complex themes, in a kind
>of code, an iconographic language that was logical and consistent with
>itself. Dream's brooding face, the Kindly Ones' shadow form, the many
>different singular point-of-view shots, the glamour of Lux vs. the
>grandeur of Destiny's garden vs. the ever-changing facets of the Dreaming
>vs. the shabbiness of Thessaly's pad; the correspondence/dissonance
>between Lyta's dream-journey and her "real" one, etc. Dictated by the
>script maybe but REALIZED by Hempel.
I don't understand this; can you rephrase it? What stood for what in the
iconographic code? What were the different layers?
I liked Hempel, most of the time, because he captured the moods of tension
and fear and anger, and because the way he drew everything extremely
stylized and with so few lines forced me to take a fresh look at the
characters, drawing me into the story yet not impeding its flow. On the
other hand, a lot of people just found his characters so ugly they were
hard to get into, and occasionally they had that effect on me too.
[Shawn: The Kindly Ones was disparaged because young males want to read
adolescent power fantasies, not woman-centered reflective stories]
>: Some people can praise the works they like for their own merits. Some
>: people can attack the works they don't like for their own flaws. Some people,
>: unfortunately, will attack the works they don't like for other people's (who
>: do like those works) perceived flaws. But even *that* is a sounder argument
>: than "praising" a work for the flaws of its detractors.
>
>You misunderstand. I was trying to explain WHY a work I thought so
>successful might HAVE detractors at all. I wasn't trying to praise it (I
>take TKO's success as a given), but to understand why others did not.
Assuming that other people didn't like something you liked because they're
too immature to see its merits is a mistake... ESPECIALLY on Usenet! How
about responding to TKO critics with rebuttals of their arguments -- or
just ignoring them -- instead of armchair-psychoanalyzing them?
>: Now, specificially to the Kindly Ones. Plenty of female-centered stories
>: have had positive responses; generally, these female-centered stories differ
>: from TKO in *other* ways, explaining why they might be received differently.
>: A Game of You, which was *clearly* more interested in women and gender than
>
>AGOY was interested in GIRLS and gender, and BOYS and gender. TKO was
>about the journeys of several different WOMEN.
Come on, you know that's hairsplitting. And I don't believe it anyway; Lyta
and Rose don't seem any more grown-up to me than Hazel, Foxglove, Barbie and
Wanda.
I thought A Game of You was much more about woman-centered themes than
The Kindly Ones -- I'll have to save the detailed explanation for another
post so this doesn't get too long.
>I think what others perceive as rambling I perceived as richness, detail,
>embellishment, etc.
The difference between rambling and richness is that richness means
something, develops character, has some relation to the story. There were
some parts of TKO where I thought the details were terrific, especially
Lyta's hallucinatory journey where she meets Puss in Boots and the Gorgons.
Those issues really got me into Lyta's head, showed what she was experiencing
and feeling. There were other parts that seemed to do nothing more than fill
space and mislead the reader, especially all those long conversations with
Lucifer that didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. And I was
annoyed that Dr. Destiny's cousin Celia was introduced (she meets Rose on
the airplane) for no apparent reason other than teasing readers into thinking
she had some importance.
>: Also, I disagree with many of the statements you accept as facts. I don't
>: think the Furies were getting revenge "just because they don't like a guy,"
>: it was because *he killed his son*. Them's the rules. Desire didn't get
>
>Well, check out their response to Lyta when she wants revenge for Daniel,
>as they are attacking dream. It's like Morpheus' killing his son was a
>technicality that allowed them to kill this guy they disliked. And they
>hated the very Orpheus they were avenging.
Actually that's the page where Lyta *doesn't* want revenge and the Furies
*do*, where she realizes Daniel isn't dead and wants to rescue him, but
they blow her off: "What do you think we are, my little smellfungus? We
don't rescue, we revenge." Here, it seems like the Furies are a juggernaut
that can't be stopped once they've started. I'm not sure that they always
disliked Dream; they didn't seem like enemies when he asks them for
information in #2.
[re:Desire]
>But why is s/he always drawn as a woman-in-a-suit, rather than as a man
>in a dress, for example?
Desire is occasionally drawn as a man in a dress; the first issue of Brief
Lives and the first issue of The Wake, where it's summoned by the lovebirds,
come to mind.
[This next bit retrieved from Shawn's first post]
>[The Kindly Ones] was a circular, reflective narrative rather than a
>traditional, dramatic linear one (no climax and denouement, or, rather,
>many climaxes and a delayed denouement). Notice how it ended where it
>began.
[Marc's response to the above:]
>: a linear one to be hogwash. How can you characterize one gender as circular
>: and one as linear? (And wouldn't Joyce, Beckett, Proust, and plenty of
>: other men be surprised to hear that?)
I'm with Marc here; this linear-masculine, circular-feminine business
always struck me as vague and silly. Anyway, I don't buy that The Kindly
Ones was a circular narrative without a main climax. That sure looked like
a climax in the last issue when Death takes Dream's hand. And just because
the author loves symmetrical structures and made the last scene an echo
of the first one doesn't mean it ended where it began: the Fates have
*finished* their weaving, and in fact they spend the scene grousing about
how it wasn't what they thought it would be, people aren't grateful, etc.
[Marc: other Sandman arcs aren't "power fantasies" either]
Marc's right; the only arc that can be described as a power fantasy, where
the hero defeats the bad guys, is Preludes and Nocturnes -- and it's
followed by "The Sound of Her Wings" where Dream is moping about how
empty he feels after triumphing in all those battles. The Doll's House
had some power-fantasy-like bits where Dream beats Brute and Glob and
the Corinthian, but the last two issues are all about Rose and the
vortex, not power-fantasyish at all.
>But WHY was Dream unwilling to save himself? And I think it was because
>he was so broken-hearted at failing so often at love with WOMEN. The
>Mervyn thing was a fragment that contained the whole, which is how I
>viewed Hempel's art is well. Each piece/panel/etc. contains/is
>completely consistent with the entire narrative.
Failing at love with women was definitely a big part of Dream's despair.
But failing at being a father to his son was just as important, if not
more so. "Since I killed my son, the Dreaming has not been the same --
or perhaps I was not the same."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Schwarz ka...@physics.berkeley.edu
"There's no need to look for a Chimera, or a cat with three legs."
-- Jorge Luis Borges, "Death and the Compass"
Greg Zywicki
course I'm probably the wrong person to ask - I like Giffen's stuff too.
But I'm also enjoying this stuff. Hey - anything beats some of the lousy
art in the earlier stories.
Greg Z
Marc Singer
Abhay Khosla <akh...@umich.edu> wrote:
>On 11 Aug 1995, Buzz940850 wrote:
>
>> Talking about the Kindly Ones, I am a 19 year old male who did not
>> especially enjoy the story, but not because it involved women. I didn't
>
>Someone actually accused someone of this?
Sadly, yes. I thought I saw some interesting contortions over race and
sexuality in the LSH comics, but this one took the cake.
I didn't bother reading the response to my response there, having figured
that anybody who says every reader who disagrees with them a) is a youngish
male and b) doesn't like reading stories about women has little of value
to say, but I really do wonder what that person made of all the *women*
who didn't like the Kindly Ones. (Perhaps they were accused of being
asexual.)
Marc
Marc Singer
Marc Singer <ma...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>I didn't bother reading the response to my response there, having figured
>that anybody who says every reader who disagrees with them a) is a youngish
>male and b) doesn't like reading stories about women has little of value
>to say
Hmph. I'll say what you were all thinking: that crack was uncalled for.
Needless to say, I still disagree with that particular rationalization of
why people would dislike TKO. But my apologies for that line.
Marc
Greg Zywicki
Any scene with the young Daniel (ie Daniel and the Phoenix feather sitting on
the fire.)
The scenes with Lucifer and his demon (whose name escapes me.)
Rose Walker
Greg Z
Andy Perry
(Katie Schwarz) wrote:
[scads deleted]
>Actually that's the page where Lyta *doesn't* want revenge and the Furies
>*do*, where she realizes Daniel isn't dead and wants to rescue him, but
>they blow her off: "What do you think we are, my little smellfungus? We
>don't rescue, we revenge." Here, it seems like the Furies are a juggernaut
>that can't be stopped once they've started. I'm not sure that they always
>disliked Dream; they didn't seem like enemies when he asks them for
>information in #2.
I just started rereading the entire run (for the first time), and y'know
they don't seem all that friendly in #2 either. I mean, yes the GREETINGS
seem pretty cordial and playful, but in the end of the scene: "Thank
you." "Don't thank us! We haven't helped you! Your troubles are only
beginning! Hahahah!" The Three-in-One do take a certain delight in the
notion of causing Morpheus trouble. (Although, I don't think it's a
particular grudge. Seems to me they take delight in causing ANYONE
trouble.) But given the end of the series, those are pretty ominous
words, no? Especially since they have just sent him to hell to retrieve
his helmet, which is an important component in his eventual downfall.
(Not that he had any choice--guess that's why they call it fate.)
--
Andy Perry We search before and after,
Brown University We pine for what is not.
English Department Our sincerest laughter
Andrew...@brown.edu OR With some pain is fraught
st00...@brownvm.bitnet -- Shelley, d'apres Horace Rumpole
Shawn Hill
: I liked Hempel, most of the time, because he captured the moods of tension
: and fear and anger, and because the way he drew everything extremely
: stylized and with so few lines forced me to take a fresh look at the
: characters, drawing me into the story yet not impeding its flow. On the
: other hand, a lot of people just found his characters so ugly they were
: hard to get into, and occasionally they had that effect on me too.
: >: Now, specificially to the Kindly Ones. Plenty of female-centered stories
: >: have had positive responses; generally, these female-centered stories differ
: >: from TKO in *other* ways, explaining why they might be received differently.
: >: A Game of You, which was *clearly* more interested in women and gender than
: >
: >AGOY was interested in GIRLS and gender, and BOYS and gender. TKO was
: >about the journeys of several different WOMEN.
: Come on, you know that's hairsplitting. And I don't believe it anyway; Lyta
: and Rose don't seem any more grown-up to me than Hazel, Foxglove, Barbie and
: Wanda.
I really felt that AGOY was about teenagers finding and defining (or
trying to) their lifestyles and sexualities. Rose always seemed pretty
mature and level-headed to me (less lost in a fantasy world than all the
people around her in A Doll's House), and Lyta's lifestyle and sexuality
was decided a long time ago. Barbara, whatever her age, was still caught
up in her girlhood fantasy, and Hazel and Foxglove were remarkably
immature and naive.
Of course, Thessaly was in both TKO and AGOY, and she's pretty mature,
and Nuala was in TKO and was very childish, so, my analogy may indeed be
weak.
: The difference between rambling and richness is that richness means
: something, develops character, has some relation to the story. There were
: some parts of TKO where I thought the details were terrific, especially
: Lyta's hallucinatory journey where she meets Puss in Boots and the Gorgons.
: Those issues really got me into Lyta's head, showed what she was experiencing
: and feeling. There were other parts that seemed to do nothing more than fill
: space and mislead the reader, especially all those long conversations with
: Lucifer that didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. And I was
: annoyed that Dr. Destiny's cousin Celia was introduced (she meets Rose on
: the airplane) for no apparent reason other than teasing readers into thinking
: she had some importance.
I think a lot of that was just characterization. The "extraneous" scenes
and their little jokes were their own point, flourishes, if you will,
within the larger story (rather than steps towards or away from the
denouement--pauses in the journey). All the Zhussifurrrrr and Mazakeen
scenes were culminated in his realizing he'd already done the worse thing
you could ever do (denounced GOD), and then wondering if even THAT were
his decision. He's a pretty depressed fellow, but not quite as
simplistic as old Murphy.
To borrow from the thread on reading "all at once or one at a time", I
prefer to read the book as it comes out (as opposed to the TPB's),
treating it purely as serial literature. The only reason people were
disatisfied with TKO was because of Neil's established practice of writing
in "arcs" at all. That concept/formal decision implies coherent, thematic
stories which function as short stories/chapters within a larger
narrative. If TKO had had no pretence to being an arc, it would have been
fine as an eternal, continuing comic (like the superhero books do),
interesting and varied and still well above the other monthly titles as
far as sophistication and intent. Which I'd be perfectly happy with (if
the titled meandered MORE than it does rather than less). Which is, of
course, basically a matter of personal taste more than anything and
therefore indefensible in a debate.
: >: Also, I disagree with many of the statements you accept as facts. I don't
: >: think the Furies were getting revenge "just because they don't like a guy,"
: >: it was because *he killed his son*. Them's the rules. Desire didn't get
: >
: >Well, check out their response to Lyta when she wants revenge for Daniel,
: >as they are attacking dream. It's like Morpheus' killing his son was a
: >technicality that allowed them to kill this guy they disliked. And they
: >hated the very Orpheus they were avenging.
: Actually that's the page where Lyta *doesn't* want revenge and the Furies
: *do*, where she realizes Daniel isn't dead and wants to rescue him, but
: they blow her off: "What do you think we are, my little smellfungus? We
: don't rescue, we revenge." Here, it seems like the Furies are a juggernaut
: that can't be stopped once they've started. I'm not sure that they always
: disliked Dream; they didn't seem like enemies when he asks them for
: information in #2.
They sure didn't seem like friends, and they weren't too happy with
Thessaly over the moon thing in AGOY either.
: [re:Desire]
: >But why is s/he always drawn as a woman-in-a-suit, rather than as a man
: >in a dress, for example?
: Desire is occasionally drawn as a man in a dress; the first issue of Brief
: Lives and the first issue of The Wake, where it's summoned by the lovebirds,
: come to mind.
S/he still always looks MUCH more feminine than masculine to me. Maybe
if the let Steve Yoewell have a go at hir....
: [This next bit retrieved from Shawn's first post]
: >[The Kindly Ones] was a circular, reflective narrative rather than a
: >traditional, dramatic linear one (no climax and denouement, or, rather,
: >many climaxes and a delayed denouement). Notice how it ended where it
: >began.
: [Marc's response to the above:]
: >: a linear one to be hogwash. How can you characterize one gender as circular
: >: and one as linear? (And wouldn't Joyce, Beckett, Proust, and plenty of
: >: other men be surprised to hear that?)
: I'm with Marc here; this linear-masculine, circular-feminine business
: always struck me as vague and silly. Anyway, I don't buy that The Kindly
: Ones was a circular narrative without a main climax. That sure looked like
: a climax in the last issue when Death takes Dream's hand. And just because
: the author loves symmetrical structures and made the last scene an echo
: of the first one doesn't mean it ended where it began: the Fates have
: *finished* their weaving, and in fact they spend the scene grousing about
: how it wasn't what they thought it would be, people aren't grateful, etc.
Symbolically, though, we're back in the Fates' house with them bitching
about things they don't like. As if they orchestrated the whole thing.
And actually, the whole point of my continued postings to this thread is
to try and figure out why Death taking Dream's hand felt so
ANTI-climactic. That issue led me to think that Neil's real point wasn't
so much Dream's actual demise (which had been pretty much pre-determined
and foreshadowed for issues and issues) but the reasons for that demise
and it's "inevitability." Which thought I'm still pondering.
: [Marc: other Sandman arcs aren't "power fantasies" either]
: Marc's right; the only arc that can be described as a power fantasy, where
: the hero defeats the bad guys, is Preludes and Nocturnes -- and it's
: followed by "The Sound of Her Wings" where Dream is moping about how
: empty he feels after triumphing in all those battles. The Doll's House
: had some power-fantasy-like bits where Dream beats Brute and Glob and
: the Corinthian, but the last two issues are all about Rose and the
: vortex, not power-fantasyish at all.
Rose whom he was going to execute had not her grandmother interceded,
Fiddler's Green who quaked in Fear at the thought of returning to the
Dreaming, who knew he was powerless to truly protect Rose from Morpheus?
One doesn't have to behave like a superhero to seem powerful, nor was I
implying that young male readers dug Dream when he was most macho. I was
saying they dug Dream all the time, because:
Isn't the regal Dream himself, so glamorous and rock star-like in black
jeans and t-shirt, the ultimate [artsy male] power fantasy? Doom and
gloom, attitude and power. He goes around every issue making bold
pronouncements which must be followed, uncreating those who offend him,
and leaving everyone in fear of whether or not he'll be "gravely
dissappointed"? The only beings who don't quake in fear of him are
Death and Satan? He's always a power fantasy, and the lesson of TKO to me
was that his facet of the Dreaming, with all it's arrogance and grandeur,
was no longer viable.
: >But WHY was Dream unwilling to save himself? And I think it was because
: >he was so broken-hearted at failing so often at love with WOMEN. The
: >Mervyn thing was a fragment that contained the whole, which is how I
: >viewed Hempel's art is well. Each piece/panel/etc. contains/is
: >completely consistent with the entire narrative.
: Failing at love with women was definitely a big part of Dream's despair.
: But failing at being a father to his son was just as important, if not
: more so. "Since I killed my son, the Dreaming has not been the same --
: or perhaps I was not the same."
His estrangement from Orpheus was definitely painful to him, but I saw it
as a symbol of his ultimate estrangement from all humans and their
concerns. He started to come out of his Ivory tower late in life, and it
was too late. He was always too Holier than Thou.
Shawn Hill
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"I see my long lost home in his eyes/
he sees a nice hotel in mine"
--j. hatfield,
"forever baby"
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
sh...@husc.harvard.edu Shawn Hill
Marc Singer
Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Katie Schwarz (ka...@physics12.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
>: >AGOY was interested in GIRLS and gender, and BOYS and gender. TKO was
>: >about the journeys of several different WOMEN.
>
>: Come on, you know that's hairsplitting. And I don't believe it anyway; Lyta
>: and Rose don't seem any more grown-up to me than Hazel, Foxglove, Barbie and
>: Wanda.
>
>I really felt that AGOY was about teenagers finding and defining (or
>trying to) their lifestyles and sexualities. Rose always seemed pretty
>mature and level-headed to me (less lost in a fantasy world than all the
>people around her in A Doll's House), and Lyta's lifestyle and sexuality
>was decided a long time ago. Barbara, whatever her age, was still caught
>up in her girlhood fantasy, and Hazel and Foxglove were remarkably
>immature and naive.
>
>Of course, Thessaly was in both TKO and AGOY, and she's pretty mature,
>and Nuala was in TKO and was very childish, so, my analogy may indeed be
>weak.
Furthermore, one of the most central characters (thematically, if not to
the plot) of AGOY, Wanda/Alvin, seemed pretty mature. And Rose underwent
some maturation in both Doll's House and TKO. I don't think you can say
one arc was about immature people and one was about mature people. I think
you *can* say that AGOY was much more clearly and centrally about gender,
and very much about women. The whole sequence with George saying that
having a penis matters, and then Barbara writing WANDA on the tombstone,
summed that up for me.
>To borrow from the thread on reading "all at once or one at a time", I
>prefer to read the book as it comes out (as opposed to the TPB's),
>treating it purely as serial literature. The only reason people were
>disatisfied with TKO was because of Neil's established practice of writing
>in "arcs" at all. That concept/formal decision implies coherent, thematic
>stories which function as short stories/chapters within a larger
>narrative. If TKO had had no pretence to being an arc, it would have been
>fine as an eternal, continuing comic (like the superhero books do),
>interesting and varied and still well above the other monthly titles as
>far as sophistication and intent. Which I'd be perfectly happy with (if
>the titled meandered MORE than it does rather than less). Which is, of
>course, basically a matter of personal taste more than anything and
>therefore indefensible in a debate.
I also don't know if you can say that people were disappointed with the
discontinuous story because they expected it to be a continuous arc. Even
in comics that are known not to be written in arcs, some amount of coherence,
plot development, etc. is still expected. I think the boggart or the
Nybbas would be just as superfluous, infuriating, or deus ex machina in
any series, regardless of readers' expectations.
>: >But why is s/he always drawn as a woman-in-a-suit, rather than as a man
>: >in a dress, for example?
>
>: Desire is occasionally drawn as a man in a dress; the first issue of Brief
>: Lives and the first issue of The Wake, where it's summoned by the lovebirds,
>: come to mind.
>
>S/he still always looks MUCH more feminine than masculine to me. Maybe
>if the let Steve Yoewell have a go at hir....
Oddly enough, the one time desire looked generally masculine to me was when
Jill Thompson drew hir. I've always thought Desire's appearance was more
a comment on the artists than on the story, because Gaiman's writing makes
it abundantly clear that she's neither gender and both.
>: [Marc: other Sandman arcs aren't "power fantasies" either]
>: Marc's right; the only arc that can be described as a power fantasy, where
>: the hero defeats the bad guys, is Preludes and Nocturnes -- and it's
>: followed by "The Sound of Her Wings" where Dream is moping about how
>: empty he feels after triumphing in all those battles. The Doll's House
>: had some power-fantasy-like bits where Dream beats Brute and Glob and
>: the Corinthian, but the last two issues are all about Rose and the
>: vortex, not power-fantasyish at all.
>
>Rose whom he was going to execute had not her grandmother interceded,
>Fiddler's Green who quaked in Fear at the thought of returning to the
>Dreaming, who knew he was powerless to truly protect Rose from Morpheus?
But the whole situation ends with Gilbert offering to sacrifice himself,
Unity actually sacrificing herself, Dream confronting Desire and saying
they aren't in control at all, they're puppets. Dream doesn't exercise
his power; if he had in killing Rose, it would have been his total defeat.
There's nothing power-fantasyish about that. Parts of Doll's House do use
power fantasies (punishing errant servants, saving Rose from Fun Land, etc.),
but more don't, and in the end such use of power is clearly presented as
a bad choice. For that matter, it is in the beginning; Dream sends Nada
to hell, but it's cleary a Bad Thing that he did so. Preludes and Nocturnes
played into the power fantasy (although that also had the nice trick of
Dream winning by being defeated by Dee, and then forgiving Dee, hardly
the typical power fantasy), some later stories like the Ric Madoc one may
have, but most Sandman stories and arcs either undercut it or don't address
it at all. There's no power fantasy in Men of Good Fortune, or Midsummer
Night's Dream.
>One doesn't have to behave like a superhero to seem powerful, nor was I
>implying that young male readers dug Dream when he was most macho. I was
>saying they dug Dream all the time, because:
>
>Isn't the regal Dream himself, so glamorous and rock star-like in black
>jeans and t-shirt, the ultimate [artsy male] power fantasy? Doom and
>gloom, attitude and power. He goes around every issue making bold
>pronouncements which must be followed, uncreating those who offend him,
>and leaving everyone in fear of whether or not he'll be "gravely
>dissappointed"?
You're forgetting a few things:
-- Many of his pronouncements either aren't followed, or lead to doom,
including his own. Not everybody who offends him is uncreated -- Nada,
bless her soul, slapped him in the face *after* he'd sent her to Hell for
10,000 years for less. Not everybody tries to please him. His power isn't
all that attractive, considering a) how rarely he really used it in
vengeful or power-fantasy ways, and b) where the occasional uses of it led
him.
-- And also, not everybody thinks Robert Smith is cool. :-) Stereotypes
often have bases in fact, but it's downright stupid to automatically
assign them validity.
The only beings who don't quake in fear of him are
>Death and Satan?
Nada. Choronzon and Azazel (though they should have). The fairies.
His siblings. Cain and Lucien, when pushed far enough. Gilbert didn't fear
him a bit, nor did Matt. Eve seemed to be too detached to fear him. The
other gods, particularly Shivering Jemmy. Lyta Hall, as early as "You
took my son, you spooky bastard" (Shatner?). Hob. Lady Johanna, esp. in
Thermidor. And his siblings, of course. One way or another, most of the
characters of the series.
He's always a power fantasy, and the lesson of TKO to me
>was that his facet of the Dreaming, with all it's arrogance and grandeur,
>was no longer viable.
Thus undercutting the power fantasy. The power fantasy always gets undercut
(most explicitly, but not exclusively, in AGOY), when it's present at all.
Marc
Marc Singer
Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>: one arc was about immature people and one was about mature people. I think
>: you *can* say that AGOY was much more clearly and centrally about gender,
>: and very much about women. The whole sequence with George saying that
>: having a penis matters, and then Barbara writing WANDA on the tombstone,
>: summed that up for me.
>
>concern female characters. Rose, Lyta, Carly, Thessaly, Nuala, the
>Furies themselves.
...Yet your original point was that other (young male) readers panned TKO
because it was about women. Many other Sandman stories have featured women
without getting panned, especially AGOY which not only featured women but
was about women. However, I don't see such disappointment towards AGOY,
or the Ishtar or Death Meets E-Girl issues for that matter. Enough other
stories have featured women and been praised that I don't think the focus
on women of TKO is enough to explain its hot-and-cold reception.
>On the male side we have Murphy, Clurucan, the Corinthian and Matthew,
>maybe Loki and Puck. But these are all subplots save for Morpheus'
Oh, yeah, save for the guy whose fate is slowly approaching over 13 issues
and who is the protagonist of the series. :) But Matt and Corinthian also
became quite important for periods of time, certainly more important for
longer than Thessaly or Nuala or especially Carla.
>: -- Many of his pronouncements either aren't followed, or lead to doom,
>: including his own. Not everybody who offends him is uncreated -- Nada,
>: bless her soul, slapped him in the face *after* he'd sent her to Hell for
>: 10,000 years for less. Not everybody tries to please him. His power isn't
>: all that attractive, considering a) how rarely he really used it in
>: vengeful or power-fantasy ways, and b) where the occasional uses of it led
>: him.
>
>I find it VERY attractive. He's definitely more powerful than your
>average joe who buys comics to read on his lunch break.
And he also seems to have even less control over his life. That's some
depressing power-fantasy. Even when he does have some measure of control
or victory, it comes in *spite* of his power, not because of it. Except
for the first seven issues of killing anyone who had his toys, the whole
series has flaunted the power-fantasy constructions of the comics that
inspired it.
>Cain and Lucien know pretty clearly who's the boss. And Lyta's whole
>quest in TKO can be scene as a monstrous over-reaction to her extreme
>fear of Morpheus and for her son. Morpheus' threat that he would
>eventually come for her son gave her a nervous breakdown even though he'd
>actually done nothing but show up a few times. Eve's not threatened by
>anyone anymore, nor would Dream try to. Hob, too, has never been on his
>bad side, and Johanna is an experienced mystic and a quite unusual
>woman. Face it, Dream is SCARY! Even Delirium is wary of him, and
>Desire must be trying to mess up his life for SOME reason.
We were shown the reason, back in "Three Septembers and a January." And
in fact, *Desire* is about as good a model of the power-fantasy type as
any in the book -- he/she can't stand being inferior to the older three,
can't stand losing Norton to Dream, can't stand not getting what he/she
wants even though that's what Desire is all about. Hardly an attractive
model for readers looking for someone with kewl powers and a thirst for
revenge.
As for the others, Hob at one time thought Dream was the Wandering Jew, or
worse, Satan, yet he's always faced him as an equal and a friend. Lyta's
nervous breakdown hit *after* Daniel was gone, before she was overprotective
but sane. Cain was pretty argumentative after Abel died, but Abel always
seemed more loyal that cowed. In general, none of them seemed to serve out
of fear, and none of them reinforced your contention that Morpheus was
presented as a fearsome being whom the readers would fall down and worship/
wish to be. A look at the actual comics shows him to be quite the opposite,
with his humanization and downfall being the primary focus, not his (non-
existent) domination or kewlness.
>Right, we agree on that. What I'm saying at the simplest level is that
>TKO is where the "undercutting" hits home the strongest (ie Morphy dies)
>and that is the reason it's not well-liked. I think the detractors
>wanted him to continue--their emotional reaction colors their perception
>of a story with many strong merits.
Shawn, in case this point hasn't been made clearly enough: Bullshit.
I think Morpheus dying was the right ending for the series -- any sort of
cop-out, escape, or worst of all victory would not only have undercut the
"rules" the series' world is founded on, it also would've undercut the
momentum of 69 issues of story. But just because it had the right ending,
doesn't mean that ending was necessarily arrived at in the best way.
Please cite one person who panned the story because it ended in Morpheus's
death; most of the negative reactions I saw were to various twists and turns
along the way.
There's no question that TKO had it's good points, but I saw many bad ones
as well. Most people will at least base their own good/bad judgments on
their own views of the story, not their own invented views into the other
side's opinions. Dismiss criticism of TKO if you like, but don't do so
because you came up with a story about TKO critics that allows you to
rationalize their dislike into a lie you can believe.
Marc
Kenneth Manheimer
> implying that young male readers dug Dream when he was most macho. I was
> saying they dug Dream all the time, because:
>
> Isn't the regal Dream himself, so glamorous and rock star-like in black
> jeans and t-shirt, the ultimate [artsy male] power fantasy? Doom and
> gloom, attitude and power. He goes around every issue making bold
> pronouncements which must be followed, uncreating those who offend him,
> and leaving everyone in fear of whether or not he'll be "gravely
> dissappointed"? The only beings who don't quake in fear of him are
> Death and Satan? He's always a power fantasy, and the lesson of TKO to me
> was that his facet of the Dreaming, with all it's arrogance and grandeur,
> was no longer viable.
Great topic!
Stopping to consider just a moment, i'd venture to say that i am
fascinated and thrilled by dream's (and death's) character by power,
but a different kind of power.
I find revealed in their stories a kind of clear perspective on the
personal forces and tendencies in the world. Their perspectives are
almost like science, in its incisiveness, its exposure of underlying
mechanism, but science is often so dry, removed from the human course
While these perspectives are so rich and direct, because the forces in
question are those of personal human motives and consequences - hopes
and dreams, good and evil (and their intertwining), death and
cleansing, etc.
Honestly, i think i may be most struck by stories when simple,
essential things are made obvious in simple, graceful ways. And (1)
for some reason, in our day-to-day lives, that is a rare thing - the
essential stuff is often lost in the sauce, and (2) these ways
sometimes (at the good times) seem to be the materials which sandman
(and cages and concrete and some of my other favorites) are woven...
What fun!
Shawn Hill
: Can *you* seriously prove that *all* detractors of TKO are such people,
: Shawn? Of course not. Yet that hasn't prevented you from making the same
actually, there have only been two people who've "disagreed" with me in
this thread. everyone else has posted about tangents the discussion has
brought up (the furies attitude, the relative coolness or power of Dream,
etc.), with apparently no interest in pursuing the "debate" at all. so,
no, two is not enough to convince me that *all* TKO detractors
are dissimilar from my assessment (which, by the way, was never meant to
apply to *all* but to *some*).
: As for "bullshit," if the word offends you so much I advise that you stop
: producing it.
yet again, an insult instead of an argument.
Shawn Hill
----------------------------
---------------------------------
"Take it like a man, baby--if that's what you are--" -M People
---------------------------------------------
sh...@husc.harvard.edu Shawn
--------------------------------------------
Shawn Hill
: >TKO is where the "undercutting" hits home the strongest (ie Morphy dies)
: >and that is the reason it's not well-liked. I think the detractors
: >wanted him to continue--their emotional reaction colors their perception
: >of a story with many strong merits.
: Shawn, in case this point hasn't been made clearly enough: Bullshit.
: I think Morpheus dying was the right ending for the series -- any sort of
: cop-out, escape, or worst of all victory would not only have undercut the
: "rules" the series' world is founded on, it also would've undercut the
: momentum of 69 issues of story. But just because it had the right ending,
: doesn't mean that ending was necessarily arrived at in the best way.
: Please cite one person who panned the story because it ended in Morpheus's
: death; most of the negative reactions I saw were to various twists and turns
: along the way.
: There's no question that TKO had it's good points, but I saw many bad ones
: as well. Most people will at least base their own good/bad judgments on
: their own views of the story, not their own invented views into the other
: side's opinions. Dismiss criticism of TKO if you like, but don't do so
: because you came up with a story about TKO critics that allows you to
: rationalize their dislike into a lie you can believe.
Can you participate in this discussion without cursing or calling me a
liar? Because I can. Why on Earth can I not come up with a "story"
about TKO's critics if it seems plausible and feasible to me? I was
reacting to a tone I perceived as real in several posts. I realize that
you feel insulted by my characterization of TKO detractrors as young males
with politically incorrect desires, but can you seriously tell me such
people are not among Sandman's fans?
Marc Singer
>liar? Because I can. Why on Earth can I not come up with a "story"
>about TKO's critics if it seems plausible and feasible to me? I was
>reacting to a tone I perceived as real in several posts. I realize that
>you feel insulted by my characterization of TKO detractrors as young males
>with politically incorrect desires, but can you seriously tell me such
>people are not among Sandman's fans?
Can *you* seriously prove that *all* detractors of TKO are such people,
Shawn? Of course not. Yet that hasn't prevented you from making the same
claims repeatedly, even after contrary points have been made. Come up
with stories all you like, but don't be so surprised or offended when people
brand them as just that, stories. I don't think you're a liar, Shawn,
since you're not out to deceive anybody -- I simply think your version of
reality is not anywhere close to being true for everybody. That's the
problem with staking your arguments for TKO on what you perceive to be *other*
people's beliefs -- you have no way of knowing how right or wrong you are.
Or you didn't, until people began disagreeing with you. Even in the face
of opinions, personal statements even, that are contrary to your assessment
of TKO detractors as "politically incorrect youngish males," you still claim
to know these detractors' thoughts better than they do. I still don't
consider that lying, Shawn, though willfull ignorance is a very real
possibility.
As for "bullshit," if the word offends you so much I advise that you stop
producing it.
Marc
Gilbert Chew
On 23 Aug 1995, Shawn Hill wrote:
> Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>
> : >TKO is where the "undercutting" hits home the strongest (ie Morphy dies)
> : >and that is the reason it's not well-liked. I think the detractors
> : >wanted him to continue--their emotional reaction colors their perception
> : >of a story with many strong merits.
>
> : Shawn, in case this point hasn't been made clearly enough: Bullshit.
[snip snip]
> : Please cite one person who panned the story because it ended in Morpheus's
> : death; most of the negative reactions I saw were to various twists and turns
> : along the way.
>
> : There's no question that TKO had it's good points, but I saw many bad ones
> : as well. Most people will at least base their own good/bad judgments on
> : their own views of the story, not their own invented views into the other
> : side's opinions. Dismiss criticism of TKO if you like, but don't do so
> : because you came up with a story about TKO critics that allows you to
> : rationalize their dislike into a lie you can believe.
>
> Can you participate in this discussion without cursing or calling me a
> liar? Because I can. Why on Earth can I not come up with a "story"
> about TKO's critics if it seems plausible and feasible to me? I was
> reacting to a tone I perceived as real in several posts. I realize that
> you feel insulted by my characterization of TKO detractrors as young males
> with politically incorrect desires, but can you seriously tell me such
> people are not among Sandman's fans?
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.
IMHO, the conflict in this discussion is the broad brush with which
Shawn has painted us detractors. Shawn's previous posts implied that
most (if not all) of the critics of TKO are all immature young males.
Of course there are bound to be "immature young males" among the readers
of Sandman. However, my impression is that many of the criticisms
expressed here were reasonably well reasoned. Frankly, I have to wonder
if the "tone" that Shawn perceived is colored by his preconceived notions
of who's doing the "detracting." I'm guessing that that's what Marc is
thinking as well, and he's simply asking for some evidence that we can
see for ourselves.
There. Back to the flames...
Katie Schwarz
from everything else, since this post is getting ridiculously long.)
Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Katie Schwarz (ka...@physics12.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
>
>: >AGOY was interested in GIRLS and gender, and BOYS and gender. TKO was
>: >about the journeys of several different WOMEN.
>
>: Come on, you know that's hairsplitting. And I don't believe it anyway; Lyta
>: and Rose don't seem any more grown-up to me than Hazel, Foxglove, Barbie and
>: Wanda.
>
>I really felt that AGOY was about teenagers finding and defining (or
>trying to) their lifestyles and sexualities.
Nobody in A Game of You was literally a teenager, of course. The story
didn't feel to me like it was about adolescence, either, because none of
the characters were separating from their family of origin during the
story. They'd all been through that before it began, and they had adult
lives, however imperfect. Their struggles with identity were the kind that
go on throughout life, rather than specifically adolescent.
This story was *about* gender where the other arcs weren't because it was
about the struggle against all the things that obstruct women in particular
from finding their own identity:
* parents' love being contingent on fitting into conventional gender roles
(Barbie and Wanda)
* lovers treating you as a disposable, replaceable commodity, as their
property with no right to your own life (Ken valued Barbie only for sex
and cooking, and replaced her with Sindy when she didn't put out; George
saw Barbie as payment for his services; Foxglove dreams that Judy is
jealous that she's alive and has a new lover)
* being treated as nothing more than a source of nurturing, to be thrown
away when used up (as the Cuckoo tried to do to Barbie)
* feeling your relationship with others is defined by your appearance
(Wanda wants nice dresses, Barbie dreams that Ken laughs at her for
"painting dumb things on her face in a desperate attempt to seem
interesting")
* the fear of pregnancy, and the fear that pregnancy is a threat to a
romantic relationship (Hazel)
* generally feeling vulnerable in a dangerous world, always hiding from
threats (Barbie decides not to take a walk because she'd "get mugged and
raped by a New York crazy before I get five blocks," and her adventure in
the Land is all running away and hiding from various nasties)
* or, on the other hand, being insulated from life by overprotective
authorities (the police kill Martin Tenbones and try to keep Barbie away
from him)
Also, it's worth noting that the six issues of A Game of You came in
between three issues of Distant Mirrors and three issues of Convergences,
both of which were largely about men and male themes. Distant Mirrors was
about power, authority, being the king; Convergences was about leaving home
to explore strange new worlds. That period of Sandman was when Gaiman was
investigating gender and other tangents instead of the main plotline of the
series. The main plotline, the fall of the tragic hero, never struck me as
especially gender-related.
> Rose always seemed pretty
>mature and level-headed to me (less lost in a fantasy world than all the
>people around her in A Doll's House), and Lyta's lifestyle and sexuality
>was decided a long time ago. Barbara, whatever her age, was still caught
>up in her girlhood fantasy, and Hazel and Foxglove were remarkably
>immature and naive.
I thought the whole point about Barbie was that she *wasn't* caught up in
her girlhood fantasy, she had cut herself off from her inner life (not
dreaming for two years) and she had to go back into the fantasy so she
could be a whole adult. Hazel, okay, was short on maturity, but I saw
nothing immature about Foxglove, did you?
Rose was always impressively self-reliant and level-headed, as you say,
but at the same time her reminiscence about all the shallow flings she's
had indicates something unfinished in her growing up. And I don't see how
Lyta could be regarded as mature, or even secure in her identity --
remember those mirror scenes where she considers and discards various
incarnations of herself? She abandoned her superhero identity because
things got too weird and scary, then she built her entire identity around
being Daniel's mom (refusing to get a job of her own), then she freaked out
when she lost him because without him, who was she?
>Of course, Thessaly was in both TKO and AGOY, and she's pretty mature,
>and Nuala was in TKO and was very childish, so, my analogy may indeed be
>weak.
Thessaly's self-reliant, yes, but she's also so self-centered that I don't
like to call her mature. Anyway, I thought The Kindly Ones was essentially
about people with limited perspectives making choices blindly and rigidly,
and ending up with consequences far greater than they anticipated: Morpheus
setting himself up for suicide, Lyta pursuing vengeance, even Thessaly
thumbing her nose at Morpheus. I don't see that as a particularly feminine
or masculine theme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Hill
[well-reasoned analysis of AGOY, DM and Convergences deleted]
: Rose was always impressively self-reliant and level-headed, as you say,
: but at the same time her reminiscence about all the shallow flings she's
: had indicates something unfinished in her growing up. And I don't see how
: Lyta could be regarded as mature, or even secure in her identity --
: remember those mirror scenes where she considers and discards various
: incarnations of herself? She abandoned her superhero identity because
: things got too weird and scary, then she built her entire identity around
: being Daniel's mom (refusing to get a job of her own), then she freaked out
: when she lost him because without him, who was she?
Very deep and well put. Reacting only emotionally to the events of TKO,
I empathized with Lyta's feelings, but before this point did not really
understand them very well. Why was she so crazy? Because she was so
over-focused on Daniel that she lost herself, yep, makes sense.
: >Of course, Thessaly was in both TKO and AGOY, and she's pretty mature,
: >and Nuala was in TKO and was very childish, so, my analogy may indeed be
: >weak.
: Thessaly's self-reliant, yes, but she's also so self-centered that I don't
: like to call her mature. Anyway, I thought The Kindly Ones was essentially
: about people with limited perspectives making choices blindly and rigidly,
: and ending up with consequences far greater than they anticipated: Morpheus
: setting himself up for suicide, Lyta pursuing vengeance, even Thessaly
: thumbing her nose at Morpheus. I don't see that as a particularly feminine
: or masculine theme.
Well I never really meant that TKO was about masculinity or feminity, just
that women/females/feminine archetypes were so potent in it as
protagonists/antagonists. Yes AGOY was consciously about exploring
gender, but TKO was largely about women as actors in their own dramas.
Lyta the warrior, on her insane quest. Rose the loner, looking for love
and family in her ancestral home. The Furies themselves, seemingly
driving the story along ancient lines of power and male/female
indebtedness. Nuala becoming, in her own way, an adult woman. I just
felt that perhaps some of TKO's detractors had a hard time identifying
with these female main characters, thereby diluting their enjoyment of the
arc. A definitely unpopular opinion to have, but in line with my
understanding that Superman and Spidey are more popular to comic fans than
Wonder Woman and Storm.
Shawn Hill
*******************************************************
"It must be a REAL name that people can say."
"PLIPPY PLOPPY CHEESENOSE?"
"No. Try again."
"EBLIS O'SHAUGNESSY?"
"Okay."
--Neil Gaiman/the Sandman
*********Shawn**Hill*******sh...@husc.harvard.edu******
Gilbert Chew
On 23 Aug 1995, Shawn Hill wrote:
> Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>
> : Can *you* seriously prove that *all* detractors of TKO are such people,
> : Shawn? Of course not. Yet that hasn't prevented you from making the same
>
> actually, there have only been two people who've "disagreed" with me in
> this thread. everyone else has posted about tangents the discussion has
> brought up (the furies attitude, the relative coolness or power of Dream,
> etc.), with apparently no interest in pursuing the "debate" at all. so,
That's still two-to-one against you.
> no, two is not enough to convince me that *all* TKO detractors
> are dissimilar from my assessment (which, by the way, was never meant to
> apply to *all* but to *some*).
Then you should have written it that way. If you really didn't mean to
imply that all detractors are immature males, your writing needs some work.
Shawn Hill
: Well I never really meant that TKO was about masculinity or feminity, just
: that women/females/feminine archetypes were so potent in it as
: protagonists/antagonists. Yes AGOY was consciously about exploring
: gender, but TKO was largely about women as actors in their own dramas.
snip snip snip
: with these female main characters, thereby diluting their enjoyment of the
: arc. A definitely unpopular opinion to have, but in line with my
: understanding that Superman and Spidey are more popular to comic fans than
: Wonder Woman and Storm.
Also, I just re-read my original post (yep, I'd forgotten it) to see what
I said, which was that most internet users were young males (and not that
most Sandman readers were). By which I meant, from my experience on other
groups (alt.sex.stories, where gays are harrassed to get out,
alt.homosexual, where gays are just harrassed, the star-trek groups, where
Janeway is a virtual pariah), that I perceived an immature, straight, male
majority voice that tended to dominate internet discussions at the expense
of alternative voices. Admittedly I put this debatable observation very
fuzzily and vaguely, as I meant to imply not that all of TKO's critics
were such people, or that they were a majority here in rac.dc, but simply
that they were here as well. This made in a comment that was a throwaway,
an aside in a post the focus of which was Hempel's art, rather than gender
or the story at all.
Interesting how a single sentence touched such a big nerve, though.
Shawn Hill
Mr. Nobody
: Well I never really meant that TKO was about masculinity or feminity, just
: that women/females/feminine archetypes were so potent in it as
: protagonists/antagonists. Yes AGOY was consciously about exploring
: gender, but TKO was largely about women as actors in their own dramas.
: Lyta the warrior, on her insane quest. Rose the loner, looking for love
: and family in her ancestral home. The Furies themselves, seemingly
: driving the story along ancient lines of power and male/female
: indebtedness. Nuala becoming, in her own way, an adult woman. I just
: felt that perhaps some of TKO's detractors had a hard time identifying
: with these female main characters, thereby diluting their enjoyment of the
: arc. A definitely unpopular opinion to have, but in line with my
: understanding that Superman and Spidey are more popular to comic fans than
: Wonder Woman and Storm.
I totally hated AGOY, but really liked TKO. So my dislike towards AGOY
is probably not due to an inability to identifying with female main
characters. I guess its just that I can deal with "gender issues" when they
are presented within a story that interests me, but I really don't care
about "gender issues". AGOY kind of reminded me of _The Fountainhead_ in
that the characters seemed more like points-of-view than characters (IMHO,
of course). I found myself caring more about what happened to the animals
than I cared about the people in the story.
I'll probably be labeled a Neanderthal for admitting this, but the whole
'women-and-the-obstacles-they-face-in-society' storyline just didn't
excite me. But then, 'male-power-fantasy' comics don't excite me either.
Except PREACHER, that is. IMHO, the ghost of John Wayne would really have
helped AGOY <g>.
-joe
Damon B. Crumpler
i am a young [well] male with politically incorrect desires, and
anyone who has ssen my posts on the ko's know
that i liked it more than most around here.
what i Did find annoying was all of the irelevancy, such as rose and
lucifer.
i liked the rest, even though i was one of the strongest dream
should live supporters.
so, make that 3 to one.
--
Desparado is the movie that Quentin Tarantino wishes he could make.
Damon B. Crumpler
katie, i disagree with you about thessaly...
i think she's very mature.
i suspect that you're using the word differently than i am, as my definition of mature
allows for people to have lots of flings [like rose] or be self centered and yet still be mature.