What's wrong with Bendis' DD
Tue Sorensen
I want to read is superhero comics, full of wonder and hijinks.
Bendis' DD bores the living daylights out of me. For me, except for
the terrible run back around #301-345 or so, DD has never been worse
than it is now. I think it's a disgrace to the history of the title
and the company. But then, New Marvel is a disgrace to Marvel's past
history in any case...
This kind of complaints (that those of you who don't agree are sick of
by now) is what being a *die-hard* fan is all about, boys and girls.
Someone who protests and bitches when their favorite stuff is going in
a direction they don't like. Because with luck and a lot of focused
criticism, that direction can perhaps be changed. In this case, I fear
it may be too late, but, as a die-hard fan I have to keep on trying
until the bitter end.
- Tue
Windbag1000
>criticism, that direction can perhaps be changed. In this case, I fear
>it may be too late, but, as a die-hard fan I have to keep on trying
>until the bitter end.
Criticism is not going to make the books change or Zimmerman would not still be
getting work at Mark. The only thing that matters is sales. If you don't like
the book, drop it, otherwise, your complaints will never be effective. Your
money will thank you.
Richard and Chelsea
"Windbag1000" <windb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030311111202...@mb-da.aol.com...
Exactly! Nobody reads this newsgroup but fans. You aren't going to sway a
fan's opinion by moaning on the internet. You aren't going to persuade
Marvel to fire Bendis by writing them an email. They're looking at sales.
Personally, I find Bendis' Daredevil work to be my favourite comic currently
published and among the best of his work ever so our opinions differ.
Ryan
> ...is that it's crime and docu-drama. It isn't superhero comics.
Sure it is. There's a man with super-powers who tries to do good
and help people, and he's constantly under attack from criminals and
lowlifes. Granted, he hasn't spent a lot of time in costume, but
that's kind of the point of the story: He *can't* be Daredevil because
of the media attention and now the police investigation. He can
either fight crime or keep his friends and loved ones safe.
Saying it's not a superhero comic just because there's a lack of
spandex is like saying a Superman comic isn't a superhero book if he
loses his powers thanks to red Kryptonite.
What
> I want to read is superhero comics, full of wonder and hijinks.
That's certainly your prerogative, but... why are you reading
Daredevil? Daredevil, when at its best, is not about "wonder" or
"hijinks". It's about crime, darkness and moral ambiguity. Spiderman
is about wonder and hijinks; Daredevil isn't.
> Bendis' DD bores the living daylights out of me.
I've got to say that I absolutely love it. I bought the 25 cent
issue (okay, it was 40 cents here in Canada), and thought it was good.
Subsequent issues were even better. I bought the hardover and was
totally amazed by it. Bendis & Maleev are cranking out some fantastic
stories.
For me, except for
> the terrible run back around #301-345 or so, DD has never been worse
> than it is now.
Of course, there are probably people who absolutely loved that run,
and thought Frank Miller was an overrated hack.
I think it's a disgrace to the history of the title
> and the company.
I don't think so. Marvel used to be good at doing things that were
new and different. Frank Miller's Daredevil didn't bear much
resemblance to Stan Lee's; Claremont & Byrne went new places with
X-Men; Simonson made Thor grand and majestic.
Books that don't change and evolve become stale and inbred. If I
want to read classic stories like Claremont or Miller told, I'll go
through my collection or buy some back issues. If I'm buying a new
book, I want a good, new, book.
> This kind of complaints (that those of you who don't agree are sick of
> by now) is what being a *die-hard* fan is all about, boys and girls.
See, I consider myself quite the fan -- perhaps even die-hard -- but
not of one book or one character. I want quality. I want bang for my
buck. I used to totally love X-Men -- I've probably got a couple
hundred issues -- but the books totally lost me in the 90's, so I
stopped reading them; Peter Milligan & Grant Morrison brought me back.
I'm a huge fan of Bendis' Daredevil run, but have no particular
interest in reading Daredevil just because it's Daredevil. If Bendis
leaves and is replaced by Joe Generic, I'll stop reading Daredevil and
follow Bendis over to whatever he does next. If Bendis starts to
slip, I doubt there'll be shortage of talent to take his crown. There
are just too many good books out there to irrationally attach my
comics money to one book or character.
--
Ryan
M-Wolverine
> I want to read is superhero comics, full of wonder and hijinks.
> Bendis' DD bores the living daylights out of me. For me, except for
> the terrible run back around #301-345 or so, DD has never been worse
> than it is now. I think it's a disgrace to the history of the title
> and the company. But then, New Marvel is a disgrace to Marvel's past
> history in any case...
DD between 200 and Miller's 2nd run? Between Miller and Ann N.?
Right before DD's cancellation and transfer to Marvel Knights? Those
were all pretty bad. I mean, 45 issues isn't a run - that's a
disaster! DD seems to go on streaks....excellence or trash. I must
admit, I find this run to be somewhere in the middle. I do think it's
funny that after all the Pro-Bendis people said after the first two
issues of this run "SEE - there's some Daredevil (in costume)
action!", we've gone through how many issues of just talking heads...
> This kind of complaints (that those of you who don't agree are sick of
> by now) is what being a *die-hard* fan is all about, boys and girls.
> Someone who protests and bitches when their favorite stuff is going in
> a direction they don't like. Because with luck and a lot of focused
> criticism, that direction can perhaps be changed. In this case, I fear
> it may be too late, but, as a die-hard fan I have to keep on trying
> until the bitter end.
>
> - Tue
Yeah, and if you don't agree with the country's action, then you're
not a good American!
Oh, wait, you're not an American....... ;)
-Chris C.
R. Tang
>> by now) is what being a *die-hard* fan is all about, boys and girls.
No it isn't.
Basically, you're telling that people who've been with the book
just as long as you, if not longer, and who ARE enjoying the run, that
they aren't REAL fans.
You're just being narrow minded and bigoted; I see a lot of that
with religious fundamentalists, so it's no surprise that it's shared by
fundamentalists devoted to something else.
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
Andrew Ryan Chang
>...is that it's crime and docu-drama. It isn't superhero comics. What
Wasn't the big thing about Miller's first run on DD that he turned
a straightforward superhero comic to a crime-oriented one?
--
This forms a three-dimensional object known as a "cube", or a
"Frinkahedron" in honor of its discoverer, n'hey, n'hey.
-- Prof Frink, "Treehouse of Horror VI"
Windbag1000
> Wasn't the big thing about Miller's first run on DD that he turned
>a straightforward superhero comic to a crime-oriented one?
>
In a way, but the crime elements were carried out by super-villains and every
issue had a pretty epic battle of some sort.
Laurent Lehmann
wrote in message <c50450f6.0303...@posting.google.com> :
> ...is that it's crime and docu-drama.
I know. Isn't that great ?
> It isn't superhero comics.
Well... blind lawyer wearing a skintight red devil costume,
leaping from rooftop to rooftop, yep, that's a super-hero to me. Maybe
not the kind of super-hero you'd like to read, but a super-hero
nonetheless.
> What
> I want to read is superhero comics, full of wonder and hijinks.
> Bendis' DD bores the living daylights out of me.
Well, I'm sorry for you, but I for one like it and hope it goes on
like this for a few years more. No comic can please everyone. Maybe
you should give it up and try to find something that would suit your
tastes better, then.
You know, I love the character. I've been reading and enjoying
_Daredevil_ since it was named _Daredevil & the Black Widow_. This is
the only long-running Marvel comic of which I have an almost complete
collection (the other one being _Tales of Suspense_/_Captain America_,
which I gave up after reading the first few John Ney Rieber issues, so
I can imagine how you feel) and this is one of my favorite eras of the
series, right after Miller/Janson.
But then I remember some people didn't like Miller's take on DD,
either.
--
Laurent
Jedah And Sonans
te ageru ga rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe no naseke!
>. It isn't superhero comics.
Of course not. It's Nu-Marvel, baby! :)
--
MAURU doesn't eat humans! You should know that!
Tue Sorensen
> twoc...@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen) wrote in message news:<c50450f6.0303...@posting.google.com>...
> > ...is that it's crime and docu-drama. It isn't superhero comics. What
> > I want to read is superhero comics, full of wonder and hijinks.
> > Bendis' DD bores the living daylights out of me. For me, except for
> > the terrible run back around #301-345 or so, DD has never been worse
> > than it is now.
>
The Micah Synn saga, are you kidding?! Denny O'Neil's stuff was cool.
Very "classic superhero" kind of material.
> Between Miller and Ann N.?
You're talking about three fill-in issues, two of which had art by
Steve Ditko. Some neat hijinks there!! :-) A later fill-in early in
Nocenti's run was penned by none other than Priest.
> Right before DD's cancellation and transfer to Marvel Knights?
Well, yeah, not DD's finest hour, but I have to confess I enjoyed most
of those issues. #375 was very good, and the (admittedly nonsensical)
Lobdell issues with the amnesia and the French accent were bordering
on the hilarious because they were so off-beat.
> > This kind of complaints (that those of you who don't agree are sick of
> > by now) is what being a *die-hard* fan is all about, boys and girls.
> > Someone who protests and bitches when their favorite stuff is going in
> > a direction they don't like. Because with luck and a lot of focused
> > criticism, that direction can perhaps be changed. In this case, I fear
> > it may be too late, but, as a die-hard fan I have to keep on trying
> > until the bitter end.
> >
> > - Tue
>
> Yeah, and if you don't agree with the country's action, then you're
> not a good American!
>
> Oh, wait, you're not an American....... ;)
Indeed I am not! :-)
- Tue
---
"Oh yeah, what a victory for freedom and democracy when the U.S.
starts a war that the majority of the world is against."
Brendan Carson
Tue,
Briefly -
1. There is stuff in DD you are not getting. Lots of other people
are getting the good stuff, that's why they buy it (in increasing
numbers). They are not going to be convinced by some guy they don't
know from a country miles away who bitches about how he doesn't like
it. It's not going to work.
2. You say "die hard fan" as if it is some badge of courage or
something. From what I read, being a die hard fan appears to mean you
like 1965 DD, buy 2003 DD, find out yet again that 2003 DD is not 1965
DD and write in to describe your swelling rage, bitterness and woe
that 2003 DD is not 1963 DD.
I can tell you now, Typhoid Mary is meant to be turning up later on.
She will not be the possessor of a mind-control ray, she will not
dress like a neon sign, and she will not battle DD atop the Empire
State Building. She'll probably be a psychotic sex-fiend, and there
may be murder, and mental illness, and prostitution, like last time
she turned up (i.e.: BMB will be true to the character), and she'll
be very well written, and may even evoke some sympathy, and it'll
probably be dark most of the time.
3. This "buy it even if I know I'm going to hate it, and then write
in saying I hate it and I wish you would too" thing is futile. Buying
stuff you know you are going to hate strikes many other people as
madness. I can accept that you are a collector, and that you are
proud of your collection, and that you don't want to miss out on
current DD from a collector's point of view. But why not just accept
facts: buy current DD to collect, and not to read? You don't enjoy
reading them. Straight from the mailing bag to the bookshelf or
whatever.
4. And posting on massageboards for this purpose is deeply futile.
All the evidence is JQ does not read these messageboards, instead he
reads sales figures. DD is on the up. The people you should really
be angry at for allowing this kind of thing to go on are the people
who pay Marvel to write such unmitigated rubbish and call it DD ...
people like yourself.
BDC
Tue Sorensen
> twoc...@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen) wrote in message news:<c50450f6.0303...@posting.google.com>...
> > ...is that it's crime and docu-drama. It isn't superhero comics.
>
> Sure it is. There's a man with super-powers who tries to do good
> and help people, and he's constantly under attack from criminals and
> lowlifes.
Well, just barely! It is quite clear that it isn't the classic
superhero themes that Bendis is interested in writing about. Probably,
if he didn't find himself in an industry suffused with superheroes, he
wouldn't be interested in them at all. That, to me, suggests he's the
wrong writer for a superhero book.
Perhaps, to people who like that sort of thing, it's good crime
comics. But if this is superhero comics, it's *bad* superhero comics.
> Granted, he hasn't spent a lot of time in costume, but
> that's kind of the point of the story: He *can't* be Daredevil because
> of the media attention and now the police investigation. He can
> either fight crime or keep his friends and loved ones safe.
And he opts for the latter? Just like Robinson's Starman. This is a
deconstruction of the hero. Instead of caring about others, he's down
to caring about himself. It's the collapse of the idealism and
responsibility that should drive every true hero. Gee, ain't *that*
progress...
> What
> > I want to read is superhero comics, full of wonder and hijinks.
>
> That's certainly your prerogative, but... why are you reading
> Daredevil? Daredevil, when at its best, is not about "wonder" or
> "hijinks". It's about crime, darkness and moral ambiguity. Spiderman
> is about wonder and hijinks; Daredevil isn't.
Once he was, and he could be again. Look at Kesel and Kelly's issues
('96-97-ish) for the most recent incarnation. I disagree with
depicting DD as some kind of dark and gritty Batman rip-off (except of
course when it's done exceptionally well, as with Miller and Nocenti's
work). I want to see him fight classic villains and other costumed
guys. That's fun. All this low-down "realistic" stuff does nothing
whatsoever for me. If all superhero comics were like that, I'd have no
shred of interest in them.
> For me, except for
> > the terrible run back around #301-345 or so, DD has never been worse
> > than it is now.
> Of course, there are probably people who absolutely loved that run,
> and thought Frank Miller was an overrated hack.
Doubt it. Chichester and McDaniel may have their fans, but I dare say
that nobody but *nobody* liked #333-343.
> I'm a huge fan of Bendis' Daredevil run, but have no particular
> interest in reading Daredevil just because it's Daredevil.
Well, yeah, that's where our main difference lies. I am a fan of the
character, and want to see a certain story type because I believe the
character is best fit for such stories. The character exists to be put
to the best possible use that that particular character can be put to,
based on his basic elements. If a writer can do a great story that
doesn't necessarily involve DD's particular characteristics, that's
great too. But Bendis just doesn't do that for me. And in such a case
I go default and clamor for a return to the basic concepts on which
the character is built.
> If Bendis
> leaves and is replaced by Joe Generic, I'll stop reading Daredevil and
> follow Bendis over to whatever he does next.
I'll do the exact opposite.
- Tue
Anthony
> are getting the good stuff, that's why they buy it (in increasing
> numbers). They are not going to be convinced by some guy they don't
> know from a country miles away who bitches about how he doesn't like
> it. It's not going to work.
I'm not sure I'd got that far Brendon. People have different tastes and
everyone has a right to their opinion. Tue expressed his (it is his and
not hers right??) and while I don't agree with it I'm not sure I'd feel
qualified to tell him that he wasn't getting something. Flippantly
dismissing someone's opinion isn't really nice anyway.
Personally I'm really enjoying Bendis's run, though I think the Miller run
is the quintessential DareDevil. But that's just my own humble opinion if
anyone cares ;)
--
Anthony Abby
http://www.comicsnsuch.com | http://www.aplusdata.com
Comic Book Community News | Web Programming
Inventory Control, Auction, Management | Cold Fusion
| PHP & ASP
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ----------------------
For a quality mail server, try SurgeMail, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. Run a million users on a standard
PC running NT or Unix without running out of power, use the best!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgemail.htm ----
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: Perhaps, to people who like that sort of thing, it's good crime
: comics. But if this is superhero comics, it's *bad* superhero comics.
That's horseshit. Murdock's dual identity as a superhero has been the very
point of everything Bendis has written on the book so far.
Your definitions and ideas of what's "good" and "bad", and what superhero comics
"should" be doing seem narrow-minded, ignorant and sometimes downright fascist
to me.
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
Dersc...@hotmail.com
2003: The year of the American omelette.
Sean Walsh
Yes. And Lord knows the Owl and the family of the Kingpin are not mired in
past Marvel villainy...
--
Sean
My webpage: http://www.Sean-Walsh.com
Quantum Piett! http://www.geocities.com/quantumpiett/
My latest eBay auctions: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/slwalsh/
¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
Brendan Carson
> I'm not sure I'd got that far Brendon. People have different tastes and
> everyone has a right to their opinion. Tue expressed his (it is his and
> not hers right??) and while I don't agree with it I'm not sure I'd feel
> qualified to tell him that he wasn't getting something. Flippantly
> dismissing someone's opinion isn't really nice anyway.
Sorry if it came across as flippant or a dismissal of anyone's
opinion, it wasn't meant to be. It's more a comment on the futility
of trying to change someone's opinion in a matter of personal taste,
and Tue and I had a long discussion about this where we basically
agreed to disagree whether the quality of a book was a subjective
thing, (which varied from reader to reader), or an objective thing,
(not varying from reader to reader), which could be measured by a
certain yardstick which Tue had developed.
The thing is, people who read this book, who see the things Tue
categorically states are not there in DD like excitement, delicate
characterisation, suspense, drama, humour, pathos and sympathy, are
not going to be convinced by his posts to drop the book. People like
me, to whom the book and character are important, are not going to
smile and nod when they see people posting saying not "I don't like
this" but "this is crap, you shouldn't like this". He's free to
express his opinion and I am free to express mine. In the end it'll
probably come down to another war of attrition.
Also, how come the people who declare their true, die-hard, loyalty to
Marvel are the people who write most of the posts telling the world
that Marvel is shit and that "insert top-selling comic here" is a
waste of money? If they really want Marvel to do well, why not post
stuff about the less-popular lines that they really like? Why not
posts saying "Avengers is really interesting lately" or "What's going
to happen in Captain America?" or "Check out the artwork on
Spider-girl"? I can read one hundred posts saying "DD sucks" and it's
not going to make me like it less. But a few posts about Iron Man
might at least make me want to glance at it when it's on the shelves.
It worked for Thor.
BDC
Brian
> with religious fundamentalists, so it's no surprise that it's shared by
> fundamentalists devoted to something else.
What does the above statement have to do with anything?
Tue Sorensen
> > are getting the good stuff, that's why they buy it (in increasing
> > numbers). They are not going to be convinced by some guy they don't
> > know from a country miles away who bitches about how he doesn't like
> > it. It's not going to work.
>
> I'm not sure I'd got that far Brendon. People have different tastes and
> everyone has a right to their opinion. Tue expressed his (it is his and
> not hers right??)
Yep.
> and while I don't agree with it I'm not sure I'd feel
> qualified to tell him that he wasn't getting something. Flippantly
> dismissing someone's opinion isn't really nice anyway.
Thanks, Ant.
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
>
> 1. There is stuff in DD you are not getting. Lots of other people
> are getting the good stuff, that's why they buy it (in increasing
> numbers).
It's not about "getting" it. It's about my not being interested in,
and excited about, the way it's done.
> They are not going to be convinced by some guy they don't
> know from a country miles away who bitches about how he doesn't like
> it. It's not going to work.
I beg to differ. For those who feel nearly the same way (and there is
a bunch of those), it may well enhance their feelings and so help my
case.
> 2. You say "die hard fan" as if it is some badge of courage or
> something. From what I read, being a die hard fan appears to mean you
> like 1965 DD, buy 2003 DD, find out yet again that 2003 DD is not 1965
> DD and write in to describe your swelling rage, bitterness and woe
> that 2003 DD is not 1963 DD.
The kind of fan I am is someone who's liked classic DD all the way up
to #300. The '90s have been a decade where Marvel "lost it" to a great
degree, because of new commercial directions and editorial
incompetence, and these things, to my mind, are still dominating the
company something fierce. What I want is simply a kind of storytelling
that understands the classic Stan Leesque superhero style and knows
how to tell stories that engross me *every time*! Bendis does not even
come close to this. My real complaint about it is that it's
*pedestrian*. No imagination, no color, nothing that heaves it up and
out of the everyday mire that I get quite enough of in the real world.
And as for buying the book, well, you see, I don't. I stopped buying
it at #29 and have simlpy been sampling two or three issues since,
plus I've kept up with what's going on in it, by and large. I am not
stupid enough to buy a book that is worth bitching about to this
degree. I know what I don't like.
> I can tell you now, Typhoid Mary is meant to be turning up later on.
Yes, I know - and because I'm fan of her I might sample those issues.
> BMB will be true to the character
Here's hoping. There's a first time for everything.
- Tue
Ryan
> Well, just barely! It is quite clear that it isn't the classic
> superhero themes that Bendis is interested in writing about.
No, it's not the "classic" superhero theme, though I'm not sure what
that would be -- 1940's Superman books? 1960's Spiderman? Of course,
those books weren't classic superhero stories when they were written;
classic status is only bestowed on something after the fact.
Bendis is doing something new and different with the title.
Probably,
> if he didn't find himself in an industry suffused with superheroes, he
> wouldn't be interested in them at all. That, to me, suggests he's the
> wrong writer for a superhero book.
I disagree. I think his other work, like Alias and Powers, shows
that he has a very clear interest in superheroes. He's just
interested in exploring other aspects, beyond the usual "good guy
beats up bad guy" themes.
> Perhaps, to people who like that sort of thing, it's good crime
> comics. But if this is superhero comics, it's *bad* superhero comics.
No, it's just superhero comics that you don't like. You're
construing the genre *far* too narrowly. There are almost limitless
possibilities when it comes to telling stories about costumed
crusaders or super-powered heroes; Batman is not X-Men is not Silver
Surfer is not Incredible Hulk... Why limit an artist based on an
artificial boundary?
> And he opts for the latter? Just like Robinson's Starman. This is a
> deconstruction of the hero. Instead of caring about others, he's down
> to caring about himself.
Matt Murdock is perfectly capable of taking care of himself. I
don't think there's any question about that. But if he's publicly
known to be Daredevil, he places everyone he knows and loves in
danger. This is no different from your "classic" superhero who has a
secret identity and lies to everybody about it.
It's the collapse of the idealism and
> responsibility that should drive every true hero. Gee, ain't *that*
> progress...
There's no such thing. Bendis summed it up perfectly in Matt's
conversation with Elektra (paraphrasing, as I don't have the issue in
front of me): "I know how important being Daredevil is, and why I do
it. I just have to fight smarter than before... maybe smarter than I
am."
Conflict is the essence of almost any good story. Some of it is
external, some of it is internal. Sooner or later, most superheroes
come to a conflict about their secret identity: Who to tell, how to
trick the guy who accidentally found out, whether it's all worth it.
Bendis is simply expanding on a classic theme and giving it a more
serious and realistic grounding: Matt Murdock's life as he knows it
could be over. Even if he gets through the immediate threat, the
expose of his identity is something that is going to follow him around
forever. It's never going to go away.
> Once he was, and he could be again. Look at Kesel and Kelly's issues
> ('96-97-ish) for the most recent incarnation. I disagree with
> depicting DD as some kind of dark and gritty Batman rip-off (except of
> course when it's done exceptionally well, as with Miller and Nocenti's
> work).
See, right here you've admitted the series can be two different
things: If Miller & Kesel's portrayals of Daredevil are equally
acceptable, why isn't Bendis'?
I want to see him fight classic villains and other costumed
> guys. That's fun. All this low-down "realistic" stuff does nothing
> whatsoever for me. If all superhero comics were like that, I'd have no
> shred of interest in them.
Well, they're not, and that's the wonderful thing about comics, and
Marvel in particular, right now: There's so much different stuff being
done. If you don't like something, forget about it and move on to
something which does interest you. I can read Daredevil, X-Statix,
X-Men, Queen & Country and Y - The Last Man and get something
different from each book. It's great.
Ryan M. Day
mart...@umn.edu
twoc...@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen) wrote:
> gunc...@optusnet.com.au (Brendan Carson) wrote in message
> news:<d61d52c1.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > They are not going to be convinced by some guy they don't
> > know from a country miles away who bitches about how he doesn't like
> > it. It's not going to work.
>
> I beg to differ. For those who feel nearly the same way (and there is
> a bunch of those), it may well enhance their feelings and so help my
> case.
>
> > 2. You say "die hard fan" as if it is some badge of courage or
> > something. From what I read, being a die hard fan appears to mean you
> > like 1965 DD, buy 2003 DD, find out yet again that 2003 DD is not 1965
> > DD and write in to describe your swelling rage, bitterness and woe
> > that 2003 DD is not 1963 DD.
>
> The kind of fan I am is someone who's liked classic DD all the way up
> to #300. The '90s have been a decade where Marvel "lost it" to a great
> degree, because of new commercial directions and editorial
> incompetence, and these things, to my mind, are still dominating the
> company something fierce. What I want is simply a kind of storytelling
> that understands the classic Stan Leesque superhero style and knows
> how to tell stories that engross me *every time*! Bendis does not even
> come close to this. My real complaint about it is that it's
> *pedestrian*. No imagination, no color, nothing that heaves it up and
> out of the everyday mire that I get quite enough of in the real world.
Well, I have all but 10 issues dating back to #131 and I am enjoying the
current era quite a bit. I don't find there to be a loss in the depth
of story. Bendis' work is more enjoyable than much of the filler
between Miller's work, say around #200.
B. Martin
M-Wolverine
> On 11 Mar 2003 07:32:57 -0800, twoc...@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen)
> wrote in message <c50450f6.0303...@posting.google.com> :
>
> > ...is that it's crime and docu-drama.
>
> I know. Isn't that great ?
>
> > It isn't superhero comics.
>
> Well... blind lawyer wearing a skintight red devil costume,
> leaping from rooftop to rooftop, yep, that's a super-hero to me.
After the last few issues, (after everyone claimed that DD was back
for two issues at the beginning of the Owl story), with (again) no
Daredevil in sight, does anyone still believe this? That yeah, he
uses his "skintight red devil costume, leaping from rooftop to
rooftop"?
I mean, it seemed like there was a point around the beginning of this
storyline....but that was just a tease, and we've had even more issues
without since.
-Chris C.
M-Wolverine
Makes me equally wonder why if it's Tue's folly to try and tell people
DD is no good, why it's not equally pointless to tell him and others
that "no, you're wrong, it's great". I don't have a problem with
either, because that's what Usenet is all about. But I don't recall
seeing Tue ever scream for Bendis's firing. If you don't want to
discuss it with him, you don't have to.
And while I certainly take Brendan at his word, that he meant no
insult by his post, outside of one particularly breezy poster, I think
the pro-Bendis people are the ones who are coming off as "the cult",
and much less accepting of others views:
1. There is stuff in DD you are not getting. Lots of other people
are getting the good stuff, that's why they buy it (in increasing
numbers). They are not going to be convinced by some guy they don't
know from a country miles away who bitches about how he doesn't like
it. It's not going to work.
BDC
You're just being narrow minded and bigoted; I see a lot of that
with religious fundamentalists, so it's no surprise that it's shared
by
fundamentalists devoted to something else.
n R. Tang
That's horseshit. Murdock's dual identity as a superhero has been the
very
point of everything Bendis has written on the book so far.
Your definitions and ideas of what's "good" and "bad", and what
superhero comics
"should" be doing seem narrow-minded, ignorant and sometimes downright
fascist
to me.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
And that doesn't even include some of the dismissive stuff by Ralf
Harding...
Really, who's the "ignorant facist bigoted fundamentalist from another
country" here? If anything, the people who like Bendis are so
obsessed, they don't even stop at questioning someone's "fan-cred"
(which is ridiculous, either way), but have to attack the person. And
frankly, it's self-defeating, because I think the reason people take
shots at Bendis is BECAUSE there are all these people who think he can
do no wrong, and is the greatest thing since sliced bread. When
really, I don't think he's as the death comics as we knew them, but
he's hardly the greatest writer since Alan Moore, either.
-Chris C.
R. Tang
M-Wolverine <mwo...@umich.edu> wrote:
>You're just being narrow minded and bigoted; I see a lot of that
>with religious fundamentalists, so it's no surprise that it's shared
>by
>fundamentalists devoted to something else.
>n R. Tang
>
>country" here?
Who's the one saying "I'm a REAL fan, you're not" here?
If anything, the people who like Bendis are so
>obsessed, they don't even stop at questioning someone's "fan-cred"
>(which is ridiculous, either way), but have to attack the person.
Back up. It's not the Bendis supporters who are questioning other
people's "fan credentials." It's the Bendis attackers. It's PRECISELY self
defeating because it's trying to assert its conclusions without bothering
to support them.
And
>frankly, it's self-defeating, because I think the reason people take
>shots at Bendis is BECAUSE there are all these people who think he can
>do no wrong, and is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
You've got cause and effect reveresed.
When
>really, I don't think he's as the death comics as we knew them, but
>he's hardly the greatest writer since Alan Moore, either.
>
>-Chris C.
R. Tang
Quite simple. I see a lot of religious fundamentalists say "A REAL
Christian wouldn't believe such and such", where they define what they
mean by being a Christian by very narrow standards.
Similarly, these comic book fundamentalists are defining genres
and characters by very narrow parameters. The irony of this, of course, is
that these very narrow parameters would have initially rejected some of
the material they now accept as...canon.
Laurent Lehmann
in message <bb035269.03031...@posting.google.com> :
> After the last few issues, (after everyone claimed that DD was back
> for two issues at the beginning of the Owl story), with (again) no
> Daredevil in sight, does anyone still believe this? That yeah, he
> uses his "skintight red devil costume, leaping from rooftop to
> rooftop"?
Even if it doesn't don his costume in each and every issue, that's
still part of the story, of what Matt is, and why he's in this mess to
begin with.
--
Laurent
Windbag1000
>and characters by very narrow parameters.
Yes, I like that term comic book fundamentalist.
R. Tang
Thought you would.
The irony, of course, goes completely over your head.
M-Wolverine
Dare I get into how Bendis's great dialogue and storytelling has
convienently mischaracterized quite a few DD characters to fit the
story....?
Nah, I don't want to get into that one again......
-Chris C.
jentlman
Nothing, which leads me to be believe that bigotry comes in many
different sizes, shapes, colors and belief systems. And that bigotry
against "religious fundamentalists" is alive and well.
DEAC
Windbag1000
>
> Thought you would.
>
> The irony, of course, goes completely over your head.
The sincerity of your sarcasm goes way under it though.
Weird Kid
--
--
http://www.riverandtheweirdkid.com - Free web comic with no ads, celebrating
childlike life without violence or offensive humor. Was your childhood this
weird? Or this wonderful?
"Tue Sorensen" <twoc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c50450f6.0303...@posting.google.com...
> ...is that it's crime and docu-drama. It isn't superhero comics. What
> I want to read is superhero comics, full of wonder and hijinks.
> Bendis' DD bores the living daylights out of me. For me, except for
> the terrible run back around #301-345 or so, DD has never been worse
R. Tang
Y'all remember that "religious" is the adject here, hm?
>
>DEAC
jay
wrote:
>> If anything, the people who like Bendis are so
>> obsessed, they don't even stop at questioning
>> someone's "fan-cred" (which is ridiculous, either
>> way), but have to attack the person.
>
> Back up. It's not the Bendis supporters who are
> questioning other people's "fan credentials." It's
> the Bendis attackers. It's PRECISELY self
> defeating because it's trying to assert its
> conclusions without bothering to support them.
Exactly. This entire thread we're writing in now
came about because Tue, for what must be the
10,000th time at this point, came out with both
barrels blasting against anyone who thinks DD
is good right now. The whole of his initial post
was devoted to challenging the fan credentials
of anyone who likes the current DD run.
Tue Sorensen
> >Similarly, these comic book fundamentalists are defining genres
> >and characters by very narrow parameters.
>
> Yes, I like that term comic book fundamentalist.
Putting the "fun" back into "fundamentalism"... :-)
- Tue
Anthony
> still part of the story, of what Matt is, and why he's in this mess to
> begin with.
I agree. It can get very old seeing revolving villains getting stompted
every issue. Matt is DareDevil regardless of what he wears. If he's in a
fight and his costume is ripped from his body does he suddenly stop being a
super-hero? Of course not.
~consul
> windb...@aol.com (Windbag1000) wrote in message news:<20030312133705...@mb-cb.aol.com>...
> Putting the "fun" back into "fundamentalism"... :-)
Wasn't that just on the King of the Hill rerun?
--
"... it was the night time, I was looking over the waters ... she put her head on my
shoulder ..."
till next time,
Jameson Stalanthas Yu http://www.dolphins-cove.com
dedesi...@Xdolphins-cove.com (remove x's to reply)
jay
>> Well, just barely! It is quite clear that it isn't the
>> classic superhero themes that Bendis is
>> interested in writing about.
>
> No, it's not the "classic" superhero theme, though
> I'm not sure what that would be -- 1940's Superman
> books? 1960's Spiderman? Of course, those books
> weren't classic superhero stories when they were
> written; classic status is only bestowed on something
> after the fact. Bendis is doing something new and
> different with the title.
First rule in conversing with Tue: He's automatically
against ANYTHING "new and different."
>> Perhaps, to people who like that sort of thing, it's
>> good crime comics. But if this is superhero comics,
>> it's *bad* superhero comics.
>
> No, it's just superhero comics that you don't like.
Second rule: To Tue, the two are identical.
> You're construing the genre *far* too narrowly.
Tue has a whole slew of rules he wants to impose
upon superhero comics--they dictate every aspect
of what he considers a "good" story, down to the
smallest detail. Disagree with *any* of them, though,
and he suggests you're not a good fan.
R. Tang
So....which one of you is Jim and whihc one of you is Tammy Fay?
Tue Sorensen
> twoc...@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen) wrote in message news:<c50450f6.0303...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Well, just barely! It is quite clear that it isn't the classic
> > superhero themes that Bendis is interested in writing about.
>
> No, it's not the "classic" superhero theme, though I'm not sure what
> that would be -- 1940's Superman books? 1960's Spiderman?
Broadly speaking: My Marvel Age. 1961-1991.
> Of course,
> those books weren't classic superhero stories when they were written;
Nor did I say that, so this isn't a counter-argument to my point, but,
I'll be a pal and argue with you anyway!
> classic status is only bestowed on something after the fact.
While it's true that posterity establishes whether something is a
generally accepted classic or not, the generic casual use of the term
"classic" refers just as much to something which, acc. to the speaker,
*ought* to be a classic, and in cases of obvious high quality I think
there is such a thing as an instant classic. And as far as I'm
concerned, a great deal of Marvel's pre-'90s product fit that term.
And of course, by now a great many people will acknowledge that a lot
of good old Marvel stuff is classic.
> > Probably,
> > if he didn't find himself in an industry suffused with superheroes, he
> > wouldn't be interested in them at all. That, to me, suggests he's the
> > wrong writer for a superhero book.
>
> I disagree. I think his other work, like Alias and Powers, shows
> that he has a very clear interest in superheroes. He's just
> interested in exploring other aspects, beyond the usual "good guy
> beats up bad guy" themes.
I can only repeat my above paragraph. I read the first Powers trade,
and it seems clear to me that the book only exists because it would
have been extremely difficult for Bendis to get any kind of a foothold
in the industry (i.e. sales) if he didn't somehow incorporate
superheroes. But, even if that is not true and you are right, it
doesn't change the fact that I cannot become engrossed with his
storytelling. It doesn't interest me.
> > Perhaps, to people who like that sort of thing, it's good crime
> > comics. But if this is superhero comics, it's *bad* superhero comics.
>
> No, it's just superhero comics that you don't like. You're
> construing the genre *far* too narrowly.
So people love saying. Sorry, you're completely wrong. From my p.o.v.
it's *Bendis* that's construing it narrowly, and doing stories steeped
in dull everyday life instead of leaping onto the high adventure
bandwagon! As with science fiction, the entire justification of having
superheroes at all is to have wildly imaginative and mythologically
inspired tales which can provoke the reader to think beyond the status
quo of normal society, for the purpose of envisioning a *better*
society with higher moral values that we can strive to achieve (and
have so much fun doing it that we don't even realize we're doing it!).
Bendis is doing the kind of ancient-style comics that proper superhero
comics were invented to get beyond! He's reversing everything that is
great and cool about superheroes. Superheroes and science fiction are
supposed to paint a radical picture of a more heroic and just world
and activate the reader to break out of our old shell and change
things. Bendis' DD only changes things *back*. In that sense it's
typical of the current 1950s nostalgia that is pervading just about
everything right now.
> There are almost limitless
> possibilities when it comes to telling stories about costumed
> crusaders or super-powered heroes; Batman is not X-Men is not Silver
> Surfer is not Incredible Hulk... Why limit an artist based on an
> artificial boundary?
Limits are for editors who understand and appreciate the genre to
impose. There aren't many of those working right now. If Bendis was
doing his own book in this style, I'd be free to ignore it. But this
is Marvel! This is Daredevil! It's not supposed to be like this. And
the editors must take the blame.
> Matt Murdock's life as he knows it
> could be over. Even if he gets through the immediate threat, the
> expose of his identity is something that is going to follow him around
> forever. It's never going to go away.
Good writers know how far they can go in changing a hero's premise.
Bendis has gone too far here. He may have ruined the character for
good.
> If Miller & Kesel's portrayals of Daredevil are equally
> acceptable, why isn't Bendis'?
Because he doesn't remain true to what superheroes should be. But I
doubt we'll get much further in this, as we have very different
perspectives.
> I can read Daredevil, X-Statix,
> X-Men, Queen & Country and Y - The Last Man and get something
> different from each book. It's great.
Good for you. I'm on the verge of giving up new comics altogether.
- Tue
Jim Connick
"R. Tang" <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:b4ogng$n3e$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu...
: In article <c50450f6.03031...@posting.google.com>,
: Tue Sorensen <twoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >windb...@aol.com (Windbag1000) wrote in message
news:<20030312133705...@mb-cb.aol.com>...
: >> >Similarly, these comic book fundamentalists are defining genres
: >> >and characters by very narrow parameters.
: >>
: >> Yes, I like that term comic book fundamentalist.
: >
: >Putting the "fun" back into "fundamentalism"... :-)
:
: So....which one of you is Jim and whihc one of you is Tammy Fay?
I'm Jim, but I've had nothing to do with this thread :o)
I like Daredevil though. Lots.
Christopher Griffen
plenty of alternatives. Daredevil has always slipped into poor sales
whenever he's been written as a straight-up, supervillain-fighting
super hero.
Frank Miller took DD out of that role and Bendis is doing the same,
albeit differently.
I've read all the arguments against Bendis' DD and all I can say is
that you can find your cuppa tea elsewhere. I'm glad Bendis is
differentiating Daredevil in a market that's long been oversaturated
with guys in tights fighting the villain of the month. That schtick
gets old. Daredevil is a breath of fresh air compared with a lot of
the formulaic stuff that's out there.
jay
>> ...is that it's crime and docu-drama. It isn't superhero
>> comics. What
>
> Wasn't the big thing about Miller's first run on DD that
> he turned a straightforward superhero comic to a
> crime-oriented one?
Yep. The crime stuff, however, was always inherent
in the premise of the character. He's a lawyer who
became DD because his father was murdered by
mobsters. Miller was really just taking the character
back to his original premise.
Tue Sorensen
award! In fact, I hereby award you the coveted, once-in-a-lifetime
Successfully Vindicating Tue Sorensen In A Public Forum Award, with
all the perks and privileges associated therewith! Rise, Sir Knight!
:-)
mwo...@umich.edu (M-Wolverine) wrote in message news:<bb035269.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> gunc...@optusnet.com.au (Brendan Carson) wrote in message news:<d61d52c1.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > Anthony <antho...@aplusdata.com> wrote in message news:<3e6e...@news.aplusdata.com>...
> >
> > > I'm not sure I'd got that far Brendan. People have different tastes and
Yeah - and y'all'll notice that I tend not to respond to post(er)s
with that kind of rhetoric, nor to take them very seriously. While we
can all lose our tempers here now and again, I also think it ought to
be the natural inclination of anyone here to be fairly level-headed
and not stoop to needless abuse. Ideally, I see my participation in
forums like this as a contribution to a much more serious and useful
future form of global communication, not unlike the world-wide
debating nets described in Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game". Of
course, this will only happen if people stop being gratuitously
obnoxious. And while some may think that this will never happen, I
myself am an incorrigible optimist who believe in the ultimate triumph
of civil conduct! :-)
- Tue
jay
wrote:
>>> Perhaps, to people who like that sort of thing, it's
>>> good crime comics. But if this is superhero comics,
>>> it's *bad* superhero comics.
>>
>> No, it's just superhero comics that you don't like.
>> You're construing the genre *far* too narrowly.
>
> So people love saying. Sorry, you're completely
> wrong.
Actually, he's understating the facts.
> From my p.o.v. it's *Bendis* that's construing it narrowly,
> and doing stories steeped in dull everyday life instead of
> leaping onto the high adventure bandwagon!
Yes, a Daredevil who fought alien invaders every month
would be much more interesting.
Brendan Carson
> gunc...@optusnet.com.au (Brendan Carson) wrote in message
> > They are not going to be convinced by some guy they don't
> > know from a country miles away who bitches about how he doesn't like
> > it. It's not going to work.
>
> I beg to differ. For those who feel nearly the same way (and there is
> a bunch of those), it may well enhance their feelings and so help my
> case.
>
This is what disturbs me. You call yourself a Marvel fan but your
avowed purpose is to get people to stop buying their magazines. How
long do you think Marvel will last if people start listening to you?
If sales drop on all the Nu-Marvel stuff like Ultimates, DD, probably
current Hulk, New Xmen, etc., how long do you think Marvel will
survive to publish Iron Man battling the Rhino?
I could understand this if I opened my inbox and found post after post
from you describing what you like about certain titles, and you
announcing a crusade to get people to buy the stuff you really like to
stop it being cancelled. Maybe I'd even give Spidergirl or whatever a
look. But I don't get "hey, this is great, check it out" emails.
Instead I see you agitating to get the stuff I really like, the comics
that mean perhaps a bit too much to me, cancelled or changed beyond
recognition.
The world is a big place. There are people out there who don't like
what you like, or agree with what you think. The sensible thing to do
would be live and let live, let us have our comics and you have yours,
especially when the sales of the "grim and gritty, talking heads,
dystopian God they're awful but people still buy them" titles are part
of what is propping up some of the faltering tales of wonder.
I would imagine there are still thirty or so comics a month (once you
include DC) that are still tales of wonder and astonishment (I don't
know - like a growing number of people, I no longer read them). There
is no way the grim and gritty people have anything like that many.
But you state overtly that you want to take those comics away and
change them back into something you find morally acceptable. Not
every comic has to be for you. There is no Sorensen comics code to
which everyone has to adhere.
> > 2. You say "die hard fan" as if it is some badge of courage or
> > something. From what I read, being a die hard fan appears to mean you
> > like 1965 DD, buy 2003 DD, find out yet again that 2003 DD is not 1965
> > DD and write in to describe your swelling rage, bitterness and woe
> > that 2003 DD is not 1963 DD.
>
> The kind of fan I am is someone who's liked classic DD all the way up
> to #300. The '90s have been a decade where Marvel "lost it" to a great
> degree, because of new commercial directions and editorial
> incompetence, and these things, to my mind, are still dominating the
> company something fierce.
The "editorial incompetence" and "new commercial directions" have got
the company out of bankruptcy and so it regularly dominates the top
ten selling magazines. What you mean by editorial incompetence is a
propensity to publish stories that you don't like.
What I want is simply a kind of storytelling
> that understands the classic Stan Leesque superhero style and knows
> how to tell stories that engross me *every time*!
But the fact that you are not getting something you want doesn't mean
you should take it from me. If you like those titles, buy them...
but don't try to stop me buying mine. Support the company (any
company) that you think will produce them... but don't try to damage
any other company, especially one that produces a fair few
poor-selling old-school titles for people like you. Write about how
good stories are so other people will buy them... not how everyone
would be best served by not buying Marvel. Don't encourage people to
push the company towards bankruptcy and trumpet what a fan you are.
Bendis does not even
> come close to this. My real complaint about it is that it's
> *pedestrian*. No imagination, no color, nothing that heaves it up and
> out of the everyday mire that I get quite enough of in the real world.
>
Like I said, there is stuff you are not getting. In current DD there
is stuff you can't or won't see. Other people see it, in growing
numbers.
It's all about diversity. Me, I hate modern jazz. But I can accept
that there are people who hear rhythms in the hideous cacophony I
hear, who really enjoy the pointless tootling and who see untrammeled
talent where I see shameless self-indulgence. That's why you don't
see me picketing the local music store or chaining myself to the
railings of whatver station plays that crap. It's a free country.
Arguing against people's right to exercise their choice is doomed.
> And as for buying the book, well, you see, I don't. I stopped buying
> it at #29 and have simlpy been sampling two or three issues since,
> plus I've kept up with what's going on in it, by and large.
Maybe you should stop reading it altogether. It's not making you
happy. I promise to email you when the Jester next turns up. Or
maybe you could watch the sales columns - as soon as they collapse,
you could assume it's the comic for you. Come to think about it, why
don't you get a petition or whatever going to get "Untold Tales of
Daredevil" going or something.
>I am not
> stupid enough to buy a book that is worth bitching about to this
> degree. I know what I don't like.
>
So do we. Reading your posts which refer to specific comics, one
would think that Marvel comics ruined your life. How about specific
cases of what you do like?
> > I can tell you now, Typhoid Mary is meant to be turning up later on.
>
> Yes, I know - and because I'm fan of her I might sample those issues.
You'll hate them. But hey, you know what you don't like.
BDC
Windbag1000
>
>I'm Jim, but I've had nothing to do with this thread :o)
>I like Daredevil though. Lots.
I'm Jim too. I bet Tammy Faye was up for just about anything back in her
prime. I dislike Daredevil though. Lots.
Ralf Haring
>> X-Men, Queen & Country and Y - The Last Man and get something
>> different from each book. It's great.
>
>Good for you. I'm on the verge of giving up new comics altogether.
Please do. Sometimes it's good to take a break. I did during the
mid-90s.
-Ralf Haring
"The mind must be the harder, the heart the keener,
the spirit the greater, as our strength grows less."
-Byrhtwold, The Battle of Maldon
Brendan Carson
> Makes me equally wonder why if it's Tue's folly to try and tell people
> DD is no good, why it's not equally pointless to tell him and others
> that "no, you're wrong, it's great".
Curses!!
Seriously, I'm not trying to tell him it's great. I just take issue
with teh whole "It's not what I like, I encourage people to stop
buying it" stuff.
I don't have a problem with
> either, because that's what Usenet is all about. But I don't recall
> seeing Tue ever scream for Bendis's firing.
He did say
> Someone who protests and bitches when their favorite stuff is going in
> a direction they don't like. Because with luck and a lot of focused
> criticism, that direction can perhaps be changed.
I interpreted that to mean he wants the current team sacked. But
maybe I read too much into it.
> And while I certainly take Brendan at his word, that he meant no
> insult by his post, outside of one particularly breezy poster, I think
> the pro-Bendis people are the ones who are coming off as "the cult",
> and much less accepting of others views:
>
> 1. There is stuff in DD you are not getting. Lots of other people
> are getting the good stuff, that's why they buy it (in increasing
> numbers). They are not going to be convinced by some guy they don't
> know from a country miles away who bitches about how he doesn't like
> it. It's not going to work.
Seriously, the view I am not accepting is his view that DD is
objectively bad. I have no problem with is view that he doesn't like
it. It's this whole "Bendis's DD does not fit my standard of what is
acceptable in comics" stuff:
<But if this is superhero comics, it's *bad* superhero comics.>
and the whole encouraging people not to buy it so it gets cancelled.
> Really, who's the "ignorant facist bigoted fundamentalist from another
> country" here?
Well, those are harsh words (quoted? out of context?). But if I had
to identify the person, I'd probably say it's the one who reckons s/he
knows what's best for everyone else, who believes that certain works
of art are inferior due to some nebulous moral effect they may have,
and who sees a previous Golden Age from which sinful comics editors
have now fallen. But there's no-one like that here, is there?
BDC
Tue Sorensen
> Tue and I had a long discussion about this where we basically
> agreed to disagree whether the quality of a book was a subjective
> thing, (which varied from reader to reader), or an objective thing,
> (not varying from reader to reader), which could be measured by a
> certain yardstick which Tue had developed.
Of course it varies from reader to reader. I just believe that
potential and manifested elements of objective quality do exist (and
may or may not be included in a given story). But the story, at the
basic level, still needs to be told well. A story can be engrossing
with the objective elements, and include them without being told well.
It's about how art and craft mix.
> things Tue
> categorically states are not there in DD like excitement, delicate
> characterisation, suspense, drama, humour, pathos and sympathy
Maybe I was unclear. Those things are there, just not in amounts I can
get excited about. It's too little.
> Also, how come the people who declare their true, die-hard, loyalty to
> Marvel are the people who write most of the posts telling the world
> that Marvel is shit and that "insert top-selling comic here" is a
> waste of money?
*This*, my friends, is the crux of the issue!! To me it's obvious:
There was a time when Marvel comics and the Marvel Universe were so
fantastic that they could recruit hell-bent, die-hard True Believers
and Fearless Front Facers, and command undying and unrepentent loyalty
to the Merry Marvel Marching Society - Sure, all that's just rhetoric,
but it's the *spirit* of it, and the fact that the comics backed that
spirit up with tantalizing tales of heroic histrionics with at least
quarterly quantum leaps in quality! There was a cornucopia
overbrimming with true passion, and it was all right there on the
page, in the story. And they took it *seriously*! Seriously enough to
coordinate everything in one great universe. Now, the passion is gone,
and they no longer take the universe aspect seriously. Compared to it
formerly excellent scope, the current Marvel Universe (and Marvel as a
company) is a shrivelled-up cinder. And this is not just nostalgia
talking. In the old days there was a kind of *collective inspiration*
driving the industry, to great effect. Now, the most they can manage
is for the individual writers to be inspired, and even that is quite
rare. The good old Marvel Universe was a child of the radical '60s and
'70s, and largely thanks to Jim Shooter also managed to keep up the
steam during the '80s. It's a different world now. The creativity and
the idealism no longer have the necessary fuel, because people today
are too self-centered, jaded and ignorant. One day this will change
but that day isn't here yet. Meanwhile, us die-hard fans keep on
bitching because we are watching things get worse. When they get
better, we'll be the first to applaud. I am fundamentally optimistic.
I was in heaven when Quesada first took over as editor-in-chief. I
believed it was the much talked about New Boom. Unfortunately, he
turned out to be an enemy of contunuity and an (IMO) incompetent
editor with terrible tastes. So NOW I bitch, and feel pretty damn
righteous doing it.
> If they really want Marvel to do well, why not post
> stuff about the less-popular lines that they really like? Why not
> posts saying "Avengers is really interesting lately" or "What's going
> to happen in Captain America?" or "Check out the artwork on
> Spider-girl"?
Good point, and I do try to do this now and again. I'll try harder.
> I can read one hundred posts saying "DD sucks" and it's
> not going to make me like it less. But a few posts about Iron Man
> might at least make me want to glance at it when it's on the shelves.
> It worked for Thor.
:-) Well, you can just consider this whole subject your fandom baptism
of fire!
- Tue
TonyS
> I can only repeat my above paragraph. I read the first Powers trade,
> and it seems clear to me that the book only exists because it would
> have been extremely difficult for Bendis to get any kind of a foothold
> in the industry (i.e. sales) if he didn't somehow incorporate
> superheroes.
I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I just thought that it should be clear.
Bendis loves superheroes. This is from an interview found in the Powers:
Little Deaths trade that I happened to read yesterday:
"... I started analyzing why it was that I never attempted to write a
superhero comic but I loved them so much. I really loved the genre... Dark
Knight and Watchmen kind of screwed it up for us... It's sort of like
everything had been said." -Bendis (the original interview can be found at
herorealm.com)
He goes on to say that getting Daredevil was a result of Quesada loving his
Jinx work, not his Powers work.
So this has nothing to do with whether Daredevil is good or bad or classic
or whatever. Let's just not make up ulterior motives when we have no proof
of them being true.
-Tony
Eoghann Irving
I haven't been in in months (since last year actually) and you're still
conducting the same ultimately meaningless argument about Marvel books that
you were then.
Obsess a little?
--
Eoghann Irving
Editor
Solar Flare - Everything Fantasy and Science Fiction
http://www.sflare.com
Brian
> In article <70a6f86.03031...@posting.google.com>,
> jentlman <young...@iwon.com> wrote:
> >"Brian" <blon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<9fSdnVT_lrM...@comcast.com>...
> >> > You're just being narrow minded and bigoted; I see a lot of that
> >> > with religious fundamentalists, so it's no surprise that it's shared
by
> >> > fundamentalists devoted to something else.
> >>
> >> What does the above statement have to do with anything?
> >
> >Nothing, which leads me to be believe that bigotry comes in many
> >different sizes, shapes, colors and belief systems. And that bigotry
> >against "religious fundamentalists" is alive and well.
>
> Y'all remember that "religious" is the adject here, hm?
I thought religious freedom was protected by the Constitution. That is just
me though.
Kennizon
>...is that it's crime and docu-drama.
Yeah, that's why I read it. In the new Total Sell Out (good book, go buy!
Plug! Plug!) Bendis states that Daredevil is not a superhero, but a pulp hero
brought into modern day comics
>It isn't superhero comics. What
>I want to read is superhero comics, full of wonder and hijinks.
Then look around at your comic shop. There's eighty-bajillion of them. Pick
one. I can even recommend a few.
>Bendis' DD bores the living daylights out of me. For me, except for
>the terrible run back around #301-345 or so, DD has never been worse
>than it is now. I think it's a disgrace to the history of the title
>and the company. But then, New Marvel is a disgrace to Marvel's past
>history in any case...
Sorry you feel that way. I can only suggest you not read it. It is the only
way to alleviate your pain.
>This kind of complaints (that those of you who don't agree are sick of
>by now) is what being a *die-hard* fan is all about, boys and girls.
>Someone who protests and bitches when their favorite stuff is going in
>a direction they don't like. Because with luck and a lot of focused
>criticism, that direction can perhaps be changed. In this case, I fear
>it may be too late, but, as a die-hard fan I have to keep on trying
>until the bitter end.
For this argument to work, everyone here must be willing to accept that you are
an undisputed intellectual guardian of the character. You are the "TRUE FAN."
You are the badge carrying model of what all Daredevil readers should aspire to
be. Nobody buys it. If you don't like it, don't read. That is the end all,
be all of these type of conversations. It really is that simple. People like
me who like the book are going to keep liking it no matter how much you protest
or bitch. People like what they like. Sorry you aren't digging it, but face
it, its not my problem.
jentlman
> Christian wouldn't believe such and such", where they define what they
> mean by being a Christian by very narrow standards.
You mean by Biblical standards? Or the standards that Christ lived by?
Do you mean that most Cristians don't have an anything goes attitude?
Well yeah, Roger, that's kinda the point.
DEAC
jentlman
> In article <70a6f86.03031...@posting.google.com>,
> jentlman <young...@iwon.com> wrote:
> >"Brian" <blon...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<9fSdnVT_lrM...@comcast.com>...
> >> > You're just being narrow minded and bigoted; I see a lot of that
> >> > with religious fundamentalists, so it's no surprise that it's shared by
> >> > fundamentalists devoted to something else.
> >>
> >> What does the above statement have to do with anything?
> >
> >Nothing, which leads me to be believe that bigotry comes in many
> >different sizes, shapes, colors and belief systems. And that bigotry
> >against "religious fundamentalists" is alive and well.
>
> Y'all remember that "religious" is the adject here, hm?
>
> >
> >DEAC
Absolutely...but the KEY word is bigotry. First you get to define
someone as a religious fundamentalist (even though when it comes to
Christianity that term applies to a very specific group). And then you
get to box them into what you think their beliefs are. At this point
you get to reverse hate them because they are the reason everything is
wrong in this world. And of course you take every opportunity to
insert your rhetoric into a conversation regardless of relevance. You
take solace in the fact that you're not alone. In point of fact the
fear and loathing of anti-religious bigots has been running rampant
lately, especially in this newsgroup.
DEAC
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: Nothing, which leads me to be believe that bigotry comes in many
: different sizes, shapes, colors and belief systems. And that bigotry
: against "religious fundamentalists" is alive and well.
It should be, in most cases. A democratic society based on personal freedom and
equality cannot afford to be tolerant in the face of intolerance, religiously
motivated or otherwise.
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
Dersc...@hotmail.com
2003: The year of the American omelette.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: Of
: course, this will only happen if people stop being gratuitously
: obnoxious.
Dude, the only one who's being obnoxious here is you. That's what people are
trying to tell you when they say that they find your statements bigoted and
narrow-minded.
As for my personal opinion on your sermons, let's go back to something you said
in one of your many assertions about the "universal quality of art" a month
ago -- it really stuck out in my memory:
> People disagree because they at least have the courage to *have* an
> opinion about the nature of art. In the middle ages people disagreed
> about how to understand the world - did the sun orbot the Earth or
> vice cersa? In time science supplied the answer, and I am confident
> the same thing will happen again.
You see, that's the kind of thing *I* find obnoxious, for example.
Most folks here are quite reasonable and realize that, even if they don't like
something or casually say that it's "bad", it doesn't necessarily have to be
genuine shit -- it just may not be their cup of tea, because their own
individual bias happens to swing against it.
You, on the other hand, insist in all seriousness that things are "objectively
bad" or "should not be like that", for the simple reason that you don't like
them. How very great for you indeed that you have so much confidence in your
own judgment in these matters.
That's not where your presumptuousness ends, however. You also have the
intellectual audacity to proclaim that one day, just like people once found out
that the earth orbits the sun, people will learn to differentiate between "good
art" and "bad art".
Now, ain't that just great...? Hey, all you poor artist schmucks seeking to
express yourselves, you freethinking fools who try to find new ways off the
beaten paths, stop your futile, unnecessary endeavors: The Tue Sorensen Scale
of Good Art and Entertainment has been discovered! From now on, we'll just
create Good Art, and stop creating Bad Art! Here's the appropriate guidelines
for everyone! Let it burn, the entartete Kunst!
Still, that's not where it ends. Here's your latest brilliant little gem:
: I can only repeat my above paragraph. I read the first Powers trade,
: and it seems clear to me that the book only exists because it would
: have been extremely difficult for Bendis to get any kind of a foothold
: in the industry (i.e. sales) if he didn't somehow incorporate
: superheroes.
And you actually have the balls to call other people obnoxious. You don't even
realize how utterly presumptuous and offensive your assumption is, do you?
And on top of all that, you now congratulate yourself on your own "civil
conduct".
Let me tell you one thing: If your ignorant, small-minded, offensive,
presumptuous and utterly insufferable sermons, which are reeking of art fascism
and disrespect for any views different from your own, have anything to do with
"civil conduct", then Orwell's *1984* probably portrays a beautiful, utopian
society worth striving for.
That's my three cents in the matter. If it was not level-headed enough, or too
obnoxious for your o-so-precious, universally relevant gusto, dear Tue, you can
pretty please go fuck yourself, with sugar and cream.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: In point of fact the
: fear and loathing of anti-religious bigots has been running rampant
: lately, especially in this newsgroup.
I'm not surprised that you feel this way, considering that I chiefly remember
you for some generic homophobic statements in .xbooks a while back.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
> Quite simple. I see a lot of religious fundamentalists say "A REAL
>Christian wouldn't believe such and such", where they define what they
>mean by being a Christian by very narrow standards.
It's the fallacious "true Christian" argument. They keep re-defining
Christian by removing people who do things that they don't agree with.
If you keep moving the goal-posts long enough, you'll eventually be
left with a few perfect people and a lot of them that just don't
"measure up".
Brian Henderson
>First rule in conversing with Tue: He's automatically
>against ANYTHING "new and different."
And anything he doesn't read, he's surely going to know everything
about and bitch and whine about it. If you don't like Daredevil, STOP
READING IT, but damn, shut the hell up about it.
Brian Henderson
>After the last few issues, (after everyone claimed that DD was back
>for two issues at the beginning of the Owl story), with (again) no
>Daredevil in sight, does anyone still believe this? That yeah, he
>uses his "skintight red devil costume, leaping from rooftop to
>rooftop"?
Daredevil has always been as much about the man under the mask as it
has been about leaping from rooftop to rooftop. If the only reason
you're reading comics is to watch a guy in tights and "BIF!" "WHAM!",
go find yourself a less intelligent hobby.
jay
Carson) wrote:
>>> They are not going to be convinced by some guy
>>> they don't know from a country miles away who
>>> bitches about how he doesn't like it. It's not going
>>> to work.
>>
>> I beg to differ. For those who feel nearly the same
>> way (and there is a bunch of those), it may well
>> enhance their feelings and so help my case.
>
> This is what disturbs me. You call yourself a Marvel
> fan but your avowed purpose is to get people to stop
> buying their magazines. How long do you think
> Marvel will last if people start listening to you? If sales
> drop on all the Nu-Marvel stuff like Ultimates, DD,
> probably current Hulk, New Xmen, etc., how long do
> you think Marvel will survive to publish Iron Man
> battling the Rhino?
All of the books Tue bitches about--DD, the Ultimate
books, New X-Men, etc.--are among the highest selling
items Marvel has. Orders for Dardevil--the subject of
this thread--are up more than 20% in the last year.
Work of this quality has literally saved Marvel from
extinction.
> I could understand this if I opened my inbox and
> found post after post from you describing what you
> like about certain titles, and you announcing a
> crusade to get people to buy the stuff you really like
> to stop it being cancelled.
And there are some good ones which clearly need
that kind of boosterism. Though I must concede it's
been slipping, I would rank Black Panther among
the books like DD and the Ultimates quality-wise--its
been plagued by fan inattention pretty much from the
beginning.
> Maybe I'd even give Spidergirl or whatever a look.
> But I don't get "hey, this is great, check it out"
> emails. Instead I see you agitating to get the stuff I
> really like, the comics that mean perhaps a bit too
> much to me, cancelled or changed beyond
> recognition.
>
> The world is a big place. There are people out
> there who don't like what you like, or agree with
> what you think. The sensible thing to do would be
> live and let live, let us have our comics and you
> have yours, especially when the sales of the "grim
> and gritty, talking heads, dystopian God they're
> awful but people still buy them" titles are part of
> what is propping up some of the faltering tales of
> wonder.
"Tales of wonder" there should definitely be in
quotes.
> I would imagine there are still thirty or so comics a
> month (once you include DC) that are still tales of
> wonder and astonishment (I don't know - like a
> growing number of people, I no longer read them).
> There is no way the grim and gritty people have
> anything like that many. But you state overtly that
> you want to take those comics away and change
> them back into something you find morally
> acceptable. Not every comic has to be for you.
> There is no Sorensen comics code to which
> everyone has to adhere.
Ah, but there is a Sorensen Comics Code--Tue
once spent more than a month outlining it for me
(though, of course, he didn't call it that). By the
time that exchange was finished, he'd advocated
dozens of restrictions he thought should be in
place on proper superhero comics; restrictions
which micromanaged what a comic could be
down to fairly minute details. Among other things,
he came out against original writing, against
realistic dialogue. and made an enthusiastic
defense of simplistic storytelling, trashing editors,
as he has here, for allowing the books to be
taken in new directions instead of simply
rehashing the same old song-and-dance.
I V
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:02:30 -0800, twoc...@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen)
wrote:
> Dreamh...@hotmail.com (Ryan) wrote in message
> news:<a51039ba.03031...@posting.google.com>...
>> No, it's not the "classic" superhero theme, though I'm not sure what
>> that would be -- 1940's Superman books? 1960's Spiderman?
>
> Broadly speaking: My Marvel Age. 1961-1991.
That's quite a wide period. I guess this is a pretty big question, but
could you isolate more explicitly what you think it is that (for example)
the Lee/Kirby FF, the Lee/Ditko Spider-man, the Claremont/Byrne X-Men and
I dunno, pick your favourite Avengers run, all have in common that
Bendis's Daredevil lacks? And are the pre-1960s Superman and Batman not
superhero comics in the same sense that you say Daredevil currently isn't,
or are they merely inferior examples of the genre?
I have to say, I think the early Superman stories are probably the perfect
superhero stories. Everything interesting that has been done with
superheroes since is a gradual move away from the archetype - Stan Lee no
more or less so than Bendis. Stan Lee introduced a kind of
superhero-sitcom, and Claremont a kind of superhero-soap. Bendis is giving
us a superhero-drama (possibly tragedy, although that might be a little
grand), that is to say, a story about universal human problems where the
dramatic tension comes from particular superhero tropes (in Daredevil's
case, the secret ID). But they're all talking about superheroes by drawing
on a variety of other storytelling forms, and I'm not entirely sure why
your range of 1961-1991 isn't arbitrary.
[snip]
> I can only repeat my above paragraph. I read the first Powers trade, and
> it seems clear to me that the book only exists because it would have
> been extremely difficult for Bendis to get any kind of a foothold in the
> industry (i.e. sales) if he didn't somehow incorporate superheroes. But,
That seems an odd interpretation of the Retro Girl storyline (which,
conveniently enough, I re-read yesterday). The story is, after all, about
the death of an archetypal hero, and superheroes do seem to be one of the
few possibilities to explore such heroes. There's also the current powers
storyline, which is inspired in part by the recent child-sex allegations
against R Kelly, with the important difference that R Kelly is just a
celebrity, someone with no particular moral importance, whereas the
character being (as it turns out, wrongfully) accused in Powers is a
_hero_, someone who is by definition to be looked up to. So Powers is
essentially concerned with key concepts of superheroism.
> even if that is not true and you are right, it doesn't change the fact
> that I cannot become engrossed with his storytelling. It doesn't
> interest me.
But that's a logically distinct question from whether Bendis is telling
superhero stories or not, and I'm not sure that you've yet provided a firm
enough definition of what makes for a superhero story to really
distinguish the two.
>> No, it's just superhero comics that you don't like. You're
>> construing the genre *far* too narrowly.
>
> So people love saying. Sorry, you're completely wrong. From my p.o.v.
> it's *Bendis* that's construing it narrowly, and doing stories steeped
> in dull everyday life instead of leaping onto the high adventure
> bandwagon!
But I don't think Bendis is claiming that the way he tells superhero
stories is the only way to tell 'real' superhero stories. I think he's
treating Daredevil from a crime fiction perspective for two reasons - one
being that it's something he's good at, and the other being that it's the
nature of the character. Daredevil is a crime-fighter (rather than a
scientist like the Mr Fantastic, or a universe-saver like Thor or
somebody).
> As with science fiction, the entire justification of having superheroes
> at all is to have wildly imaginative and mythologically inspired tales
> which can provoke the reader to think beyond the status quo of normal
> society, for the purpose of envisioning a *better* society with higher
> moral values that we can strive to achieve (and have so much fun doing
> it that we don't even realize we're doing it!). Bendis is
And this is why people accuse you of having a narrow interpretation of
superhero stories. I don't think any fiction is ever as straightforward as
the picture of superhero stories you're drawing here. Most obviously,
superhero stories have involved anti-fascist and anti-communist propaganda
(Superman or Captain America during WWII and the cold war),
liberal-conformist politics (Stan Lee's X-Men, The Avengers), sexism and
heterosexism of various sorts (The Fantastic Four, perhaps), adolescent
wish-fulfilment (Spider-man), adolescent nightmare-fulfilment (The Hulk)
the fetishisation of violence (all superhero books, ever), and, I'm sure,
plenty of other themes I've never heard of, much less considered.
Now, you may say that these are regrettable deviations from the Platonic
form of the superhero story, but it's a fact that a number of them are
largely inseparable from actually existing superhero stories, and I think
it's important to consider why this is the case. In one way or another,
any worthwhile superhero story written today will have to address the good
and bad parts of its heritage, and, by doing so, will necessarily be
different, both in form and content, from the classic Marvel comics. We
can't just pretend Alan Moore and Frank Miller never happened, at least
not if we want to have any kind of artistic integrity.
Bendis is writing about important parts of the superhero concept (secret
identities in Daredevil and Alias, heroism in Powers and Ultimate
Spider-man). The fact that he is writing in a different style from the
authors you consider classic is not a weakness, and doesn't mean he isn't
writing superhero comics. Quite the contrary - the only way to write
honestly about superheroes is to approach them from a new perspective,
because aping Stan Lee gives no room for critical consideration of what we
have inherited from Stan Lee. Of course, you're free to dislike his work,
but I don't think accusing him of 'not writing superhero stories' is a
legitimate criticism, at least not without a much stronger theory of what
makes for a superhero story than, I think, you have yet provided.
[snip]
And as a parting shot, what do you think of Ultimate X-Men? That seems to
me to be classic escapist hijinks, but most people who consider themselves
'die-hard' Marvel fans seem to hate it.
--
"Don't bother trying to tell me your beliefs,
Your point of view looks pretty screwed to me."
http://ivlenin.web-page.net/
M-Wolverine
> In article <bb035269.03031...@posting.google.com>,
> M-Wolverine <mwo...@umich.edu> wrote:
> >You're just being narrow minded and bigoted; I see a lot of that
> >with religious fundamentalists, so it's no surprise that it's shared
> >by
> >fundamentalists devoted to something else.
> >
> >Really, who's the "ignorant facist bigoted fundamentalist from another
> >country" here?
>
>
> If anything, the people who like Bendis are so
> >obsessed, they don't even stop at questioning someone's "fan-cred"
> >(which is ridiculous, either way), but have to attack the person.
>
> Back up. It's not the Bendis supporters who are questioning other
> people's "fan credentials." It's the Bendis attackers. It's PRECISELY self
> defeating because it's trying to assert its conclusions without bothering
> to support them.
>
> And
> >frankly, it's self-defeating, because I think the reason people take
> >shots at Bendis is BECAUSE there are all these people who think he can
> >do no wrong, and is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
>
> You've got cause and effect reveresed.
>
> When
> >really, I don't think he's as the death comics as we knew them, but
> >he's hardly the greatest writer since Alan Moore, either.
> >
> >-Chris C.
I think that when someone says having your comic book fan cred
questioned is worse than calling some ignorant, a facist, bigoted, or
a fundamentalist, it kind of speaks for itself....
-Chris C.
M-Wolverine
> award! In fact, I hereby award you the coveted, once-in-a-lifetime
> Successfully Vindicating Tue Sorensen In A Public Forum Award, with
> all the perks and privileges associated therewith! Rise, Sir Knight!
> :-)
>
Well, don't get too happy. We'll probably be pissing on each other in
another thread soon enough. I don't even completely agree with you on
this one. To me, I'm not looking for Stan Lee's version or Miller's
version, and no one elses. I don't think Bendis is destroying the
title. I just don't think he's "all that" that his proponents make
him out to be either.
And while the namecalling isn't exactly shocking for Usenet, it just
strikes me when it hits that point, that it's so vehemently
inflamatory, it's like someone screaming "Racist!" because they don't
have an argument. (I'm mean, come on - I don't need to list the
attacks again....some perspective people!)
-Chris C.
M-Wolverine
Oh, the irony of that last statement....
Just so we're clear that the argument has changed back from "SEE!? He
does too put him in the costume!!!" to "Oh, if you want to read
superhero comics, go read something else, heathen". That's all I was
getting at. The begining of this story put him back in costume for
like an issue and and half, and all the Bendis fans got indignent that
he "did too" put him in costume. Now that we know THAT was the blip
on the radar, not the norm, we're all coming from the same place.
-Chris C.
M-Wolverine
>
> > Makes me equally wonder why if it's Tue's folly to try and tell people
> > DD is no good, why it's not equally pointless to tell him and others
> > that "no, you're wrong, it's great".
>
> Curses!!
Foiled again? Nah. :)
> Seriously, I'm not trying to tell him it's great. I just take issue
> with teh whole "It's not what I like, I encourage people to stop
> buying it" stuff.
I agree, I do take your point that we could spend more time discussing
what's GOOD. Won't hold my breath though. ;)
> I don't have a problem with
> > either, because that's what Usenet is all about. But I don't recall
> > seeing Tue ever scream for Bendis's firing.
>
> He did say
> > Someone who protests and bitches when their favorite stuff is going in
> > a direction they don't like. Because with luck and a lot of focused
> > criticism, that direction can perhaps be changed.
>
> I interpreted that to mean he wants the current team sacked. But
> maybe I read too much into it.
No, probably not, but wanting a change in creative team isn't the same
as wanting the title cancelled. There's an age old tradition of
wanting a team change. Now, if you see that as counterproductive on a
title that's selling, I can see your point. But with titles like DD
and Hulk, certainly sales are up, they could go higher (say if Miller
and David took over...yeah, a cheat, because they were the best).
It's not like when Tue or me for that matter says I don't like
Ultimates...well, what are they going to do, change the creative team
and move from #5 in sales to #2? Yeah, that'd be worth the risk....
:) But how can any competence on title like DD or Hulk not help sales
go up when they were completely inept titles right before?
> > And while I certainly take Brendan at his word, that he meant no
> > insult by his post, outside of one particularly breezy poster, I think
> > the pro-Bendis people are the ones who are coming off as "the cult",
> > and much less accepting of others views:
> >
> > 1. There is stuff in DD you are not getting. Lots of other people
> > are getting the good stuff, that's why they buy it (in increasing
> > numbers). They are not going to be convinced by some guy they don't
> > know from a country miles away who bitches about how he doesn't like
> > it. It's not going to work.
>
> Seriously, the view I am not accepting is his view that DD is
> objectively bad. I have no problem with is view that he doesn't like
> it. It's this whole "Bendis's DD does not fit my standard of what is
> acceptable in comics" stuff:
> <But if this is superhero comics, it's *bad* superhero comics.>
> and the whole encouraging people not to buy it so it gets cancelled.
And I'd agree with you there. I don't think Bendis's DD work is what
I want from my Daredevil comic. I'd rather something a little more
leaning to his Ult. Spiderman (not quite all the way over, but
somewhere inbetween). Do I think that makes it bad writing? No.
(There are some things he does that I think qualifies as bad writing,
some characterization, but not in the general whole). But I also
don't agree with that group that thinks this is the best work on the
shelves today. But it's ok to differ.
> > Really, who's the "ignorant facist bigoted fundamentalist from another
> > country" here?
>
> Well, those are harsh words (quoted? out of context?).
In that sentence, maybe. But I included the full passages as written
with it too, so there was no misquoting out of context, because I
thought those were some harsh words for someone who may be saying you
have the wrong taste in comics.
But if I had
> to identify the person, I'd probably say it's the one who reckons s/he
> knows what's best for everyone else, who believes that certain works
> of art are inferior due to some nebulous moral effect they may have,
> and who sees a previous Golden Age from which sinful comics editors
> have now fallen. But there's no-one like that here, is there?
On Usenet posting boards? Never.
-Chris C.
who's looking to dodge bolts from the blue now.... ;)
R. Tang
Exactly. And these things they don't agree with are definitely not
Biblically based. They're making excuses for their own prejudices and
trying to chalk it up to a higher authority, much the same as we're seeing
here.
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
R. Tang
>> Christian wouldn't believe such and such", where they define what they
>> mean by being a Christian by very narrow standards.
>
>You mean by Biblical standards? Or the standards that Christ lived by?
No. These standards being cited AREN'T Biblical (I mean,
evolution? Sex education---and I mean basic things like how babies are
made...I have no problem with abstinence being emphasized? Relativity? A
big defense budget?). Remember the context I was bringing this up from is
talk.origins, where you find all this nonsense and more
>Do you mean that most Cristians don't have an anything goes attitude?
>Well yeah, Roger, that's kinda the point.
Well, no....the point is that being Christian is not the same as
being "fundamentalist"...
R. Tang
Just you.
Remember...what's the freedom from, and what's the freedom for?
R. Tang
Ad hominen and not very substantive.
Got anything else to bring to the table? Or aren't you going to
deal with the substantive argument that the questioning involves thought
processes very akin to bigotry and that the questioning is indeed ignorant
of comic history?
R. Tang
Kennizon <kenn...@aol.com> wrote:
>>This kind of complaints (that those of you who don't agree are sick of
>>by now) is what being a *die-hard* fan is all about, boys and girls.
>>Someone who protests and bitches when their favorite stuff is going in
>>a direction they don't like. Because with luck and a lot of focused
>>criticism, that direction can perhaps be changed. In this case, I fear
>>it may be too late, but, as a die-hard fan I have to keep on trying
>>until the bitter end.
>
>For this argument to work, everyone here must be willing to accept that you are
>an undisputed intellectual guardian of the character. You are the "TRUE FAN."
>You are the badge carrying model of what all Daredevil readers should aspire to
>be.
And, conversely, that everyone who disagrees with him is not a
fan. >>THAT<< is where the narrow-mindedness and fanaticism comes in,
which is similar to the fanaticism in religious fundamentalists.
Tue Sorensen
> Ah, but there is a Sorensen Comics Code--Tue
> once spent more than a month outlining it for me
> (though, of course, he didn't call it that). By the
> time that exchange was finished, he'd advocated
> dozens of restrictions he thought should be in
> place on proper superhero comics; restrictions
> which micromanaged what a comic could be
> down to fairly minute details. Among other things,
> he came out against original writing, against
> realistic dialogue. and made an enthusiastic
> defense of simplistic storytelling, trashing editors,
> as he has here, for allowing the books to be
> taken in new directions instead of simply
> rehashing the same old song-and-dance.
Just to let everybody else know -- What jay says about my perspective
is not in a terminology I can accept. Our definitions of "originality"
and even "realism" differ widely. Anyone who's interested in forming
an opinion should go back and read the original usenet correspondence
(it's just a couple of months back).
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
> On 12 Mar 2003 06:35:58 -0800, Dreamh...@hotmail.com (Ryan) wrote:
>
> >> Well, just barely! It is quite clear that it isn't the
> >> classic superhero themes that Bendis is
> >> interested in writing about.
> > No, it's not the "classic" superhero theme, though
> > I'm not sure what that would be -- 1940's Superman
> > weren't classic superhero stories when they were
> > written; classic status is only bestowed on something
> > after the fact. Bendis is doing something new and
> > different with the title.
>
> First rule in conversing with Tue: He's automatically
> against ANYTHING "new and different."
First rule in reading anything jay says about me: He's deliberately
misrepresenting my views out of pure unsporting spite. OBVIOUSLY, I am
all for something new and different, but I argue that Bendis' DD is
*not* new and different. It's old wine in a new bottle. Broken ground
with a new pavement.
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
All right. But, there are, then, at least two ways to like
superheroes. One is to believe that Dark Knight and Watchmen said
nearly all there is to say about superheroes, and the other is to
believe that they (should have) had little or no impact on how classic
superheroes should be done. Bendis is of the former mindset, I'm of
the latter. The two views are lightyears apart, and I question whether
those of the former view ever really understood the mechanisms of good
superhero stories in the first place. The superhero is an archetype
that is far from exhausted, no matter how many Dark Knights or
Watchmens pretend to provide "the final word" on them. If those series
seriously wanted to say something big and general about the superhero
archetype, then they misfired very badly.
Just MO.
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
> This entire thread we're writing in now
> came about because Tue, for what must be the
> 10,000th time at this point, came out with both
> barrels blasting against anyone who thinks DD
> is good right now. The whole of his initial post
> was devoted to challenging the fan credentials
> of anyone who likes the current DD run.
No - it was devoted to arguing that Bendis' DD, IMO, isn't good. *You*
are the one(s) construing it as a challenge to your fan creds. I'm
simply saying I disagree with you. When you disagree with someone's
politics, do you also accuse them of challenging your political
credentials?
Maybe I sometimes end up saying that "you don't understand" or some
such, and that's because that's how I see it. I am not a relativist
who thinks all opinions are equal. Somewhere in the subjective mire
there are objective elements which qualify opinions and which need to
be understood to some degree in order for your opinion to be useful,
and worth other people's attention and scrutiny. If I end up
challenging what I see as your lack of understanding, then the only
thing challenged is your lack of knowledge (which, if I were
challenging it unfairly, you should be able to disprove. If you can't
do that, I consider *my* point proven. Most often, this whole thing is
called "disagreement" because you won't accept that your knowledge is
lacking). The knowledge I speak of here, however, is not knowledge of
what went on in the comics, but the much more general knowledge that
allows you to *interpret the stories* accurately. I may once have said
that your ability to do this was deficient, but this still doesn't
amount to a challenge of your "fan credentials". Your fan status has
to do with your own enthusiasm and possibly the number of comics
you've read and the number of years you've been reading. No one is
challenging that. What I'm challenging is your understanding of my
argumentation when it comes to the discussion of literary theory.
Nothing to do with your fan creds.
So, might you finally find it in yourself to GIVE IT A REST?!
- Tue
jentlman
> jentlman wrote:
>
> : In point of fact the
> : fear and loathing of anti-religious bigots has been running rampant
> : lately, especially in this newsgroup.
>
> I'm not surprised that you feel this way, considering that I chiefly remember
> you for some generic homophobic statements in .xbooks a while back.
No, what you remember was that I said homosexuality is a sin within my
belief system. I then went on to identify myself as a sinner and
therefore in the same group. Where, in those two statements do I
exhibit any fear or hatred for anybody? Where is the superior attitude
in those statements? It does not exist in those statements and it does
not exist in my personal life. BTW do you also happen to recall how I
was attacked venomously, even though I showed no animosity to anyone.
I'm sure you could google to refresh your memory.
DEAC
jentlman
> jentlman wrote:
>
> : Nothing, which leads me to be believe that bigotry comes in many
> : different sizes, shapes, colors and belief systems. And that bigotry
> : against "religious fundamentalists" is alive and well.
>
> It should be, in most cases. A democratic society based on personal freedom and
> equality cannot afford to be tolerant in the face of intolerance, religiously
> motivated or otherwise.
No, Marc it shouldn't. It could be argued that religious freedom is
our most enduring and critical right. In a democratic society people
should be able to believe and worship in whatever way they choose as
long as it does not violate established societal laws.
DEAC
Windbag1000
>this thread--are up more than 20% in the last year.
>Work of this quality has literally saved Marvel from
>extinction.
Please see sales comparison in thread "And Now For Something Completely
Controversial" for reality check.
The Napoleon of Crime
>What's wrong with Bendis' DD
Ummm.... not a thing, actually.
> This kind of complaints (that those of you who don't agree are sick of
> by now) is what being a *die-hard* fan is all about, boys and girls.
I thought a Die Hard fan meant that you ran around in a grubby
undershirt, dirty pants and no shoes (and a definite receding
hairline), yelling "Yippee-Kay-Yay, M*th*rF*ck*r".
(Which, come to think of it, *does* sound like a Bendis character.)
"I collect comic books, but I'm not one of those
geeks who collects comic books."
-- LIFE IN HELL
Jeff Meyer, N.C., N.Q.D.Y.
[Not Quite Dead Yet]
R. Tang
That does NOT mean the way they believe and worship should be
entirely free from outside commentary. Religious freedom is not the same
thing as immunity from criticism from others. And it is a pretty poor
faith that cannot withstand such criticism, particularly when much of that
criticism is intra-faith.
I V
wrote:
> All right. But, there are, then, at least two ways to like superheroes.
> One is to believe that Dark Knight and Watchmen said nearly all there is
> to say about superheroes, and the other is to believe that they (should
> have) had little or no impact on how classic superheroes should be done.
> Bendis is of the former mindset, I'm of the latter. The two views are
So, is your contention that DKR and Watchmen say little or nothing of
interest about superheroes? Or that, while they may say important things
about superheroes, it is nevertheless still possible to write superhero
stories without responding to DKR and Watchmen? I have difficulty
understanding either position, so I'd be grateful if you could elaborate.
Tue Sorensen
Offense By Out-Obnoxiousing The Offender 2003 goes to...
"Marc-Oliver Frisch" <Dersc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<b4p9c9$ibl$2...@news.online.de>...
> As for my personal opinion on your sermons, let's go back to something you said
> in one of your many assertions about the "universal quality of art" a month
> ago -- it really stuck out in my memory:
>
> > People disagree because they at least have the courage to *have* an
> > opinion about the nature of art. In the middle ages people disagreed
> > about how to understand the world - did the sun orbit the Earth or
> > vice versa? In time science supplied the answer, and I am confident
> > the same thing will happen again.
>
> You see, that's the kind of thing *I* find obnoxious, for example.
That's funny, I think it's perfect common sense (and thanks for giving
me a chance to correct those annoying typos!). You may have decided
that art is forever outside the realm of science, but I am more
open-minded. Most great thinkers have historically considered art and
science to be allies, springing from the same desire for human beings
to influence the world around them, whether it's by interpretation or
experimentation. Everything in the universe interconnects, which means
that everything can be explained by science. There are no exceptions.
If this offends you then you have exposed yourself as deeply
religious, and if that's the case we're not gonna agree on much
anyhow. Believe what you want, and so will I. But if debate ceases, so
does all social and cultural development. That I don't agree with you
doesn't mean that I don't respect you. Unless you blatantly prove
yourself unworthy of respect - and actually, you, personally, do. You
apparently become so royally and irrationally pissed about every
little thing that it repeatedly becomes impossible for me (and
obviously many others) to take your comments seriously. You sound like
an over-the-top politically correct member of a minority group who
sees everything as personal slights against their group, and who would
find some way to get offended even if I said I agreed with you (which,
however, there's not much danger of). And when your frustration comes
to a head, you hurl abuse. If that gives you satisfaction, well, to
each their own. I am differently inclined.
> Most folks here are quite reasonable and realize that, even if they don't like
> something or casually say that it's "bad", it doesn't necessarily have to be
> genuine shit -- it just may not be their cup of tea, because their own
> individual bias happens to swing against it.
>
> You, on the other hand, insist in all seriousness that things are "objectively
> bad" or "should not be like that", for the simple reason that you don't like
> them.
You've got that backwards. I don't like them *because* of some very
complex reasons which are naturally grounded in certain objective
criteria, because if they weren't, this would all just be
inconsequential small-talk. I'm attempting to get beyond that, and
arrive at conclusions that can actually be of some interesting use. If
some people get offended in that process, well, then I must simply
learn to phrase my thoughts in a less offensive way. It's not always
that offense can be avoided, though.
> That's not where your presumptuousness ends, however. You also have the
> intellectual audacity to proclaim that one day, just like people once found out
> that the earth orbits the sun, people will learn to differentiate between "good
> art" and "bad art".
>
> Now, ain't that just great...? Hey, all you poor artist schmucks seeking to
> express yourselves, you freethinking fools who try to find new ways off the
> beaten paths, stop your futile, unnecessary endeavors: The Tue Sorensen Scale
> of Good Art and Entertainment has been discovered! From now on, we'll just
> create Good Art, and stop creating Bad Art! Here's the appropriate guidelines
> for everyone! Let it burn, the entartete Kunst!
I can only point out how poorly you understand my ideas (admittedly
owing a great deal to my poor phrasing of them). The art theory I'm
trying to proliferate would result in anything but uniform art; it
would (and with luck will) become an explosion of infinite, marvelous
variety with a mass appeal unprecedented in the history of
entertainment. The only current problem is that it will take a long
time to explain just why that is, and I have not yet found the proper
phraseology by which this would be optimally accomplished. But just
you wait.
> Still, that's not where it ends. Here's your latest brilliant little gem:
>
> : I can only repeat my above paragraph. I read the first Powers trade,
> : and it seems clear to me that the book only exists because it would
> : have been extremely difficult for Bendis to get any kind of a foothold
> : in the industry (i.e. sales) if he didn't somehow incorporate
> : superheroes.
>
> And you actually have the balls to call other people obnoxious. You don't even
> realize how utterly presumptuous and offensive your assumption is, do you?
Apparently not. I calls 'em like I sees 'em, and the above, while
indeed being somewhat presumptuous (in which capacity it is well in
line with about half the comments on usenet), does not strike me as
all that offensive. It's just my (possibly wrong) impression of a
reading experience. Now, a lot of things said on these newsgroups can
be a bit rushed and ill-considered (something of which you, sir, are
far guiltier than I), and therefore shouldn't be taken too hard.
Reacting violently (as you often do) just demonstrates that you have a
bad temper and no sense of proportion. Grain of salt, Marc, grain of
salt. And see my reply to Tony on that paragraph.
> And on top of all that, you now congratulate yourself on your own "civil
> conduct".
Aw, you're just sore because no one is congratulating *you*! :-)
> Let me tell you one thing: If your ignorant, small-minded, offensive,
> presumptuous and utterly insufferable
Fresh out of adjectives already? *Actually*, I'm also smug, superior,
arrogant, self-satisfied and holier-than-thou... wouldn't you say? (Or
should that be "profaner-than-thou"...?)
> sermons, which are reeking of art fascism
> and disrespect for any views different from your own, have anything to do with
> "civil conduct", then Orwell's *1984* probably portrays a beautiful, utopian
> society worth striving for.
Gee, irony is really your thing, huh?
> That's my three cents in the matter. If it was not level-headed enough, or too
> obnoxious for your o-so-precious, universally relevant gusto, dear Tue, you can
> pretty please go fuck yourself, with sugar and cream.
Well, obviously this kind of troll-like vitriol is perfectly courteous
behavior from your point of view, so I will let others be the judge of
what constitutes level-headedness and shut my o-so-offensive mouth.
- Tue (who must be one of the most widely quoted posters on racmu by
now!! Ah, controversy!)
Tue Sorensen
> objectively bad.
The one thing that should be clear by now is that this idea of mine is
really difficult to explain. First of all, if you like it, great. You
get something out of it, and that's great. To you, subjectively, it's
a good comic. That's fine. And from your p.o.v., my view is also
subjective. And of course it is in many ways. But, I'm playing around
with theories about fundamental mechanisms that appeal to the
collective cultural consciousness of the human species (or Western
culture at least), and I have concluded that there probably are some
objective elements and mechanisms at play in that process. This is not
something I have published (though I plan to), nor that anyone
important has agreed with me on yet (except for Shakespeare - but you
only have my word for that), and so, like an untested scientific
theory, it doesn't have much life other than what I give it in my
comments. You should feel free to disregard these ideas all you want;
disregard my claims all you want. Nobody yet agrees that the objective
criteria I point to are actually there. It's just an idea I have, and
that I'm testing, because I believe very strongly in it. Maybe I've
been amiss in my presentation of it, and for that I'm sorry, but you
have to remember what kind of forum this is. This is a place for
casual, non-academic, wildly opinionated, short-term, generally
disposable discussion. And it makes a cool testing ground for weird
theories (just go on over to sci.physics if you don't believe me!!).
But once the subjects discussed gain a certain depth, these kinds of
regrettable war on words invariably start happening. And if things
can't be kept fairly amicable, then I'm really not fond of using this
forum for this kind of discussion - it tends to get out of hand.
But, briefly, my contention is that stories that feature realism are
generally more limited in their (usually allegorical) scope than
stories of the fantastic genre. I find it to be a *general* (but
certainly not definitive) rule that the more fantastic, imaginative
and wonder-driven a story is, the greater its potential capacity for
complexity and double entendres. Literature evolves, and picks up new
meanings which accumulate in each retelling over the ages. The best
literature is that which contains vast amounts of accumulated
substance about the human condition while also maintaining an order
and integrity that gives structure to all this substance - whether
this was consciously intended by the author or not. And my claim is
that a wildly imaginative classic-type superhero story features oodles
of significant elements which symbolize all sorts of things,
importantly including a radical vision of a different future society
and musings on how to reach that improved state. This is the kind of
questions that concern me, and which I think it would be a much better
world if a lot more people were interested in. The realism of Bendis'
DD treats questions that are trivial to me; questions I have already
resolved. I want to move on, further, faster. I want to start building
a better world now. I want to do my best to follow the heroic morals
that good heroic fiction presents us with. Good heroic fiction exists
to inculcate better values in us, individually as well as
collectively, and this is a noble purpose that I think more people
should be more concerned with, esp. in a forum devoted to Marvel
comics. Unfortunately, even Marvel themselves are hardly concerned
with heroism anymore. Hence, "you've got to rage against the dying of
the light".
Makes sense?
- Tue
TonyS
"Windbag1000" <windb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030313130126...@mb-bg.aol.com...
Funny how "in the last year" and a comparison of "2000 sales to 2003 sales"
are really really far from the same thing.
-Tony
Tue Sorensen
> >
> >...is that it's crime and docu-drama.
>
> Yeah, that's why I read it. In the new Total Sell Out (good book, go buy!
> Plug! Plug!) Bendis states that Daredevil is not a superhero, but a pulp hero
> brought into modern day comics
Ta-daa! I rest my case. Bendis' DD "is not a superhero".
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
> Oh good god people!
>
> I haven't been in in months (since last year actually) and you're still
> conducting the same ultimately meaningless argument about Marvel books that
> you were then.
>
> Obsess a little?
With the current state of Marvel, what else is there to do?
- Tue
Steve-o Stonebraker
>>For this argument to work, everyone here must be willing to accept that you are
>>an undisputed intellectual guardian of the character. You are the "TRUE FAN."
>>You are the badge carrying model of what all Daredevil readers should aspire to
>>be.
>
> And, conversely, that everyone who disagrees with him is not a
> fan. >>THAT<< is where the narrow-mindedness and fanaticism comes in,
> which is similar to the fanaticism in religious fundamentalists.
As I read this thread, my mind keeps wandering back to a rant that was
once posted to the Transformers newsgroup, and since people are now
raising the issue directly, I figure I may as well post it here.
Obviously, the examples contained herein are Transformers examples, but I
think the gist should be clear. Without further ado, I bring you M
Sipher's "True fan" rant:
===
From: msi...@aol.com (MSipher)
Subject: RANT : "True Fan" and more stuff I hate about fandom.
Date: 1997/05/28
Message-ID: <19970528010...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.toys.transformers
[snip]
...
Any rate, I WAS going to dismiss the mail as the ramblings of a moron
and never think of it again, but then they got on some diatribe that
REALLY put my nerves on end. And I saw in this letter so much of what I
consider to be one of the WORST aspects of ANY fandom... regardless of the
object of that fandom.
The notion that fandom can be ranked and scored, that one's knowledge
of trivia and/or collection size defines not only "fan", but "better fan
than you". The philosophy that someone who likes/dislikes a particular
aspect of TFs is not a "True Fan".
"True Fan".
I've seen that phrase tossed across this newsgroup countless times.
Every time, it disgusts me. Unlike some people, I don't feel this paranoid
McCarthyist urge to divide the world into the black-and-white division of
holy and good "True Fan" and evil "Not Fan" based on my own personal
preferences of the TF universe.
What is a TF fan? As far as I'm concerned, a fan is anybody who holds
an interest in the aesthetic aspects of TFs... someone who cares for MORE
than a TF's resale value. Someone who enjoys the IDEA. ANY part of that
idea. I know plenty of people whose only interest in TFs is selling them.
Does that bug me? Hell no, I deal with these people every weekend. If
anything, that prevents them from saving the cooler ones for themselves.
No skin off my back. (Go re-read the section on toy dealer comparisons if
you want to. The guys I'm talking about here fall into the latter
category.)
And guess what folks. "Fan" encompasses a WIDE range of interests AND
dislikes. I am SO SICK of seeing messages like "Anybody who likes/doesn't
like (Fill In TF Subgroup of Choice Here) isn't a true fan!", and "You
don't know what (Fill In The Blank) is? You can't be true fan!", and that
ilk. "True Fan" is a bullshit term used by insecure, narrow-minded people
acting holier-than-thou, trying to make themselves feel better by putting
themselves up on the "True Fan" pedestal while kicking others off. There
is no such thing as a "True Fan". There is only "Fan". Any measurement of
fandom is arbitrary and personal AT BEST. What you know, what you own, or
what individual aspects of TFs you like does NOT define whether one is a
"Fan" or not, and frankly, doesn't make anybody a bigger or better fan
than anybody else. Quit thinking that trivia and collection size equals
penis length. (Apologies to the female TF fans out there, but you know
what I mean.) I don't care if you could rattle off every tech-spec from
memory BACKWARDS, myself. I don't care if you own every TF ever made,
including rare prototypes. I don't care if you could act out for me every
episode of the American and Japanese cartoons, including the voices.
Anyone who hates/likes Beast Wars or Machine Wars is a TF Fan.
Anyone who hates/likes Action Masters, MicroMasters, Pretenders, or
any other generally disliked subgroup is a TF Fan.
Anyone who likes G1 but doesn't know what G2, BW or MW *is* is a TF
Fan.
Anyone new to TFs who only knows BW is a TF Fan.
Anyone who likes G1 but doesn't know anything about the Japanese or
European lines is a TF Fan.
Anyone who only likes the first two years of G1 toys is a TF Fan.
Anyone who likes the toys but knows jack about the cartoon/comic
fiction is a TF Fan.
Anyone who doesn't care about ANY of the toys but enjoys the
cartoon/comic is a TF Fan.
Anyone who only likes the first two seasons of the G1 cartoon is a TF
Fan.
Anyone who only likes the comic is a TF Fan.
Anyone who thinks the Decepticons have got it right is a TF Fan.
Anyone who doesn't like the way any of the fiction went but likes the
characters is a TF Fan.
Do you see where I'm going with this? Possessions and trivia don't
enter into it. Personal likes/dislikes don't enter into it. Those are
ASPECTS of TF Fandom, they don't DEFINE it. That "TF Fan Purity Test" of
Diana's is a JOKE, people. (I'm dead certain she'll back me up on this.)
It is meant to provide amusement. NOT to be used as a measuring stick.
I've been on this newsgroup for years. And there have been many
others on it before I was. Some may know more about the whole TF universe,
some may write fanfics or other TF-related documents, but they are no
"better" fans than some lurker or somebody who just joined last week. So
anybody who's been holding back on posting because they're afraid of being
stomped on by some almighty TF clique, stop worrying. Post away. Give us
your questions! We're here to help and encourage and share, godsdammit!
(_*BUT*_... I URGE you to READ THE FAQ FIRST. We don't mind questions
asking to ID toys or episodes or whatever. _*BUT*_, if you ask one of the
questions that can be found under the heading "What Not To Ask" in the
FAQ, you are indeed asking for trouble.)
[snip again]...
And no, we DON'T have to start behaving like one big happy Brady
family and agree with everything and never argue. That would be intensely
BORING. But dammit, watching everybody turn on each other and get elitist
over mere aspects of fandom is *embarrassing*.
We're ALL fans here. No one is a better fan than anybody else.
And NEVER put words in my mouth. Else I'll cram them right back in
yours.
M "I'm Just Wondering What's Going To Happen When I Finally Lose All My
Patience. I Tell You Now Though, It Will NOT Be Pretty..." Sipher
===
--Steve-o
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Stonebraker | Transformers FAQ Keeper | Astrophysicist
sst...@yahoo.com | www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~sstoneb | AOL IM: srstoneb
Tue Sorensen
> > > know from a country miles away who bitches about how he doesn't like
> > > it. It's not going to work.
> >
> > a bunch of those), it may well enhance their feelings and so help my
> > case.
> >
>
> This is what disturbs me. You call yourself a Marvel fan but your
> avowed purpose is to get people to stop buying their magazines. How
> long do you think Marvel will last if people start listening to you?
Brendan, Brendan, Brendan, you're carrying on as if my opinion doesn't
include a better alternative! Of course it does, that's the whole
point. If Marvel changed the focus of various titles, incl. DD, and
got some competent editing, I contend that sales would rise. We are
living in an era of dirt-low comics sales. After a wild sales boom in
'90-95, sales have been pretty abysmal in comparison, and many many
old fans (and pros) spend a lot of time thinking about how to fix the
industry, because it is still in crisis and still needs fixing. And
the old fans are still there, waiting in the wings. The bestselling
book sells 100K. Wizard Magazine sells 200K, and *I'm* not even
fanatic enough to buy Wizard! So we have the additional 100K Wizard
buyers, plus oldsters like me, who would be picking up a lot more
comics if they returned to former glories. I'm not conservative or
backward-looking, I just insist that the older-style comics were far
more progressive and radical and thought-provoking (and entertaining)
than most comics are now. The pre-90s comics were produced amidst or
in the shadow of social upheaval, and this made their contents dynamic
and innovative and cutting-edge in a way that is apparently totally
forgotten by most editors now.
[some stuff snipped; you just repeated what you said in the previous
post]
> I would imagine there are still thirty or so comics a month (once you
> include DC) that are still tales of wonder and astonishment
No, unfortunately it's much worse. While many titles may try to live
up to that ideal, very few succeed. There is Wonder Woman and (maybe
not so much longer) Green Arrow, and from Marvel the best titles,
Thunderbolts and Black Panther, have recently undergone massive
changes which make them shadows of their former selves. Then there are
various minor things here and there, but other than that I am hard put
to enjoy anything but reprints and old back-issues these days. I'm
interested in the post-Rucka Elektra, though (the issue that's in the
latest Previews), and will certainly give that a try. I also have high
hopes for the new New Mutants book, and Sam Kieth's issues of PPSM
look like they might be worth picking up...
> There is no way the grim and gritty people have anything like that many.
You don't reckon? Might be interesting to do some statistics on, but
I'm too tired. It also depends on the exact definition of "grim and
gritty" - and whether that's the proper antithesis to "wonder and
astonishment". Maybe we can go into this some other time.
> > What I want is simply a kind of storytelling
> > that understands the classic Stan Leesque superhero style and knows
> > how to tell stories that engross me *every time*!
>
> But the fact that you are not getting something you want doesn't mean
> you should take it from me. If you like those titles, buy them...
> but don't try to stop me buying mine.
I sympathize, but I feel in the right because I'm a fan of the unique
*character* of DD. The truth is that you can get similar stuff in lots
of other places, whereas, IMO, DD is not supposed to be like this. -
BUT, as I have no power to cancel DD, you really don't need to feel
threatened by my opinion. It's not going to cause your favorite comic
to go away anytime soon, so calm down.
> It's all about diversity. Me, I hate modern jazz. But I can accept
> that there are people who hear rhythms in the hideous cacophony I
> hear, who really enjoy the pointless tootling and who see untrammeled
> talent where I see shameless self-indulgence. That's why you don't
> see me picketing the local music store or chaining myself to the
> railings of whatver station plays that crap. It's a free country.
Yeah, people are free to chain themselves to fences and railings...
it's called "passion". Without that fire, there would never have been
any progress. It's not enough to just live and let live. You've got to
make your voice heard if there's something - anything - you feel
strongly about, so you can help effect positive change. But, this is
the stuff that wars are made of, so if we disagree, let's just leave
it at that before it escalates further...
> Arguing against people's right to exercise their choice is doomed.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
> > And as for buying the book, well, you see, I don't. I stopped buying
> > it at #29 and have simlpy been sampling two or three issues since,
> > plus I've kept up with what's going on in it, by and large.
>
> Maybe you should stop reading it altogether. It's not making you
> happy.
*That* is most certain! Fortunately, I have other things in my life
than my distaste for the current DD.
> I promise to email you when the Jester next turns up.
Much obliged!
> Or maybe you could watch the sales columns - as soon as they collapse,
> you could assume it's the comic for you.
Hardy ha ha.
> Come to think about it, why
> don't you get a petition or whatever going to get "Untold Tales of
> Daredevil" going or something.
Now that's a genuinely good idea. Knowing New Marvel, however, they
would just do it in a similar style to the main title... OK, sorry,
I'm being pessimistic, but it's what New Marvel has taught me to be,
so... Still, it's a neat idea...
> Reading your posts which refer to specific comics, one
> would think that Marvel comics ruined your life. How about specific
> cases of what you do like?
Shocking as it may be to you (after all your complaining about all my
complaining), they're out there. Didn't you see the glowing review of
Essential X-Men vol. 2 I posted a week or two ago?
- Tue
Steve-o Stonebraker
> But, I'm playing around with theories about fundamental mechanisms that
> appeal to the collective cultural consciousness of the human species (or
> Western culture at least), and I have concluded that there probably are
> some objective elements and mechanisms at play in that process.
I don't mean to belittle a theoretical framework that you've clearly put a
lot of effort into developing, but this statement -- which I take to be
more or less your thesis -- strikes me as obvious. Yes, by analyzing what
sorts of things people like in their art, you can figure out what sorts of
qualities new art "should" have in order to get it to appeal as much as
possible to as many people as possible.
That is not, however, a definition of "good" art in my mind. It's simply
art that has wide, strong appeal. Artistic merit is an inherently
subjective thing. You can measure people's judgements on the issue, and
come up with a profile that describes the majority opinion, but that's
different than actually finding a "true" description of quality art.
As a side note, I recommend the "This American Life" episode, "Numbers",
which contains a story about paintings and songs produced with the
results of a public opinion poll:
http://thislife.org/pages/descriptions/98/88.html
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Also, how come the people who declare their true, die-hard, loyalty to
> Marvel are the people who write most of the posts telling the world
> that Marvel is shit and that "insert top-selling comic here" is a
> waste of money?
Because they're the only ones that care enough to spend the time doing
that. They love the company, but hate the work, which gives them the
passion to crusade. Without the love, they'd just go away.
None of that is a put-down, by the way, just a statement of human
nature. It's a lot easier to bash than compliment.
--
Johanna Draper Carlson
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
New: Reviews of Crossovers, Gotham Central, Invincible, Stormwatch
Tue Sorensen
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:06:51 -0800, twoc...@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen)
> wrote:
> > All right. But, there are, then, at least two ways to like superheroes.
> > One is to believe that Dark Knight and Watchmen said nearly all there is
> > to say about superheroes, and the other is to believe that they (should
> > have) had little or no impact on how classic superheroes should be done.
> > Bendis is of the former mindset, I'm of the latter. The two views are
>
> So, is your contention that DKR and Watchmen say little or nothing of
> interest about superheroes? Or that, while they may say important things
> about superheroes, it is nevertheless still possible to write superhero
> stories without responding to DKR and Watchmen? I have difficulty
> understanding either position, so I'd be grateful if you could elaborate.
You're asking some big questions, comrade. You'll have to give me some
time to respond in kind. Briefly, I don't think DKR and Watchmen are
statements on the same heroic archetype that the classical superhero
(as found esp. in vintage Marvel comics) constitutes. Instead, they
are telling different types of stories, which (esp. Watchmen) are
pretty much supposed to stand alone. For instance, Watchmen esp.
treats superheroes as corruptible ("power corrupts", yadda yadda),
which the heroic archetype isn't. This is a totally different take on
the concept of superheroes; a take which is interested in totally
different things. The classical archetype is a hero that teaches by
morally superior example, encouraging us to live up to the heroic
ideal. Most superhero stories written by British writers are about the
hero as a symbol of the corrupt status quo; an establishment authority
figure that should be distrusted because its power isn't justified.
IOW, this take is appropriating the superhero for (often admirable and
important) purposes of social criticism, but at the same time
deconstructing the heroic archetype by portraying it as corruptible.
And while this can all be well and good, it reduces superhero comics
to the same "literature of defeat" that mainstream (as opposed to
science fiction and classic superheroic fiction) literature mostly
consists of. That's my beef with it. Superhero comics used to be
different. I think the world, and certainly young people, need
positive, constructive, edifying, optimistic material to wonder and
marvel at; to show the way towards a better world. That's the most
important power of good art. People seem to be increasingly losing
sight of this.
As for your looong other post; I don't know when I might have time to
respond in full. You seem to have missed much of the point I was
making (no offense!), so I suggest you go back and (re?)read some of
my earlier postings in threads where much of this was touched upon
before (some month ago). Otherwise, I'll try to oblige when I have
time.
- Tue
Ralf Haring
wrote:
>
>So, might you finally find it in yourself to GIVE IT A REST?!
Can you follow your own advice with regards to Bendis and DD?
-Ralf Haring
"The mind must be the harder, the heart the keener,
the spirit the greater, as our strength grows less."
-Byrhtwold, The Battle of Maldon
Ralf Haring
wrote:
Read comic you like and stop bitching?
Eoghann Irving
Expand your horizons. Read something you like. Watch tv. Go golfing.
Anything. Just don't waste your time on something this futile and
pointless.
Its really simple. Comic is published, if you like the comic then buy read
it, if you don't like it don't read it and don't buy it. If you don't buy it
you have nothing to complain about and you can spend that money on something
that actually gives you enjoyment. The end.
--
Eoghann Irving
Editor
Solar Flare - Everything Fantasy and Science Fiction
http://www.sflare.com
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: Aaand, the award for Most Easily Offended Racmu Poster Who Responds To
: Offense By Out-Obnoxiousing The Offender 2003 goes to...
Well, thanks for the flowers, but I don't really think my blunt,
meat-and-potatoes kind of straightforward style really has all that much
potential for obnoxiousness.
: Most great thinkers have historically considered art and
: science to be allies, springing from the same desire for human beings
: to influence the world around them, whether it's by interpretation or
: experimentation. Everything in the universe interconnects, which means
: that everything can be explained by science. There are no exceptions.
I can broadly agree. My problem lies more with the fact that you seem to
conveniently reduce this universal potential for explanation to a question of
who's objectively "right" and who's "wrong", or what's "good" and what's "bad".
Further, you seem to believe that you are already qualified to be an objective
judge in the outcome of these matters.
My understanding -- particularly in the context of art -- is that some things,
even if wholly explained, are much too complex for a simple yes/ no call. That
we may, in theory, be able to explain everything sooner or later does not mean
that everything will ultimately turn out to be either black or white.
: You've got that backwards. I don't like them *because* of some very
: complex reasons which are naturally grounded in certain objective
: criteria, because if they weren't, this would all just be
: inconsequential small-talk.
Then you're officially the first human being I've ever encountered who is the
master of his own likes and dislikes, determining them on rational principles,
as opposed to being a slave to such trivial things as taste, like everybody else
I've met so far.
Then again, let's assume something different: What if your reasoning is
actually inductive? What if, just like everybody else, you simply try to find
out why you happen to like certain things, but not others? Now, assuming that
were the case, what if the reason why people find you so obnoxious is that it
appears to them that you are simply confusing the answers you end up with -- the
unique "scale" for your personal tastes, so to speak -- with a universal,
objective scale?
: I'm attempting to get beyond that, and
: arrive at conclusions that can actually be of some interesting use. If
: some people get offended in that process, well, then I must simply
: learn to phrase my thoughts in a less offensive way. It's not always
: that offense can be avoided, though.
I agree. But if you subscribe to that school of thought, you have to be
prepared for people to call you on it, and possibly offend you back. It's not a
one-way street.
: I can only point out how poorly you understand my ideas (admittedly
: owing a great deal to my poor phrasing of them). The art theory I'm
: trying to proliferate would result in anything but uniform art;
Sounds wonderful, but once you embrace the notion that you can clearly tell
"good art" from "bad art" at some point, it's either tit or tat: The result may
not necessarily be uniform art, but it WILL get you to the point where your
criteria tell you that one work is good, while another is bad, thus limiting the
spectrum by dimissing pieces that do not meet the criteria.
Hence, the notion of specific universal criteria to judge art is inherently
fascist, where I'm concerned.
: it
: would (and with luck will) become an explosion of infinite, marvelous
: variety with a mass appeal unprecedented in the history of
: entertainment.
I don't buy into the concept of "infinite, marvelous variety with a mass appeal
unprecedented in the history of entertainment". People are much too different
from each other for that, and that's a good thing.
As a fellow firm believer in science, I'd expect you to know that the only way
leading to the achievement of ultimate mass appeal is the lowest common
denominator, and that's about as far from "infinite marvelous variety" as you
can get.
: > : I can only repeat my above paragraph. I read the first Powers trade,
: > : and it seems clear to me that the book only exists because it would
: > : have been extremely difficult for Bendis to get any kind of a foothold
: > : in the industry (i.e. sales) if he didn't somehow incorporate
: > : superheroes.
: >
: > And you actually have the balls to call other people obnoxious. You don't
even
: > realize how utterly presumptuous and offensive your assumption is, do you?
:
: Apparently not. I calls 'em like I sees 'em, and the above, while
: indeed being somewhat presumptuous (in which capacity it is well in
: line with about half the comments on usenet), does not strike me as
: all that offensive. It's just my (possibly wrong) impression of a
: reading experience.
To each their own. I find your far-fetched, not exactly flattering speculation
on an author's personal motives, which is not even supported by any sort of fact
or evidence, to be highly offensive and inappropriate.
: Now, a lot of things said on these newsgroups can
: be a bit rushed and ill-considered (something of which you, sir, are
: far guiltier than I), and therefore shouldn't be taken too hard.
: Reacting violently (as you often do) just demonstrates that you have a
: bad temper and no sense of proportion. Grain of salt, Marc, grain of
: salt.
Grain of salt, indeed.
Where I live and dwell, blunt, "violent" language does not necessarily equal
rushed or ill-considered action, or hint at a bad temper -- I'm more
open-minded.
It may suprise you, but I'm in perfect agreement with you about usenet being
sort of a "testing site" for weird, outrageous ideas. So, while it's true that
a lot of your statements annoy me and piss me off a great deal, you can rest
assured that I'm entirely conscious about the kind of language I use, be it
civil, sarcastic, "violent" or otherwise. I just like to experiment, cruel
little fucker that I am -- particularly with people who piss me off.
: > And on top of all that, you now congratulate yourself on your own "civil
: > conduct".
:
: Aw, you're just sore because no one is congratulating *you*! :-)
Actually, since you're bringing it up, it's not true that nobody's
congratulating me, but I don't get off on that sort of thing.
: > Let me tell you one thing: If your ignorant, small-minded, offensive,
: > presumptuous and utterly insufferable
:
: Fresh out of adjectives already? *Actually*, I'm also smug, superior,
: arrogant, self-satisfied and holier-than-thou... wouldn't you say? (Or
: should that be "profaner-than-thou"...?)
Some of these and others did cross my mind, but I think the ones I actually used
represent an acceptable compromise. Besides, I'm well aware that I'm smug,
superior, arrogant, self-satisfied and holier-than-thou as well, so I tried to
concentrate on those adjectives I can safely accept as being negative without
kicking myself in the process.
: > sermons, which are reeking of art fascism
: > and disrespect for any views different from your own, have anything to do
with
: > "civil conduct", then Orwell's *1984* probably portrays a beautiful, utopian
: > society worth striving for.
:
: Gee, irony is really your thing, huh?
Man, you're so fucking deep that I hear an echo when I respond to your posts.
: > That's my three cents in the matter. If it was not level-headed enough, or
too
: > obnoxious for your o-so-precious, universally relevant gusto, dear Tue, you
can
: > pretty please go fuck yourself, with sugar and cream.
:
: Well, obviously this kind of troll-like vitriol is perfectly courteous
: behavior from your point of view, so I will let others be the judge of
: what constitutes level-headedness and shut my o-so-offensive mouth.
Oh, come on -- I'm much too classy and self-reflected for a troll.
When I say you can go fuck yourself, I mean that in the kindest possible way. I
don't really know you, after all, and you may be a really nice chap when you're
not posting ludicrous, annoying and self-congratulatory (new bunch of adjectives
for you) sermons on the internet.
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
Dersc...@hotmail.com
2003: The year of the American omelette.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: > I'm not surprised that you feel this way, considering that I chiefly
remember
: > you for some generic homophobic statements in .xbooks a while back.
:
: No, what you remember was that I said homosexuality is a sin within my
: belief system.
I seem to remember that you insisted sexual orientation was a CHOICE (with
capital letters and all), and used such evergreens as "lifestyle", "promotion"
and "agenda" in that context.
: > It should be, in most cases. A democratic society based on personal freedom
and
: > equality cannot afford to be tolerant in the face of intolerance,
religiously
: > motivated or otherwise.
:
: No, Marc it shouldn't. It could be argued that religious freedom is
: our most enduring and critical right. In a democratic society people
: should be able to believe and worship in whatever way they choose as
: long as it does not violate established societal laws.
Which it does often enough in the case of religious fundamentalism. Which is
what I'm referring to when I say "in most cases".
R. Tang
Ralf Haring <ra...@duke.edu> wrote:
>On 13 Mar 2003 09:33:38 -0800, twoc...@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen)
>wrote:
>>
>>So, might you finally find it in yourself to GIVE IT A REST?!
>
>Can you follow your own advice with regards to Bendis and DD?
Of course not. He's a True Fan, you're not. That gives him more
leeway.