[HYPE] 7th Rob Liefeld column on SpinnerRack.com - August 21, 2001
Allen Hui
VII: The Sincerest Form of Flattery
Is anything truly original being produced in comics today? Does being
original necessarily make something better? What separates improvement
or extrapolation on an original idea from imitation? These are the
questions Rob Liefeld is wrestling with this week as he examines the
affect of two all-time greats on modern comics. Read on and find out
why...
http://www.spinnerrack.com/columns/robservations/rl010821.php
Jeremy Henderson
wrote:
>Robservations
>VII: The Sincerest Form of Flattery
This week, Rob proves he reads nothing but comic books by saying
"Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which featured the
Invisible Man, Sherlock Holmes, Captain Nemo and Dr. Jekyll battling
Fu Manchu at the turn of the century. Once again, Moore amazingly
arrived at a commercial concept years before others could figure out
its appeal." Anyone not completely clueless knows that this type of
story had a brief vogue period just recently with bestselling novels
like Caleb Carr's The Alienist and Kim Newman's Anno Dracula, and goes
back at least 100 years to A Houseboat on the River Styx.
Rob goes on to say other foolish things, like comparing Scott Lobdell
to Alan Moore, and implying that without his own creation Supreme
(described by Alan Moore in one interview as "an awful, awful comic"
before he wrote it) The Authority would not exist.
He also completely fails to realize that the truly innovative thing
that Moore and Miller did was simply bring influences from OUTSIDE of
comics to their comic work. There's no mention of Mickey Spillane's
influence on Miller, or the effect of cinematic storytelling on
Watchmen, he just spouts the usual legendary comic names everyone
cites when listing influences (Toth, Lee, Kirby, Eisner, etc).
I mostly like Spinnerrack.com's content, but Liefeld's column comes
across more like the ramblings of a moderately informed fan than the
writing of an industry professional. But then, when's the last time
anyone ever called Liefeld an industry professional with a straight
face?
Read my insane ramblings!
http://www.storymania.com/cgibin/sm2/smshowauthorbox.cgi?page=1&author=HendersonJL
Mr Black
Anonymous
"Allen Hui" <al...@spinnerrack.com> wrote in message
news:3B823EBA...@spinnerrack.com...
KRothst402
>across more like the ramblings of a moderately informed fan than the
>writing of an industry professional. But then, when's the last time
>anyone ever called Liefeld an industry professional with a straight
>face?
I disagree. His column seemed right on the money to me. I think it is pretty
obvious that all these writers today have taken their cues from Moore and
Miller, and that without them and their work, people would not be seeing a lot
of what we see today.
Just because he is Rob Liefeld, doesn't mean he is wrong.
"This week, Rob proves he reads nothing but comic books by saying
"Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which featured the
Invisible Man, Sherlock Holmes, Captain Nemo and Dr. Jekyll battling
Fu Manchu at the turn of the century. Once again, Moore amazingly
arrived at a commercial concept years before others could figure out
its appeal." Anyone not completely clueless knows that this type of
story had a brief vogue period just recently with bestselling novels
like Caleb Carr's The Alienist and Kim Newman's Anno Dracula, and goes
back at least 100 years to A Houseboat on the River Styx."
I guess I am completely clueless. When I think of recent bestsellers, I think
of John Grisham. I missed these. But I don't see where you are disagreeing
with Liefeld, because when he speaks of "others" he is speaking of comic book
writers, not every human on earth. And to be blunt, Moore is always ahead of
the curve when placed against every other comic book writer.
>Rob goes on to say other foolish things, like comparing Scott Lobdell
>to Alan Moore, and implying that without his own creation Supreme
>(described by Alan Moore in one interview as "an awful, awful comic"
>before he wrote it) The Authority would not exist.
Actually, what was on the site was:
"A year after Alan Moore introduced a character named Professor Midnight into
Supreme's history, thereby developing a very deliberate World's Finest tribute,
Stormwatch launched a new direction with the "A Finer World" story arc that
introduced a white haired young Supreme-ish looking character named Apollo
(C'mon, he looks more like Supreme than Superman...) and a Dark Knight clone
named the Midnighter. Ellis' approach was given an additional twist by making
the pair gay lovers, but I can't help but think that Alan Moore opened the door
that Apollo and Midnighter eventually came out of"
Now, assuming he has his dates right, what is wrong with that theory? And
since he specifically mentions Moore's SUPREME, what does it matter what Moore
thought of Liefeld's version?
>He also completely fails to realize that the truly innovative thing
>that Moore and Miller did was simply bring influences from OUTSIDE of
>comics to their comic work. There's no mention of Mickey Spillane's
>influence on Miller, or the effect of cinematic storytelling on
>Watchmen, he just spouts the usual legendary comic names everyone
>cites when listing influences (Toth, Lee, Kirby, Eisner, etc).
>
I believe the essay was about their influences on others, and not who
influenced them. And you seem to have a problem staring at the black and white
situation of there would be no LONG HALLOWEEN as it was written if YEAR ONE had
not come first.
He does list some comic book heavyweights as being PART of a long list of
influences for the two gentlemen, but since this was a comic book oriented
article, this wouldn't be the logical time to take out Mort Weisenger and
insert Mickey Spillane. Whenever someone does an essay on crime comics, then a
mention of Spillane would seem appropriate.
I mean really, he wrote a harmless essay about how great Moore and Miller are,
provided what he thought were examples illustrating his point and how they led
to more modern comics, and you are angry at him for doing so. As for this...
> but Liefeld's column comes
>across more like the ramblings of a moderately informed fan than the
>writing of an industry professional.
...I think you are blinded by prejudice here. He came up with his theory
pretty quickly, cited his "proof" and opinions about them, and cited the comics
he thought came about because of his examples. Seems like a pretty
straightforward and logical essay to me, and written by someone who seems to
be well read with regard to current comics.
Ken Dreger
wrote:
I guess it makes sense that Rob would comment on imitation...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Comic News from around the net and the infamous comicgeek.ca comic strip.
http://www.comicgeek.ca
Subscribe to the ComicGeek mailing list and receive news daily in your mailbox:
comicgeekdaily...@yahoogroups.com
Jeremy Henderson
>"Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which featured the
>Invisible Man, Sherlock Holmes, Captain Nemo and Dr. Jekyll battling
>Fu Manchu at the turn of the century. Once again, Moore amazingly
>arrived at a commercial concept years before others could figure out
>its appeal." Anyone not completely clueless knows that this type of
>story had a brief vogue period just recently with bestselling novels
>like Caleb Carr's The Alienist and Kim Newman's Anno Dracula, and goes
>back at least 100 years to A Houseboat on the River Styx."
>
>I guess I am completely clueless. When I think of recent bestsellers, I think
>of John Grisham. I missed these. But I don't see where you are disagreeing
>with Liefeld, because when he speaks of "others" he is speaking of comic book
>writers, not every human on earth. And to be blunt, Moore is always ahead of
>the curve when placed against every other comic book writer.
Was a little off when I said "recent", both books came out in the
early to mid-90's, but for while there was quite a trend towards the
"a bunch of famous historical/literary figures get together and have
adventures" genre. The fact that the comic book industry caught on to
it just a couple years ago is hardly surprising, since comics tend to
be 5-6 years behind everyone else anyway.
But I don't see how you interpret Liefeld's "everyone" as "comic book
writers". Taking the comment at face value, it's pretty clueless.
>>Rob goes on to say other foolish things, like comparing Scott Lobdell
>>to Alan Moore, and implying that without his own creation Supreme
>>(described by Alan Moore in one interview as "an awful, awful comic"
>>before he wrote it) The Authority would not exist.
>
>Actually, what was on the site was:
>
>"A year after Alan Moore introduced a character named Professor Midnight into
>Supreme's history, thereby developing a very deliberate World's Finest tribute,
>Stormwatch launched a new direction with the "A Finer World" story arc that
>introduced a white haired young Supreme-ish looking character named Apollo
>(C'mon, he looks more like Supreme than Superman...) and a Dark Knight clone
>named the Midnighter. Ellis' approach was given an additional twist by making
>the pair gay lovers, but I can't help but think that Alan Moore opened the door
>that Apollo and Midnighter eventually came out of"
>
>Now, assuming he has his dates right, what is wrong with that theory? And
>since he specifically mentions Moore's SUPREME, what does it matter what Moore
>thought of Liefeld's version?
It strikes me as rather disingenuously drawing a line from Liefeld's
own creation to The Authority, one of the more influential books of
recent years. And if Liefeld is espousing Moore's groundbreaking and
original vision, why use an example of Moore very obviously taking
inspiration from two iconic characters?
The comment about Moore's opinion of Liefeld's Supreme I just added as
a humorous aside, and further proof of Rob's cluelessness.
>>He also completely fails to realize that the truly innovative thing
>>that Moore and Miller did was simply bring influences from OUTSIDE of
>>comics to their comic work. There's no mention of Mickey Spillane's
>>influence on Miller, or the effect of cinematic storytelling on
>>Watchmen, he just spouts the usual legendary comic names everyone
>>cites when listing influences (Toth, Lee, Kirby, Eisner, etc).
>>
>I believe the essay was about their influences on others, and not who
>influenced them. And you seem to have a problem staring at the black and white
>situation of there would be no LONG HALLOWEEN as it was written if YEAR ONE had
>not come first.
I have no problem with it at all, nor do I argue that Moore and Miller
have had a vast influence on comics in the last 15 years. The problem
I have is with Rob's myopic view of the whole situation. As I stated
before, the really influential thing that Alan and Frank did was bring
in new influences from OUTSIDE the comics medium. At the time they did
their groundbreaking work, comics had been cannibalizing themselves
for ideas for decades, a fact Rob seems unaware of.
KRothst402
>Was a little off when I said "recent", both books came out in the
>early to mid-90's, but for while there was quite a trend towards the
>"a bunch of famous historical/literary figures get together and have
>adventures" genre. The fact that the comic book industry caught on to
>it just a couple years ago is hardly surprising, since comics tend to
>be 5-6 years behind everyone else anyway.
>
>But I don't see how you interpret Liefeld's "everyone" as "comic book
>writers". Taking the comment at face value, it's pretty clueless.
>
Well I went back and looked at the site, and in the paragraph about
EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN it says...
"This reminded me of Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which featured
the Invisible Man, Sherlock Holmes, Captain Nemo and Dr. Jekyll battling Fu
Manchu at the turn of the century. Once again, Moore amazingly arrived at a
commercial concept years before others could figure out its appeal. "
Now it says "others" not "everyone", so who are the "others" Liefeld is talking
about. I say it is comic book writers, you say you don't see how I come to
that conclusion.
Well, paragraph two is where Liefeld starts to get to the heart of his essay
and it says:
"Any list of today's top writers is bound to include such familiar names as
Grant Morrison, Mark Millar, Jeph Loeb, Greg Rucka, Warren Ellis, Peter
Milligan, J. Michael Straczynski, Joe Casey and Paul Jenkins."
Looking at that list, and noticing the absence of John Grisham, Stephen King
and Danielle Steele, I am led to believe he is talking about comic book writers
here.
He immediately follows with the question that is the absolute heart of his
essay:
"But are they original? Does it even matter? Or are all of them, regardless of
how talented they are, pretty much running on the fumes still lingering from
the work of two groundbreaking talents named Alan Moore and Frank Miller? This
is the question that has been posed to me; now I'm asking you to consider it. "
So there you have it. He lists comic book writers, and asks if they are riding
the coat tails of Miller and Moore. And then each and every paragraph he uses
to explain why he thinks it, and the only time he even goes outside of comics
is to say that Miller was on the crime bandwagon before Quentin Tarantino. But
since every other person mentioned was a comic book writer, and his thesis is
all about modern day comic book writers taking their cue from Miller and Moore,
who else but other comic book writers could he be talking about when he says
"Once again, Moore amazingly arrived at a commercial concept years before
others could figure out its appeal. " ???
>It strikes me as rather disingenuously drawing a line from Liefeld's
>own creation to The Authority, one of the more influential books of
>recent years
I believe he was drawing a line from Moore's storylines in SUPREME to
AUTHORITY, and not the character itself. Again, the entire topic seems to
indicate that.
>And if Liefeld is espousing Moore's groundbreaking and
>original vision, why use an example of Moore very obviously taking
>inspiration from two iconic characters?
I believe the point was how Moore led to Authority. He cited a lot of
projects, and cited this too for the express purpose of linking it to
STORMWATCH I believe. He cited almost all of Moore's work, and seemed to leave
out only the SUPERMAN work of the 1980s.
> the really influential thing that Alan and Frank did was bring
>in new influences from OUTSIDE the comics medium. At the time they did
>their groundbreaking work, comics had been cannibalizing themselves
>for ideas for decades, a fact Rob seems unaware of.
>
That seems to be not true, otherwise he would not be citing WATCHMEN and DKR as
so important and noteworthy. I believe an argument can be made that comics
have spent the last 15 years cannibalizing Moore and Miller. Liefeld seems to
imply this, although he states that if it produces good comics it is not by
default a bad thing.
Steven Dumont
Ken Dreger wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001 03:58:02 -0700, Allen Hui <al...@spinnerrack.com>
> wrote:
>
> I guess it makes sense that Rob would comment on imitation...
He's probably trying to rationalize his own actions with the other
people he names.
Steve
Allen Hui
Kyle Moyer
> VII: The Sincerest Form of Flattery
> Is anything truly original being produced in comics today? Does being
> original necessarily make something better? What separates improvement
> or extrapolation on an original idea from imitation? These are the
> questions Rob Liefeld is wrestling with this week as he examines the
> affect of two all-time greats on modern comics. Read on and find out
> why...
Let me correct one of those sentences....
These are the questions Rob Liefeld has been wrestling with his entire
career.
Substitute that one in and it looks better.
John Thorenson
>These are the questions Rob Liefeld has been wrestling with his entire
>career.
>
>Substitute that one in and it looks better.
>
Nothing like insulting your social superiors in order to compensate for your
laughably small dick.
__
"You know you all take all this a bit to seriously. I think his snap comments
give this NG some personality---in a weird kind of way.
Lighten up."
John Kitchar, telling rgvn to lay off from trying to kick me (yes, ME!) off the
boards.