Alan Moore says "Oops! My bad!"

[BobClark]

Originally Posted by Graynadian

I was referring to the anthropomorphization which exists in both books, and which Animal Farm originated...

You've never heard of Beatrix Potter or The Brothers Grimm or the Bible or Norse mythology?

[Graynadian]

Originally Posted by bendrix

As I hard as I'm trying to, I can't let this go. You honestly believe Orwell's use of talking animals in a straightforward allegory invalidates Spiegelman being labeled unique or creative when he uses "funny animals" as metatextual analogues to actual people?

No, but at the same time I don't find Maus particularly innovative or original. It's an autobiography, this necessitates that it stays largely realistic. The pictures are fantastical, but that's about all.

Originally Posted by bendrix

Not to mention that Tom Stong is an amalgamation of pulp/science fiction/superhero tropes which, however beautifully orchestrated they were, still existed before Moore appropriated them.

All true. It also has tons of creativity and imagination, which is what I look for in a comic. If you look for other things in your comics, like realism or poignance, I can understand why you would like Maus more.

[bendrix]

Originally Posted by BobClark

You've never heard of Beatrix Potter or The Brothers Grimm or the Bible or Norse mythology?

No, see, that just proves his point further.

If anyone ever used anthropomorphized animals ever, it's not unique. Point taken.

[Graynadian]

Originally Posted by bobclark

you've never heard of beatrix potter or the brothers grimm or the bible or norse mythology?

bob clark ftw!!

[Graynadian]

Originally Posted by bendrix

No, see, that just proves his point further.

If anyone ever used anthropomorphized animals ever, it's not unique. Point taken.

Do like creative, fantastical autobiographies? Do you consider Maus to be one?

[bendrix]

Originally Posted by Graynadian

No, but at the same time I don't find Maus particularly innovative or original. It's an autobiography, this necessitates that it stays largely realistic. The pictures are fantastical, but that's about all.

I think you're conflating "fantastical" and "creative." A lack of fantastical elements does not mean a work is not creative or imaginative.

[Brad Millette]

This is like talking to a wall, and the wall has a big penis drawn on it in chalk.

[BobClark]

Okay, okay... Maus is uncreative because talking animals are unoriginal.
But superheroes are...? And this fantastical exploration of superheroes is more creativly satisfying than the innovative storytelling devices (which include more than just the cat/mouse thing) employed in Maus?

[BobClark]

Originally Posted by Graynadian

Do like creative, fantastical autobiographies? Do you consider Maus to be one?

Maus is not fantastical.

[Graynadian]

Originally Posted by bendrix

I think you're conflating "fantastical" and "creative." A lack of fantastical elements does not mean a work is not creative or imaginative.

It's his life story, with pictures. It is interesting and compelling, but I don't find it that creative, outside of it having been created. That said, it is also fantastical, but mostly in the anthropomorphizations of the characters. I'm attracted to creative narratives, and I consider Tom Strong and Watchmen to be exemplars of what I like.

[Graynadian]

Originally Posted by BobClark

Okay, okay... Maus is uncreative because talking animals are unoriginal.
But superheroes are...? And this fantastical exploration of superheroes is more creativly satisfying than the innovative storytelling devices (which include more than just the cat/mouse thing) employed in Maus?

It's uncreative because it's a bloody autiobiography. It's supposed to be literal. If you're giving it lots of creativity points because it has pictures and made the humans into dogs and cats, go crazy, but then you should also do the same for any illustrated story with talking animals.

Slow day at work guys?

[bendrix]

Originally Posted by Graynadian

It's his life story, with pictures. It is interesting and compelling, but I don't find it that creative, outside of it having been created. That said, it is also fantastical, but mostly in the anthropomorphizations of the characters. I'm attracted to creative narratives, and I consider Tom Strong and Watchmen to be exemplars of what I like.

But Spiegelman didn't just list facts of his or his father's life. What he chose to include, how he chose to portray what he did--even what he left out--all of it requires feats of amazing creativity and imagination.

It would be like if I were to say all Alan Moore did with Tom Strong was to arrange other people's toys in in interesting ways. Which is not what I'm contending, but it's equally reductive.

ETA: And the mice in Maus are not literally mice. They're analogues. There's a sequence in the book where the character Art is debating which animals will best represent each nationality. Not fantastical.

[Graynadian]

Originally Posted by bendrix

But Spiegelman didn't just list facts of his or his father's life. What he chose to include, how he chose to portray what he did--even what he left out--all of it requires feats of amazing creativity and imagination.

It would be like if I were to say all Alan Moore did with Tom Strong was to arrange other people's toys in in interesting ways. Which is not what I'm condtending, but it's equally reductive.

I truly enjoy Maus, but the constraints of the autobiographical form essentially preclude it from being among my favourite comics, most of which possess highly fantastical and imaginative narratives.

I'm flattered that you guys take such interest in what I find interesting, but since we are discussing my personal opinion, it's kind of a dead end discussion. I would find a conference on what comic styles we're each most attracted to and why much more interesting.

As I said a few posts back, what do you guys/girls look for most in comics?

[BobClark]

Originally Posted by Graynadian

It's uncreative because it's a bloody autiobiography.

Again- it's not an autobiography. Have you even read it?
It's primarily about the holocaust, but it's told as the author's memoir of his time with his father collecting notes for the book. It draws out the themes of survivor's guilt, isolation, and theology (among many others) by intertwining the past and present. He manages to find a common ground between the holocaust and his daddy issues through a deft use of art and prose.
Granted, nobody has superpowers and or blue dicks, but there's still a creativity there that is found in all good comics outside of the sci-fi genre.

[D.S. Randlett]

I think comparing Maus to Moore's work is a bit useless. Maus, even for its use of animals as allegorical representations, is a very straight forward memoir that struggles with a lot of tough emotions in an honest and realistic way. Moore's best work comes from a completely different direction. From Hell reads like Baudelaire's account of the Ripper murders. Watchmen isn't so much a realistic take on superheroes as much as it is a full bore representation of the emotions that they represent, it's much more in the mode of Wagner than anything else.

Maus is a work in the realist fashion (although I would hesitate to pigeonhole Spiegelman into any mode in general), and most of Moore's work is the work of a Romantic. One isn't necessarily more creative than the other, one just speaks to you more.

[Brad Millette]

It's not a comparison, it's the fact that he calls the work uncreative and unimaginative. THAT'S what's so fucking wrong.

[bendrix]

Originally Posted by Graynadian

I truly enjoy Maus, but the constraints of the autobiographical form essentially preclude it from being among my favourite comics, most of which possess highly fantastical and imaginative narratives.

I'm flattered that you guys take such interest in what I find interesting, but since we are discussing my personal opinion, it's kind of a dead end discussion. I would find a discussion about what comic styles we're each attracted to and why more interesting.

As I said a few posts back, what do you guys/girls look for most in comics?

Last time I'll say it. The point of debate is not about your personal preference. You said that Maus is not creative, imaginative, or unique. Regardless what genre appeals to you, that statement is flat-out wrong. Fantastical elements in a work are not the sole factor in determining an author's creativity. Failing to see that point, you are intellectually incapable of conceding anything, so I'll bow out now.

[Graynadian]

Originally Posted by bendrix

Last time I'll say it. The point of debate is not about your personal preference. You said that Maus is not creative, imaginative, or unique. Regardless what genre appeals to you, that statement is flat-out wrong. Fantastical elements in a work are not the sole factor in determining an author's creativity. Failing to see that point, you are intellectually incapable of conceding anything, so I'll bow out now.

I said I didn't find Maus particularly original or unique, just good. This was in comparison to other comics, and was certainly not an absolute statement on whether Maus was creative or imaginative at all. I find your blanket judgement of my intellectual capacity strange, since one of my first posts in this thread was a concession to Ryoken that Grant Morrison had more great works than I originally realized. Seeing as how you don't recognize any of this, I'll bow out too.

[ryoken]

I go out to buy a drink, and this happens? What the hell did I just unleash?
Im out again to go get something with alcohol this time.

[The Prankster]

To hell with Maus, I'm kind of blown away by the fact that he thinks Tom Strong is better than most of Morrison's work, including All-Star Superman, which seems right up his alley. And I like Tom Strong, but it's "just" a really well done adventure book. It's not even very original--it's just a reinvention of Doc Savage with better characterization. All-Star Superman actually has something new to say about Superman and superhero comics in general, and does so in a way that convinced a lot of people who claimed to hate Superman that the character was worthwhile.

And I don't think We3 is too short to define it as brilliant. More =/= better.

[Graynadian]

Originally Posted by The Prankster

To hell with Maus, I'm kind of blown away by the fact that he thinks Tom Strong is better than most of Morrison's work, including All-Star Superman, which seems right up his alley. And I like Tom Strong, but it's "just" a really well done adventure book. It's not even very original--it's just a reinvention of Doc Savage with better characterization. All-Star Superman actually has something new to say about Superman and superhero comics in general, and does so in a way that convinced a lot of people who claimed to hate Superman that the character was worthwhile.

And I don't think We3 is too short to define it as brilliant. More =/= better.

Your points about All-Star Superman are great, I can't really rationalize too much why I like Tom Strong more than All-Star Superman, it's probably something to do with my personal history/wiring.

I've thought about your second point, and you're right, We3 is a classic, length be damned.

[The Prankster]

It's one thing to personally enjoy something you know is middlebrow, but that's not necessarily the same as calling it "better". I mean, I acknowledge that From Hell is a work of demented genius, that doesn't mean I "like" it. I may never read it again. It's a forbidding tome. Same with Chris Ware's work. Brilliant, but almost devoid of true enjoyment.

Likewise, I get a real kick out of Dan Slott's She-Hulk run, it's probably one of my favourite comics of the last few years, but it's nothing resembling "great" comics in an objective sense.

I think this is why people are jumping on you. If Tom Strong didn't have Alan Moore's name on it, I'd argue that you wouldn't think for a second that it belonged in the same breath as Watchmen. And while you might be able to advance the case that it's better than All-Star Superman, it would be a tough sell.

This has very little to do with your personal opinion. I mean, you can argue anything from personal opinion. But there are objective qualities that make a work "great". I think the Morrison works I quoted (and Maus) have them, and Tom Strong doesn't.

[Graynadian]

Originally Posted by The Prankster

It's one thing to personally enjoy something you know is middlebrow, but that's not necessarily the same as calling it "better". I mean, I acknowledge that From Hell is a work of demented genius, that doesn't mean I "like" it. I may never read it again. It's a forbidding tome. Same with Chris Ware's work. Brilliant, but almost devoid of true enjoyment.

Likewise, I get a real kick out of Dan Slott's She-Hulk run, it's probably one of my favourite comics of the last few years, but it's nothing resembling "great" comics in an objective sense.

I agree.

I think this is why people are jumping on you. If Tom Strong didn't have Alan Moore's name on it, I'd argue that you wouldn't think for a second that it belonged in the same breath as Watchmen. And while you might be able to advance the case that it's better than All-Star Superman, it would be a tough sell.

It might be a tougher sell, but I'm pretty sure I'd love a non-Alan Moore Tom Strong just as much, and I'd definitely want to find out what other comics the author wrote.

This has very little to do with your personal opinion. I mean, you can argue anything from personal opinion. But there are objective qualities that make a work "great". I think the Morrison works I quoted (and Maus) have them, and Tom Strong doesn't.

I see your point that there are works of art which can be called near-objectively great. However, your final stated opinion probably goes against most peoples' in this thread, and that's ok.

[DanielRoffle]

I would totally count both Tom Strong and Slott's She-Hulk as truly great comics. They're great comedies - and considering that a pretty huge bunch of the comic book canon consists of funny books, that's not a genre one should underrate. I mean I can understand getting more of a rush of awe from Ware and From Hell and Maus because they're Serious Works tackling Major Issues, but, you know, the film canon has place for the Marx Brothers, the literary canon has place for Wilde's plays and P.G. Wodehouse.

[The Prankster]

"Great" is a bit of a subjective term, and I guess there's nothing wrong with calling Tom Strong and She-Hulk "great" in the sense of being top-level entertainments, but I'd argue they're "merely" the best that middlebrow has to offer right now. To really enter the top ranks I think a work has to say or do something new and challenging, which is what the Marx Brothers, Oscar Wilde, etc. all did. She-Hulk is a near-perfect iteration of everything good about Marvel, but it's still really just excelling within a formula. It doesn't really have anything to say, and all of its innovations are basically about doing maintenance on the Marvel U. It's like what Moore says about his own The Killing Joke, which is a very well-done story about Batman, but that's all it is.

I'm not saying it's a choice between greatness and fun. All-Star Superman is a highly entertaining story AND it has thematic and storytelling ambition. Same with Dark Knight Returns. It can be done. Hell, I find Watchmen flat-out entertaining, though many may disagree. But if all your ambition is to make a really good Jack Kirby book (or Chris Claremont book, or Frank Miller book, or what have you), I don't think you can really be said to have achieved true greatness. You're just riffing on the formula. And that's what I think the vast majority of superhero comics writers and artists are doing. She-Hulk and Tom Strong are just the top of that heap.

[DanielRoffle]

I think She-Hulk deserves some props for managing to do something intelligent with the Civil War premise and finding new ways to tackle the "what if super heroes existed in real life?" issue without going the grim & gritty route. But I'll agree that it is basically riffing on genre conventions - I think that this is what most good superhero comics this decade have done, though! I mean even something like New Frontier, which is arguably one of the "deeper" and more universally acclaimed works done this decade takes most of its appeal from a certain sense of nostalgia for the characters it portrays; that's just where the zeitgeist is at.

[The Prankster]

It's much narrower than riffing on genre conventions. It's rearranging the furniture in the Marvel Universe. She-Hulk does so very cleverly and entertainingly, but at the end of the day, it only matters within the context of Marvel comics. It's not really about anything more than that. All-Star Superman, Watchmen, the Dark Knight Returns go beyond that and try to use genre conventions, as well as their specific characters, to say and do new things.

The New Frontier's a bit tricky--I think it qualifies as great, but for the same reason The Dark Knight Returns does: for its art and graphic storytelling, not for its writing per se. That's one of the things about comics, they have two categories in which they can potentially achieve greatness.