I was a fan of comics as a child (x-men, spiderman, etc) but when I reached a certain age (about 14 or 15) there was just something about them that started to repulse me, I think it was during or after the "Clone Saga" in spiderman, mid/late 90s. (If anybody doesn't know what I'm referring to I'll happily explain it with a little personal commentary if you send me a private message
. I don't expect my inbox to be 'flooded'
)
I'm mostly talking about American Superhero style comics and generally from DC and Marvel, here.
I began to notice huge problems in dialogue where nothing the characters said resembled the way people actually speak. That is, a great deal of what people say can be cut to a few sentences. (If the average marvel comic was edited so that the dialogue was more realistic it would only be 5 pages long. Which would mean they’d be able to start producing anthology comics, like 2000 AD
). Also, whenever the events of a current comic relate to something that happened months, years or even only several issues ago the characters will have to explain it to each other so that new readers understand.
Then there's other things, such as a frequent lack of continuity. Cities can be razed and then in the next issue they're completely back to normal. Amazing scientific or cultural advancements happen in many comics (new technology or contact with alien races) yet life in the worlds of these comics stubbornly retains parallel with real life. Time moves incredibly slowly. This is probably because issues are generally released between a month and a week apart but there must be ways to get around this. Neil Gaiman managed. Events publish up to years previously don’t need to be referenced as only weeks or even days before current issues.
And even though time moves slowly in terms of events; the years still seem to progress with our calendars. That is, in spite of everything I've said, they'll still use usually use the year of publication as the date. going back to spiderman as an example; Peter Parker was a high school senior (Actually I have no idea what age defines 'senior' in the US, and I understand that there's a large difference between their High Schools and our Secondary Schools that I haven't grasped, but I think it's safe to assume he was a teenager older than 13 or 14) when he gained his powers in the early 60s. 4 decades on he and Mary-Jane should be in their 50s. Are they? (Actually, are they? I don't read this title anymore so please tell me if he's actually reached his real age).
(I've never read many DC titles until later on, mentioned below if you're still reading this post by that point, but I gather they employ a far more sensible tactic of 'starting over' every 15 years or so; creating a new origin story for characters and beginning their adventures again. I to admit that I don't speak from experience so please correct me if I'm wrong about this).
All male protagonists seem to be idealised fantasy versions of their creators, while women, protagonist or antagonist, are almost always the embodiments of their creators' idealised fantasies; all wearing skimpy outfits. Even the women who aren't main characters and are intended to be less attractive are usually extremely pretty.
Even the smaller staple clichés really started to bug me, such as every hero and villain needing a ridiculous code name and costume.
That being said, after I started reading novels (of the none graphic variety) I soon discovered Terry Pratchett (writer of the 'Discworld' series) and discovered Neil Gaiman through the book they co-authored; 'Good Omens'. In the [very] brief biography of the authors it mentioned that Neil Gaiman was [mainly] a writer of comics, though it didn't mention any titles he'd worked on. I thus resolved to keep an eye out for any of his work, this being before I had grown sick of 'traditional' marvel/DC comics.
Volunteering at my school library came across a catalogue of graphic novels and poured over this whenever I could sneak a look (the librarian didn't really want me to read it, for some reason) and for the first time found some of the titles of Neil Gaiman's stuff. I made a mental note of 'Death: The High Cost of Living", for some reason, and it eventually became the first of his books I read (not counting Good Omens). I soon moved onto the sandman (probably because it was mentioned in a 4 or 5 page segment after the actual story/comic part of the book as the story of which "Death..." was merely a spin-off).
I don't remember if I started reading "2000 AD" before or after I started reading "The Sandman" (pretty sure it was after but that doesn't seem to fit with my internal chronology...). (I joined a 'Creative Writing' club, in school, becoming its first and only member) and it was recommended to me by the teacher who ran it after I submitted a particularly gory story. I had been vaguely aware of it in the past and was, obviously, familiar with Judge Dredd (not just from the awful movie; my mother had gotten me a copy of 'Judge Dredd Magazine' while I was hospitalised years earlier, not realising it was meant for "more mature readers". I seem to recall the 'cover story' had the slogan "Babes with Big Bazookas", which she admitted she should have read before getting it).
I was really impressed; the magazine seemed to sate my blood lust on a weekly basis, however the stories did become far more tame after Y2K when the company was purchased by games company "Rebellion Developments", who wanted the computer gaming rights to Judge Dredd. Eventually I gave up hope of the comic returning to former glory and stopped buying when I realised that my favourite titles (particularly
Necronauts and
Caballistics, Inc) would be released in graphic novel form sooner or later.
Today I'm extremely cautious about buying a new graphic novel (I seldom buy individual comics, but that's mostly because the average news agent rarely supplies many) because so many of them will have bad dialogue or continue to prolong those unrealistic standards of beauty or some other usual pitfall. The biggest selling point of any comic, for me is if it has the word ‘Neil Gaiman’ anywhere on it or in it. (I know I won’t make any friends by saying this but I find Alan Moore and Grant Morrison overrated; works I’ve read from either writer seem to live up to the hype around them).
I purchased the first part of 100 Bullets because I was assured it didn't but, even though it wasn't a bad story, I felt lied to. I was also recommended "Y: The Last Man" by the same guy, but I didn't really trust him after his last recommendation
Speaking of "...Last Man", would anybody here recommend it? It an awful lot like the plot to the 1954 book "I Am Legend". (Yeah, the one the Will Smith film was based on. Actually,
it wasn't the first film to be based on it).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henke
I remember reading that one althought it was a long time ago so we might be talking about different comics. I remember it focusing on some rather dark subjects like incest and sexual activities with animals. |
No, I think you're talking about the same one. I don't remember any incest but it's presence wouldn't have surprised me at all. There was some beastiality from one of the characters that I do remember, though. (Not depicted graphically, ofc, but it was certainly made clear that he did it on more than one occasion).
