Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tony B.

Preacher

Recommended Posts

By the way, the Saint of Killers mini was excellent.  Even if it was Every Good Western Ever +  Hellblazer.

I was a bit pissed off that Carlos Equezzera only illustrated the issue of that set in Hell, though.

 

As for Starr, what did everyone make of the One Man's War oneshot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest spiderlegs
Salvation jumped the shark for me. I think War in the Sun shoulda woulda coulda been the finale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only person that thinks Garth Ennis whole schtick regarding religion comes off like listening to a disgruntled 15 year old trying to sound rebellious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest spiderlegs

We gloss over certain parts. It's a typical conceit for a theme. Everybody has a crisis of faith, Garth made a comic out of his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I the only person that thinks Garth Ennis whole schtick regarding religion comes off like listening to a disgruntled 15 year old trying to sound rebellious?

It does come across that way. On the other hand unlike Phillip Pullman he's at least willing to write about it in his fiction, rather than saving it for interviews to keep the Archbishop of Canterbury happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for Starr, what did everyone make of the One Man's War oneshot?

 

Benn a while since I read it but I thought it made Starr look too much like a good guy when clearly he is not. Even more so for the Jody and TC special.

 

That said, I think Garth pulled too many 180 rotations in his characters in this comic. He portrays his characters one way and then when he runs out of story ideas he makes them out to be different. Tulip is a strong woman, then she's not. Jesse says he'll never hurt her again and he does. Cassidy's cool and then he sucks dick for heroin. I dunno, it just sort of gets on my nerves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phillip Pullman does write about it in his fiction and with a lot more interesting things to say than Ennis.

All I've seen of it in his fiction was in the trilogy there was the huge fuss over, and that was a massive cop out, iirc: none of the angels were actually involved in any way with the horrible stuff the Catholic church was doing, and God was exonerated by the end. Small wonder the Archbishop of Canterbury liked it.

 

Lou, that's one way of looking at it, but I don't think he was arguing that Starr's a good guy and the fact that there's a human being underneath had a bit of an impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I the only person that thinks Garth Ennis whole schtick regarding religion comes off like listening to a disgruntled 15 year old trying to sound rebellious?

 

 

No, you're not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I the only person that thinks Garth Ennis whole schtick regarding religion comes off like listening to a disgruntled 15 year old trying to sound rebellious?

 

 

No, but he comes off as an entertainig 15 year old!

 

(Of course, the whole ass-rape as a punchline gets old in his work. But I digress.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, but he comes off as an entertainig 15 year old!

 

Not for at least 10 years, he hasn't. While I still occasionally enjoy his work, his typical schtick got old a very, very long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I've seen of it in his fiction was in the trilogy there was the huge fuss over, and that was a massive cop out, iirc: none of the angels were actually involved in any way with the horrible stuff the Catholic church was doing, and God was exonerated by the end. Small wonder the Archbishop of Canterbury liked it.

Surely the angels not being involved pretty much points out that the church had nothing to do with the existance or worship of god and everything to do with power and political gain?

 

Surely that's a more succinct commentary on organised religion than "Yah! Boo! Christian's suck because I can't get laid"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I've seen of it in his fiction was in the trilogy there was the huge fuss over, and that was a massive cop out, iirc: none of the angels were actually involved in any way with the horrible stuff the Catholic church was doing, and God was exonerated by the end. Small wonder the Archbishop of Canterbury liked it.

Surely the angels not being involved pretty much points out that the church had nothing to do with the existance or worship of god and everything to do with power and political gain?

 

Surely that's a more succinct commentary on organised religion than "Yah! Boo! Christian's suck because I can't get laid"?

If he was claiming to be having a go at organised religion rather than the concepts underpinning it, yes. As he has never claimed anything of the sort, then no.

And really, setting up a God who's entirely undeserving of respect is more of a hammer job on theodicy than fudging the issue in my view. That said, I feel the extent to which Pullman has allowed himself to be co-opted by anglicans in order to show how ecumenical they are is proof that he's talking out of his arse whenever he starts an atheist rant anyway. Even Iain Banks manages better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does he need to make claims to having a go at organised religion?

 

He does a bloody good job of doing so without having to make any claims. Also how has he "allowed himself to be co-opted by Anglicans"? Does he have any control over who likes his work and who doesn't?

 

None of this has any bearing on my original defense of his work anyway. The fact remains that he has far more interesting an wide reaching things to say with regard religion than Ennis' adolescent ranting ever will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does he need to make claims to having a go at organised religion?

 

He does a bloody good job of doing so without having to make any claims.  Also how has he "allowed himself to be co-opted by Anglicans"?  Does he have any control over who likes his work and who doesn't?

Maybe it's just me, but I feel if you have the Archbishop of Canterbury talking you up (presumably because you're attacking an analogue of the Catholic church rather than the Anglicans) in a bid to show how liberal and ecumenical the church of England is, then you're talking the talk while making no effort to walk the walk.

Ennis' adolescent rantings are at least having a go at the concepts underpinning organised Religion. I've read nothing of Pullman's that hasn't copped out of doing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it coping out? He makes no grand claims to be doing any such thing.

 

He told a vivid and interesting fantasy for adolescents which makes a lot of interesting points about organised religion, purely by the by. Ennis on the other hand has written a mildly entertaining but largely purile and facile farce about how much he hates Christianity.

 

Everything you've said about Pullman's book (his only work that even touches on the subject) has been to do with how it was percieved by other people, which, to me, has little or nothing to do with the author's intent; to provide an interesting and stimulating read for his target audience.

Not only did Pullman manage to do this he also hugely exceeded his target audience. That, in doing so, he manage to make a fan of the Archbishop of Canterbury has absolutely no bearing on the quality on the body of work or the points contained therein.

 

It seems to me that you must have heard that it was some kind of scathing treatise on organised religion and you disappointment stems from the fact that it's just a bloody good kid's fantasy yarn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is it coping out? He makes no grand claims to be doing any such thing.

 

He told a vivid and interesting fantasy for adolescents which makes a lot of interesting points about organised religion, purely by the by.  Ennis on the other hand has written a mildly entertaining but largely purile and facile farce about how much he hates Christianity.

 

Everything you've said about Pullman's book (his only work that even touches on the subject) has been to do with how it was percieved by other people, which, to me, has little or nothing to do with the author's intent; to provide an interesting and stimulating read for his target audience.

Not only did Pullman manage to do this he also hugely exceeded his target audience. That, in doing so, he manage to make a fan of the Archbishop of Canterbury has absolutely no bearing on the quality on the body of work or the points contained therein.

 

It seems to me that you must have heard that it was some kind of scathing treatise on organised religion and you disappointment stems from the fact that it's just a bloody good kid's fantasy yarn.

Pullman is forever bitching about Religion, but seemingly can't be arsed to properly address the matter in any of his fiction. That is a cop out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pullman is forever bitching about Religion, but seemingly can't be arsed to properly address the matter in any of his fiction. That is a cop out.

 

Alternative viewpoint - no, it isn't.

 

 

What I've seen of Pullman's anti-Christianity rantings in interviews has bugged me, largely due to their repetitive nature and lack of serious insight (some of his criticisms of C.S. Lewis, for example, are absurdly wrong-headed), but I don't for a second think that he's "copping out" by not putting it in his - and again, let's emphasise this word - fictional writing. How exactly does that work? I can't see the connection, at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pullman is forever bitching about Religion, but seemingly can't be arsed to properly address the matter in any of his fiction. That is a cop out.

 

Alternative viewpoint - no, it isn't.

 

 

What I've seen of Pullman's anti-Christianity rantings in interviews has bugged me, largely due to their repetitive nature and lack of serious insight (some of his criticisms of C.S. Lewis, for example, are absurdly wrong-headed), but I don't for a second think that he's "copping out" by not putting it in his - and again, let's emphasise this word - fictional writing. How exactly does that work? I can't see the connection, at all.

The only reason anybody is bothering to talk to him in the first place is his fiction. If he can't be bothered to put some discussion of the matter in there (in a little more detail than His Dark Materials manages) then he doesn't have any business going on about it in interviews. I admit that this is a matter of opinion, but it still irritates me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My problem wasn't that he pays the evil frenchman for sullying the american tradition.....that is part of the whole "Mythology of America" that Ennis was exploring.  However, it does turn our hero into a murderer, and that does bother me.

He was more like an executioner. Since horse theft is an offense punishable by hanging in the state of Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only reason anybody is bothering to talk to him in the first place is his fiction. If he can't be bothered to put some discussion of the matter in there (in a little more detail than His Dark Materials manages) then he doesn't have any business going on about it in interviews.

 

Nonsense. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic...a friend and both just re-read the entire series run after not having touched it for years, and we both found we loved it far, far more than we did when it first ended. I agreed with most of the criticisms here when the series first wrapped up, and felt pretty unsatisfied with the whole thing. But re-reading it...it was infinitely better than I recalled. At it's core, it's just a damn fine pulp story. I think people want it to be "deeper" or more meaningful than it actually is just because of the Veritgo tag. Yeah, Ennis has his flaws, and storylines like "Salvation" are rather pointless (though even it had its moments), but I can't think of another comic that had as many punch-you-in-the-stomach moments as this one. I think one of the blurbs on the trades even said, there isn't another comic more like watching a rip-roaring, high adventure movie, and that's exactly what I felt re-reading it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back on topic...a friend and both just re-read the entire series run after not having touched it for years, and we both found we loved it far, far more than we did when it first ended.  I agreed with most of the criticisms here when the series first wrapped up, and felt pretty unsatisfied with the whole thing.  But re-reading it...it was infinitely better than I recalled.  At it's core, it's just a damn fine pulp story.  I think people want it to be "deeper" or more meaningful than it actually is just because of the Veritgo tag.  Yeah, Ennis has his flaws, and storylines like "Salvation" are rather pointless (though even it had its moments), but I can't think of another comic that had as many punch-you-in-the-stomach moments as this one.  I think one of the blurbs on the trades even said, there isn't another comic more like watching a rip-roaring, high adventure movie, and that's exactly what I felt re-reading it.

 

 

Oh, I agree that the main ideas of the story play out well....the ideas of honor, friendship, etc...but some of the other stuff, especially the religious stuff, is pretty juvenile, and the ending feels rushed.

 

Still, though it peaks in the 2nd volume, it doesn't get bad until the 8th volume. That one bores me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My problem wasn't that he pays the evil frenchman for sullying the american tradition.....that is part of the whole "Mythology of America" that Ennis was exploring.  However, it does turn our hero into a murderer, and that does bother me.

He was more like an executioner. Since horse theft is an offense punishable by hanging in the state of Texas.

I didn't know it carried the death penalty. That's interesting.

I thought they executed people by electrocuting them rather than hanging them these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He was more like an executioner. Since horse theft is an offense punishable by hanging in the state of Texas.

 

So if I caught someone robbing my house, and kept the guy chained up in my cellar for a couple of years, would I be a prison warden, rather than, say, a kidnapper? After all, burglary is an offence punishable by imprisonment here in Norway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...