Descartes
-
Posts
102 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Descartes
-
-
Yes, I'm proud of America.
Perhaps not currently, but as a general question.
Am I happy with my country? NO!
-
Richard Dawkins's "The Blind Watchmaker." (On the bus.) And of course, boring law-related books....
-
I dont own one currently, but wore one constantly back in the formative years of 15-16 (tan, naturally, to match John's). I found it again in the back of a closet at my parents house last summer. I thought about dry cleaning it, but instead decided to throw it out.
-
Excellent.
-
Alright. I apoligize for interupting your conversation. Sorry. :icon_frown:
-
Yes, glad to see you learned how to actually participate in a conversation. You'll only improve from here, it's all about the learning.
glad i have your approval
"Fashionable term"? "Magical realism"? I hope you are not denigrating the names of two of the top writers of the 20th century in Marquez and Borges by calling magical realism "fashionable". If so, you are showing a complete ignorance of the history of magical realism and the importance of it to Latin American socio-political writers.
Complete ignorance of which history: that of the term or of a specific genre you associate the term with? The term originated in 1920s Germany (it was coined by an art critic to describe a type of hyper-realistic painting) and has been used to describe the work of various writers from Poe to that woman who writes Harry Potter. Maybe you think the term should only apply to a very specific South American genre: those novels influenced by the blend of realism and fantasy in Andrade's novel Macunaíma (first defined as such in the 1960s by a Venezuelan essayist and critic Arturo Uslar-Pietri). If that's your opinion, so be it, but I'll just let you know that the term is fashionably being used to characterize realistic fiction with an otherworldly component.
You are also showing a complete ignorance of Harlan Ellison by claiming he doesn't care. His writing is his life's blood, and he cares deeply about every facet of his writing, including what genre you want to shove him into.
You mean Ellison's not dead? Personally, I prefer Lansdale.
In fact, many writers care deeply about their work and what others call it. It's why most of us write. Otherwise, you're a hack.
Believe me, son, you can care deeply about what you write and be a hack. The two are, unfortunately, not mutually exclusive.
Some people are proud to be science fiction or fantasy or mystery writers, and that's why they cling to that genre, out of passion for it.
Let a writer define his own work. Show some respect.
Writers can call their own work whatever they want. It is not, however, a lack of respect that leads to a classification scheme , but rather administrative convenience. Just ask a book store owner.
You seem to think that the author of a specific work has a say in this classification. He or she does not: the classification owes more to the accidents of history and popular opinion than it does to any author's subjective intent. If you think about it, it has to be that way, or else how are we to account for hidden intent in art (i.e. the cultural commentary disguised as sci-fi)?
You call them "sci-fi" because they exemplify what is good about "sci-fi"? Well, if you call made for TV movies good, then you're exemplifying all that is good about "sci-fi". It's a derivative term.
No, its not a "derivative term."
Perhaps you misunderstood me, an item can be an exemplar of a set because it is a particularly good example of what the set it characterizes is and can be.
For example, Fahrenheit 451 is a very good example of sci-fi novel--I'm sure there are bad examples out there as well--and Bradbury wrote it (and admits it is sci-fi). Thus he is (whether he wants to be or not) an example of very good sci-fi author.
Made for tv movies aren't co-extensive with sci-fi, so the logic of your example doesn't follow. I suppose that there are made for tv movies that are good examples of sci-fi, but I can't think of any right now.
Maybe you meant science fiction?
Yup, very good, you're getting the hang of this very quickly.
Why the hell do I know more about this genre than someone who claims to read extensively in that genre?
Because you are an obsessive fan boy with nothing but time on yer hands? Or was it a rhetorical question? I hope you are not saying that I myself claim to have read extensively in the genre, as I haven't. Not a big fan (don't care much for superhero comics either).
Sure, Harlan Ellison does some damn good science fiction stories, when he chooses to write one.
And then there are those times when they write themselves.
I don't read enough science fiction to know if I'd call him one of the best science fiction writers around. His science fiction stories aren't my favorite examples of his output.
So what you are saying, in a nutshell is that you don't like sci-fi. You also don't like superhero stories. Therefore, people who like superhero stories must like sci-fi.
In other words, you figure that the people who like things you don't like must also like other things you dont like.
Sorry, but your conclusion doesn't follow your premises, at least logically , so the answer is no: there is no corollary at work here.
I do know that I consider him one of the finest writers of literature, period.
Really? good for you.
-
well, after quick adding, I have realized that even to begin to approximate the level of dedicaiton required to be a true member of this forum, i;d have to accumulate something along the lines of 100 posts a day for the next forty days.
never happen
-
So I ask again...any of the posters here, if you managed to bed a member of the opposite sex who previously had declared themselves to be very, very gay and you had always found tremendously attractive, what would be your most immediate (and probably base) thought?
You know, I have slept with a girl how was a (putative) lesbian, and my immediate thought at the time was somehting along the lines of "I deserve a prize."
Of course, after sobriety crept back in, I felt better of the entire experience, and immediately reprented my homophobic nature....
Whatever, "homophobic" is an overused term.
-
Whatever...
Your fixation on genre is quite illuminating.
I doubt either Ellison or Bradbury (RIP) really give a shit what genre they are classified as.
We (the royal we) call them sci-fi because they exemplify what is good about sci-fi.
Writers never get to determine what genre their work is. That's what we hire critics for.
Call your own work "magical realism" if you want a fashionable genre tag.
-
Ray Bradbury has at least one collection of his short stories adapted into comic books.
Harlan Ellison is a big fan of comics. He had "The Dream Corridor" at Dark Horse Comics for a while, which were adaptations of some of his stories.
The thing about Ellison and Bradbury is that both of them have very little that comes close to actually being considered sci-fi. Rocket ships and trips to Mars are about the only sci-fi elements to be found in their work. In fact, Ellison has written essays on the subject, saying that it's bullshit to call him a science fiction writer because he has (I'm guessing the figure he listed, it was very low) 4 stories that could actually be considered sci-fi. Bradbury fits much neater into the magical realism or Fantasy catergory than science fiction.
Probably why they number amongst my very favourite writers, hell Ellison probably is my favourite, even though I don't usually read or enjoy sci-fi.
That's stupid.
What started out as you talking about how you were unlike most comic book readers because you didn't like sci-fi slowly devolves into you explaining that two of the most famous sci-fi writers of all time didn't write sci-fi.
Hmmm... You, sir, are full of . . .
-
See, I don't think I'm a "typical" comic book fan.
What, you only like poetry and porn? :)
-
It shouldn't be allowed. Your children are not an extension of your own damaged personality!
Well, they usually are. But they shouldn't be.
Why have children if not to extend your damaged personality? You think you'll suddenly become fucking alturistic the moment you knock a girl up???
-
So far ive hear rumors of Crispin Glover, Sean Penn, now Brody, and some other guy i couldn't remember.
crispin glover would be perfect -- especialy if it followed the "killong joke" version of the Joker's origin.
-
poll needs a 4th option: yes, and it was okay.
-
Nothing should be done. I want hellbalzer to be cancelled. :) :(
Its sad, but why should the comic be changed to make it acceptable for those who'd've never enjoyed it anyways///
-
On Bradstreet drawing an issue of Hellblazer:
"Well, wouldn't just be continuous panels of John standing in front of brick wall with fake looking graffiti on it?"
"Sort of like Dennis Leary doing stand up?"
(Sorry Tim, but I laughed. Forgive me.)
-
That's implicitly acknowledged within the very terms used by the industry today - why call an OGN an Original Graphic Novel otherwise? The very term implies that the "graphic novel" tag alone is an increasingly-accepted term with the meaning I ascribe to it above - and will (hopefully) continue to become even more accepted as the medium moves further and further into the wider public consciousness.
That's true enough. But the original meaning is what I said it was. I think the fact that it's becoming bastardised into an almost meaningless, damn-near catch-all term is a shame (what's the point of calling Son of Man or Watchmen a graphic novel?) but what can you do?
What about an "original trade paperback"? That's sort of like the imaginary stories I used to so enjoy in me Lois Lane comics.
-
If Watchmen isn't a (graphic) novel, neither are David Copperfield, Great Expectations, A Tale Of Two Cities, and so on.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the decision on what makes something a graphic novel or a trade paperback should be based on the nature of the contents, rather than the manner in which it was originally presented. But plenty of people disagree with me.
The early Dickens novels are the exception that seems to prove the point. Part of what originally created "the novel" lay in a sense of elitism over the "periodic trash" that the lower clases admired. See, for example, "Black Mask" in the 30's. Many individuals in the time period would not consider Dashile Hammett a "novelist" but merely a "pulp" author. This is odd, because Hemmingway was a "novelist." (He and Hammett are stlisticly similar, in my eyes, at least).
Ohfcourse, there is no periodic literature now (other than comics). One wouldn't call a collection of short stories featuring the same character a "novel," regardless of the stories thematic equivalence.
The problem with having the defintion of the term turn on the substantive merits of the work itslelf, is that it becomes a judgment call what an item is based on the subjective feelings of the speaker towards the object.
I will warrant, however, that attention to the intent of the author may play a part here in the definition of the work. Batman year 1 was written to be read concurrently, as was the dark knight returns for that matter. However, Watchmen, ironically as it gets the graphic novel tag more often than many actual graphic novels, was meant to be read in periodic form. (See Moore's comments in How to Write Comics). This is evident in the way the front cover of each periodic issue of the series is repeated in the first pannel, as if the reader should be drawn fromt he cover on the stands into an issue.
Another point that should be considered in the analysis is how different comics were in the 80s (where the individual issue ruled in the US and graphic novels were seen as a more Euro phenom). Only issues that were impossible to find or prohibitivly expensive or both were collected in the trade paperback form. These days (post-Sandman's illustration of the crossover appeal of the trade paperback form and the crash of the collector's market in comics) many comic readers wouldn't collect the individual issue. Part of this phenomenon is reflected in the disappearance of the letters column (the disappearance of which in Hellblazer this forum pays homage to). Of the comics I regularly buy, only the Walking Dead still has a letter culumn. This represents a understanding amonst comic creators and writers that the comic as periodic is disappearing. Ask any comic store owner and they'll happily tell you there is no money in the individual issue, and far too much risk (in terms of potential exposure becasue the issue sucks, as well as paying for the floor space necessary to display low sellomg issues).
This is unfortunate, because, at least in part, the periodic nature of the medium is one of the great deffining features of the comic. The story is still "up in the air" as you are reading it. A graphic novel, in contrast, is "finished" (in the sense that the ending is already written') before you even open the first page.
However, I do believe that the advent of trade paperback is good for the medium in the sense that it helps other non-comic readers get what all the "fuss" is about (even if it means one has to put up with individuals "writing for the trades").
-
I remember the first time I used the phrase "graphic novel" in the early 90s it felt like such a ridiculous thing to say, as if I was reading a pornographic novel. I still try not to use the term but just call the book by its title like a regular prose novel.
Personally, I'd rather admit my love of porn than my love of "graphic novels." A comic is a comic, and it seems strange not to refer to it as such.
Furthermore, people who call comics "graphic novels" are usually incorrectly using the term: A graphic novel would be "all his engines" or "a small killing" (i.e. a single self contained comic published in individual book form). A trade paperback would be "original sins" or "watchmen" (i.e. a compliation of previously published periodic material published in individual book form).
The difference in terminology simply relates back to the original method of publication. It has nothing to do with the substantive merit of the underlying story.
I have a number of porn graphic novels, for example.
In general, people who say they read "graphic novels" are more usually more pretentious than those who say they read comic books.
As in: "What's you favorite comic?" "I dont read comics, I read graphic novels." (Compare: "I dont listen to rock, I listen to post-punk." "I dont read mysterys, I read crime noir novels." "I don't listen to rap, I listen to hip-hop.")
If one hasn't run into such people, one should consider oneself lucky, as opposed to doubting the existence of said individuals (they exist, oh believe me, they exist).
-
But John broke the bridge himself to escape a monster. So you must be wrong - Carey was actually ripping off Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
O, thanks for clearing that up for me. Perhaps Carey will also give John a sterotypical asian boy as a sidekick as his parting gift to the character in the last issue. (perhaps he can be called Chan, for continuity with the Constantine film).
As for the hasselhoff/ fotf conection, it makes sense, in an odd sort of way. Im sure if you were forced to listen to hasselhoff records for 24 hours non-stop, you'd feel like you were in hell. :)
However, you could be right, maybe the issue was worthwhile, and I just unreasonably hate Carrey for the senseless murder of Mange.
-
Nergal taking over he-man's body was the icing on the cake for me. It just seemed really really stupid.
In what way?
Ummm... It was he-man's body. Thats dumb.
or maybe my references to american children's television shows are lost on this more erudite and sophisticated audience.
So let me expalin:
HE-MAN: Star of "Masters of the Universe," a early eighties cartoon show which was actual an advertisement for a homoerotic toy collection featuring men with huge, overly developed pectoral muscles wielding swords and riding giant green cats whilst wearing fur underwear.
(see below)
Sponge bob: I really have no idea about this, but it seems to be a children's television show featuring a sponge and a starfish. Deried by the religious right here in amerika becaus of its (alleged) homesexual subtext.
Go rent the movie, and you'll see what I'm talking about. In the movie, sponge bob has to go on some sort of epic quest. At one point he has to cross a bridge across a chasam. The bridge breaks, and he falls into a pit of monsters.
Finally, after many adventures, he makes it to his destination, and, just when everything looks rather bleak and our hero wont be able to complete his quest, david hasselhof (of TV's Knight Rider fame, though also know for his sitnt in Baywatch and his vocal poweress) suddenly appears and, in a highly improbable bit of deus ex machina tomfoolery, saves the day. Sound at all familiar?
Yes, I know epic John Cambell hero's journey bullshit is everywhere. But at least in Sponge Bob they played it for laughs, not fantasy-horror or whatthefuckever that was supposed to be...
So, take the challenge, rent the sponge bob movie, and see if it doesn't remind you of recent issues of hellblazer...
-
Yeah, whatever happened to Rogan anyway?
Umm.. thought I'd give my two cents on this issue, and the latest Carey storyline. Like others here, I had high hopes for carey's run, and they were almost completely dashed.
Nergal taking over he-man's body was the icing on the cake for me. It just seemed really really stupid. The john Constantine I know would have fallen over laughing when he saw that. I mean, Hellblazer used to be a "smart" horror comic. Now it is neither smart nor horrific (unless you count the contrived plot twists).
While some of you have been comparing the trip to hell to Lord of the Rings, I think the more apt comparison is the Sponge Bob Square Pants movie. There is actually as scene in that movie involving a chasam and a bridge that was exactly replicated in a recent issue of hellblazer.
Now I ask you, what the fuck has the world come to when John Constantine reminds you of Sponge Bob?
Furthermore, what was up with that whole: he's invincible, but if you cut me he'll bleed "twist"? It seemed like something out of Conan the Destroyer (the crap Ahnold movie, not the books, which despite their status as pure pulp, wouldn't stoop to such contrivences).
All in all, the highlight of the issue was the sure knowledge that Carey's run is nearing it's conclusion. Now we can move on to a new writer and a new cover artist.
Of course, the new writer may be shit too, but here I was thinking things couldnt get any worse after Assrelo's run and Carey turns Hellblazer into Dungeons and Dragons in a trenchcoat.
-
Brian Hibbs (Tilting At Windmills) weighs in -
Why did 2000AD/Humanoids fail?
http://www.comixexperience.com/savblog/savblog.html
But I can tell you, real easily why these books didn't do as well as they should have: TOO MANY OF THEM in TOO SHORT OF A TIME FRAME.
If I were you, I'd be reading this as the first step in a market correction for perennial items -- there simply isn't the budgets and rack space for the amount of "permanent stock" items the publishers have been trying to plow through the system for the last year or two.
How right you are. It seemed like a new book was coming out every week, and they all looked very good, but ... who has that kind of disposable income?
If they had kept it to, maybe 1 2000AD and 1 Humanoids a month, or whatever, maybe more people would have picked them up.
Second, it seems like everyone who had already heard of most of the books already owned them, and those who hadn't were not very effectivly targeted by the marketing folks at DC.
For example, why not publish a 120 page three buck "sampler" or whatever, like they just did with vertigo?
-
Actually, although I usually hate 'reset button solutions' I really hope Cheryl will be saved, for the purely selfish reason that I love the John-Cheryl relationship (what little we've seen of it), and the idea that John Constantine, bad-ass bastard magician etc., actually has a totally normal family. (Well, mostly normal. At least Cheryl is normal. Was. Is.) *g*
Hows this: what if John saves Cheryl's soul and comes back from hell to discover that his kids killed everyone else in his absence? That'd be a neat trick.
Edgar Wright to direct Ant-Man
in Comics in other media
Posted
Oh, come now... the homage is the original idea now, isn't it? :)