| Author |
|
Robert LaGuardia
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 November 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1296
|
| Posted: 03 August 2010 at 6:45pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Laren who are you to say the people at Time don't know "jack" about comics? What makes you the authority on that?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5819
|
| Posted: 03 August 2010 at 6:54pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Laren who are you to say the people at Time don't know "jack" about comics? What makes you the authority on that?
---
You work for Time? That's a pretty sharp defense for someone with no vested interest. Just saying.
Incidentally, I only occasionally read Time. Do they have articles on comics regularly? Do they do features on creators or stories the way they do on people in politics, music, movies, etc? I've never really noticed, outside of the odd milestone that makes all the news shows, like Captain America dying or Superman turning 50 or dying.
Has Time shown, through it's history and actions, that it feels comics are as valid a form of media as movies, television, books, music, and plays?
Because really, I don't think Laren is an authority on what Time knows about comics anymore than I am, but when I look at Time I don't exactly think of their robust and balanced coverage of the art form. Know what I mean?
Edited by Brad Krawchuk on 03 August 2010 at 7:02pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Laren Farmer
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 975
|
| Posted: 03 August 2010 at 7:00pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Why does everyone think my name is Lauren? Anyway, Brad covered some good points on why TIME hasn't shown itself to be an authority on comics. I'd add that one time when it did show any attention to the medium, they showed themselves to 'not get it' (messing with the copy on JB's Superman cover).
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Tim Farnsworth
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 July 2010
Posts: 817
|
| Posted: 03 August 2010 at 7:02pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Time's been doing round-ups of the best in the year's comics for, I want to say, maybe a decade now. They lean toward the arthouse stuff, and I'm escapist-loving enough that I don't keep close tabs, but sometimes they'll surprise you. I believe the comic stuff is more a part of their online magazine than their print edition.
But here's a link:
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Agapito Qhelas
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 09 July 2009
Posts: 263
|
| Posted: 03 August 2010 at 8:25pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Praise from a mainstream magazine doesn't count because they "don't know jack about comics".
I imagine that praise from a publication about comic books wouldn't count either, because it would only be the opinion from embarrassed fanboys.
So...Earth. Flat or what?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Laren Farmer
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 975
|
| Posted: 03 August 2010 at 8:40pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Many fanboys have shown repeatedly that they don't know jack about many things, including their beloved comics.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14864
|
| Posted: 03 August 2010 at 8:42pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
I know exactly the type of people Thanos is referring to. No mind reading was required, because their opinions were voiced clearly. These were people into superhero comics, but whenever they felt defensive about their hobby would go into "But...but comics are literature!" and start pointing to Moore's work (and citing TIME), while getting dismissive and cynical about superhero conventions and insisting they need to be more edgy. I'm not sure it's fair to generalize all Moore fans as one of these guys, but they are definitely vocal members of his fanbase.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert LaGuardia
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 November 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1296
|
| Posted: 03 August 2010 at 8:52pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
My comments weren't meant to be harsh, direct, but not harsh. I apologize for any offense.
Time does have articles and reviews of comic. I don't think they should be dismissed outright.
Brad you go it right as far as that list goes-Time=WB=Watchmen. It's not surpising that Watchmen is on that list.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5819
|
| Posted: 03 August 2010 at 9:06pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Praise from a mainstream magazine doesn't count because they "don't know jack about comics".
I imagine that praise from a publication about comic books wouldn't count either, because it would only be the opinion from embarrassed fanboys.
So...Earth. Flat or what?
---
How about we look at CONTEXT no matter where the reviews are? Praise from a mainstream magazine not exactly well known for their expertise on a particular topic isn't as indicative of quality as praise from other more reputable sources. Praise from embarrassed fanboys isn't trustworthy whether it's published in a comic book magazine, a national newspaper, or a doctoral thesis.
A reasonably objective review by someone with some knowledge of the form, function, and history behind what they're reviewing is probably the best kind of review for any form of media or art.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Tim Farnsworth
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 July 2010
Posts: 817
|
| Posted: 03 August 2010 at 9:24pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Alan Moore's been reviewed by most every comic publication out there, and often glowingly. Even if you only trust a few, chances are they've thrown some serious praise his way. On top of that, like I mentioned last page, we've got lots of Harvey Awards (nominations and selections by comic pros) and Eisner Awards (voting by industry professionals), and if we dare trust the fans, lots of CBG and Eagle Awards. Right, and a Hugo Award for Watchmen.
I can't conceive of a broader base of support for a comic writer. I don't care where you fall in the spectrum of appreciation for his work, you cannot factually deny that he's acclaimed.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5819
|
| Posted: 03 August 2010 at 9:27pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
My comments weren't meant to be harsh, direct, but not harsh. I apologize for any offense.
Time does have articles and reviews of comic. I don't think they should be dismissed outright.
Brad you go it right as far as that list goes-Time=WB=Watchmen. It's not surpising that Watchmen is on that list.
---
I wasn't offended, it just struck me as a little direct. After reading through that list, though, I'm not shocked Time considers Watchmen the only worthy candidate for inclusion on their 100 Best Novels List.
Alison Bechdel, Linda Medley, Craig Thompson, Daniel Clowes, Daniel B., Joe Sacco... I have works by all of these writers and artists in my collection, and they're all great. I love Joe Sacco's stuff! And Blankets and Castle Waiting are easily two of my favourite works in comics. How many people have heard of them, though? Compared to that list, Alan Moore and Watchmen stick out like the Moon in the night sky against a sea of stars.
Why not the Lee/Kirby Fantastic Four run? Lee/Ditko Spider-Man? JB's Superman? Frank Miller's Daredevil?
Why? Because apparently Time only reviews "serious" "artsy" books, which typically means names like Neil Kleid, Marjane Satrapi, and Art Spiegleman. Don't get me wrong, I loved Brownsville, Persepolis, and Maus is one of my favourite stories of a father/son I've ever read. But compared to Moore, aside from Spiegleman those aren't exactly popular million-comic selling names.
Most acclaimed? Well yeah, given that list. Moore's got one of the few recognizable names, he's got by far the largest body of work of anyone else I've seen on there (and I own almost everything he's done - he hasn't actually done much) and he's popular.
It's like putting Quentin Tarantino on a list of film directors and saying he's the most acclaimed and recognized compared to Gus Van Sant, Ed Harris, Zach Braff, and Mimi Leder.
Yes, of course he is!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5819
|
| Posted: 03 August 2010 at 9:35pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Alan Moore's been reviewed by most every comic publication out there, and often glowingly. Even if you only trust a few, chances are they've thrown some serious praise his way. On top of that, like I mentioned last page, we've got lots of Harvey Awards (nominations and selections by comic pros) and Eisner Awards (voting by industry professionals), and if we dare trust the fans, lots of CBG and Eagle Awards. Right, and a Hugo Award for Watchmen.
---
I'd argue that in the past 24 years since Watchmen was released, comics has imploded to the point where the only people reading them are 20-50 somethings who want their hobby taken seriously because comics have a stigma as being for kids.
It's also why we have the Goddamned Batman, those same magazines and fans arguing how Batman could take down Galactus, a version of Wasp being eaten by a version of the Blob, Batgirl and Catwoman fighting naked in an orgy scene, Green Lantern bragging about banging Huntress and Lady Blackbird at the same time to Green Arrow, and all those other things that make comics not for kids.
The rise in popularity and "acclaim" of a guy like Alan Moore - who basically wants to write about sex, violence, magic, says so himself in plenty of interviews - is a no-brainer amongst a population of fandom that's crying out for books to be about sex, violence, etc so they can say they read Batman (pissing himself and having the Joker offer up anal sex for an escape from Arkham) and when people say "aren't comics for kids?" they can point to Moore and say "No! See?"
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
