RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Comic Books Top 5 Comic Creators today

No, you don't. You just splice and dice with quotes and take things out of context, so you can take another shot at me.


You "built on that" with a selective quote DELIBERATELY OUT OF THE CONTEXT I SAID IT.



Not everyone. Just you and a few trolls like rex.

You're in fine company, Mxy. It gives such credibility to your arguments.

Not.

That's fine and dandy. You are more fond of comics that are not that dark. But you still conceded that Moore and Miller's material is better written, and that's all I said. The fact that you're trying to call me a liar for repeating something you said so clearly is pathetic. I mean, next time try to pick something more vague.

I removed the context becuase it's a long fucking post, man. Also, you love including unnecessary spaces.

But that's still irrelevant, because your statement stands by itself. You're acting as if I was trying to hide the rest of the post, when in fact I've acknowledged its content (that, yes, there's other stuff you like better, we know) several times.

Let that sink in: I acknowledged what you said in the rest of your post, and my argument still stands.

Quoting me out of context.
The full context which I've quoted repeatedly.

You're splitting hairs in a way that is pathetic, to try and distort me to say something I didn't. I see skill in the Moore and Miller material, but see it as tainted by the dark and cynical elements, to the point that despite its merits, I prefer other works, that I specifically listed.

In contrast to what you say, clearly a distortion of what I actually stated.

No, it doesn't.

I only praised Moore and Miller's work as the best of the dark works. And that throughout the 20-plus years of the Dark Age, no superior work has come along to surpass them.

I said all along that despite their quality, they are tainted by dark elements that diminish them, and I prefer other works, THAT I CLEARLY LISTED

Yeppers, Wondy. That you did. You clearly listed the works you prefer.

That doesn't erase the fact that you have repeatedly conceded that the comics in question by Moore and Miller are well-written. Tainted by their darkness? Oh sure! Go nuts! Taint them all you want! You still said they're well-written. You've still praised these comics in the past (despite their oh so obvious flaws). You still said you would... oh, I don't need to quote you. That'll just make you start whining about me putting your words out of context (because, apparently, I have to quote all 3000 words in every single post you write to reference a single sentence). You know what you said.

You're not arguing with me here, Wondy. You're arguing with something YOU said. That's the beauty of it.

I love the arrogance with which you say that. As if you've read every single comic published in the past 25 years (about half of which you've spent crying about comics rather than reading them).

Everyone is ignorant on a subject or another, Wondy. Not being being able to recognize when you're in front of a topic you know nothing about is the definition of stupidity. Modern comics clearly ain't your thing. Instead of being content with sticking to what you like, you HAVE to bitch about what other people are reading and enjoying.

And before you say "But I read an issue of Preacher once!", consider this: Preacher started being published 15 years ago. You're crying about CURRENT COMICS. You are a cunt.

When are you two going to get married?

Wondy's too old to be your new mommy, even if he has a working vagina.

Wonder Boy content User rex's personal obsession
4000+ posts 5 minutes 42 seconds ago Making a new reply
Forum: Comic Books
Thread: Re: Top 5 Comic Creators today

I didn't concede anything. I said that I prefer the works I listed. And those are the ones I go back to and re-read, far more often than the cynical and dark Moore and Miller material.

And yes, I know what I said. That I prefer the material I listed.

You keep trying to strawman me into defending work I said that, for whatever redeeming qualities, I find overly dark, tainted and flawed. The best of a bad era, but still flawed.

So, if you if I were to recommend to someone some of the best written and illustrated comic series of the last 40 years... you would give them a list of comics that are utter shit?

No? You'd tell them to read comics that are mediocre?

You'd give them a list of so-so comics with a few redeeming qualities?

No, you said you would recommend Watchmen and Miracleman, among others, so I assume (despite your clarification that there other comics closer to your heart) that you think these are GOOD comics.

And that's my one and only point. That dark comics exist and are possible.

Don't you think it's a little contradictory to refer to these comics as "some of the best written and illustrated comic series of the last 40 years" and, later, as "the best of a bad era"? Did you mean to say that the dark era began in the mid-60's, Wondy? I'm just trying to understand your reasoning here... because, frankly, the way your opinion shifts to accomodate whatever argument we're having at present is pretty fascinating.

Like YOU'VE read every comic book published over the last 25 years. Virtually NO ONE has read everything published. You're such a sack of shit, what remarkable arrogance, alleging your superior knowledge of the last 25 years of work. You pick and choose what you read too, dumbass. You don't buy every comic book published.
You buy 700 titles a month?
Give me a break. It is only boundless arrogance that you could make such a snap assumption of your alleged superior comics collecting knowledge.

I purchased and read the SAINT OF KILLERS trade of PREACHER (vol 4), and then read most of the first trade after that, before I was repulsed by both the story and art and opted not to finish it. That's a considerable chunk of the series. I think it's safe to say I got a good feel for the thrust of the series in that sampling.


I've also read and sampled a good portion of what's been published in the time since then. I know who the artists are, I know who the writers are, I know the sales figures for the books. I know what's popular, I know who's writing and drawing what series for the most part. I sample stuff based partly on what interests me on my own, and sometimes based on recommendations talking to others about what stands out for them.
And overwhelmingly, what I sample is nice art with worthless shit writing, and so while I read the new material and follow it, my heart is in the old stuff, so that's where I mostly spend my money.

I would argue that, conversely, YOU'RE too immersed in the new books, that your standards have been degraded to the point that you don't recognize the shit published now for the shit that it truly is !

Your purpose here is no doubt just to annoy me. You can make all the condescending assumptions you want about what I allegendly know and don't know, but the fact is I've followed what's published, and read as much as I could stomach.

And I love the arrogance with which you assume otherwise.

heh. See, Wondy, the difference is... I never claimed anything as stupid as "NO SUPERIOR WORK HAS COME ALONG (in the past 25 years)". I wouldn't make a statement like that, simply becuase I'm not that much of an idiot. No, I don't read 700 comics a month, THEREFORE I'm not qualified to make a statement like that... and neither are you. The diffence is, I'm aware of it.

The fact that you think I'm "alleging superior knowledge" simply by pointing out that GASP! you know very little about a comic era you dislike and largely ignore (to clarify: the current one) is an example of that delightful little tendency your mind has to rush to extremes.

No, I never claimed to have anything as dramatic as "superior comic collecting knowledge". I just know more about the current era than you because I am actively reading current comics and you are not. It's only logical that I should know a bit more about something I'm, you know, reading, that you're, you know, not.



Ok!



Actually, while I admit I read a lot of current comics, I read even more old ones... right now I'm re-reading Kirby's Fourth World because I just completed the three main series, a Lee/Kirby FF volume I just bought, some 90's Flash comics (not exactly what you'd call dark), some old comic strips (Popeye, Little Nemo), some Love and Rockets... I think the darkest stuff I'm reading is Giffen's JLE, which I also completed recently.

This is simply because old material is more readily avaliable to me than new one. So! There goes that argument.



My main purpose is to amuse myself. If I happen to annoy you while I'm doing it, that's just an added bonus.



Which isn't very much, given how much of a pansy you are. (Seriously, if Preacher made you weep don't go near The Boys (a phrase you've probably heard before) or you'll heart attack.) Also, "following" comics through the internet and through imaginary friends isn't the same as ACTUALLY READING THEM. Face it, dude, you don't like current comics so you don't read them... I'm not insulting you by calling you ignorant on this matter, I'm just stating a logical conclusion. I won't be insulted if you say I'm ignorant about baseball. I don't give a shit about baseball.

This is becoming just a more verbose, generalized version of Shaddaptwat's rants against modern comics.

Good in some ways, flawed in others. Representative of the Dark Age at its beginning, and as good as that type of storytelling gets, despite its clear flaws and unpleasant aspects.
As I've clarified, for at least the 10th time.



I mean simply that yes, it's good writing overall, and demonstrates the potential of the medium, but in other ways is unpleasant.

I mean that if I were to recommend to someone some of the better written dark/gritty material of the mid and late 1980s, you can look at this and that works of Alan Moore and Frank Miller. Despite that they have some annoying dark/cynical elements that turn me off, and that I prefer OTHER works instead (Stern/Romita Jr. AMAZING SPIDERMAN 224-250, Stern DR STRANGE 48-73, Levitz/Giffen LEGION 285-306, the Pacific Comics line, Michelinie/Romita Jr/Layton IRON MAN, the first five volumes of CEREBUS, Goodwin/Simonson MANHUNTER, Wein/Wrightson SWAMP THING, Joe Kubert TARZAN, Grell's WARLORD, McGregor/Russell KILLRAVEN, Kirby's 70s DC work, etc.)
No one would deny that Moore's MIRACLEMAN or SWAMP THING, or Miller's DAREDEVIL: BORN AGAIN or BATMAN YEAR ONE are good series. But in the case of MIRACLEMAN, things like a guy saying "Christ this guy's a psycho" in the opening chapter, or the childbirth issue, or Gargunza molesting the Ms Marvel character, are shock elements that diminish the stories, and lower them quite a bit on my list of favorites.

But at least these Moore and Miller stories have bits of good prose, despite that these shock elements lower my enjoyment of them. There are other stories I can enjoy from start to finish, that I don't have these reservations about.

What part of "Moore and Miller's stories are good but overly dark works" do you not understand?
We're back to your problem understanding plain english.

You're constantly going back to "AHA! You said this!!"
Well, dumbass, what I said was crystal clear. The first 10 times I said it. And there's no need for further clarification.
THERE! That's what I said.
If you can't understand it after this much discussion, you're frigging retarded. Or more likely, you're just trying to piss me off.

The 80s Miller and Moore works are some of the best writing of the Dark Age, and, despite some unpleasant elements I don't care for, a milestone in comics history.

First you strawmanned me to be hypocritical in condemning cynicism of the modern books, that you alleged to be in contradiction of my praising the Moore and Miller material.
Then when I pointed out that I previously DID criticize the Moore and Miller books, that I clearly did previously express reservations about these works, despite them having in many ways exceptional storytelling, you shifted to another condescending line of insults, antagonism and misrepresentation. You don't even blink at your own inconsistency, even as you accuse me of being inconsistent. Just amazing.

Except that you just presumptuously claimed you have vast superior knowledge about comics, because you're sooooooooo much more familiar with everything published.
Now you're backpedaling from that. How is this arrogance of yours any less than my alleged arrogance in saying Moore and Miller are the unsurpassed high water mark of comics storytelling of the last 25 years?

If you went on 5 message boards and asked people to name the top ten works of the last 30 years, a majority of posters would list the same Moore and Miller works I cited. That's just a fact, and I could quote examples from RKMB comics section topics. It's not my "arrogance" or my "not knowing what the fuck you're talking about", or my insultingly being characterized as "a fanboy nerd stuck in the past". It's just a fact, those are the widely recognized best works. Whatever comics forum you go to, you'll get the same answers. It's not just me.



You've yet to prove I "know very little about".
I've been involved in many discussions of the current books. I've read them. I generally think the cuurent books are substandard, with few exceptions.
And you've unquestionably condescended and been a complete asshole about your alleged "superior" knowledge of comics.
You read them, you like them.
I read them, I don't like them.
Period.



If we both have a collection of Edgar Allan Poe short stories, and you read the whole book, and I read the first two stories, then we're both familiar with Poe's writing style and work. If I further read Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, Keyes' Flowers For Algernon, Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, and 12 of Harlan Ellison's short story collections, and you tell me I don't know shit about good writing because I didn't read all of Poe's short stories, which of us can honestly be said to have seen a wider range of good material to judge?



Ok!





I've acknowledged that The Waid FLASH material, and even some Morrison issues I sampled, are fairly upbeat and deliberately Silver-Age-ish patterned material.



The argument is that you have a preference for the new material, and have consistently said the Silver Age material is far inferior in writing quality to the current material. Now you're saying that you spend the majority of your time reading the old material. Based on what you previously said, I find it hard to believe you spend that much time immersed in material you have been telling me all along is inferior, that you tell me I'm uninformed and don't know what I'm talking about, for me to prefer the older 60s-to-80s material.



i.e., you make it up as you go along, to try and annoy me. I've picked that up all along.


It didn't "make me weep", asshole.
I just found it cynical, profanity-laden and unimaginative in both story and art. PREACHER: SAINT OF KILLERS is largely the plot of Clint Eastwood's movie Unforgiven with some supernatural elements tossed in, probably also swiped from some other movie. PREACHER is excrement. It's just not good or interesting prose or plotting. Not for me, anyway.


I guess you, having no friends and feeling a need to create imaginary friends, would naturally assume others share your dysfunction.

And I've never read comics on the internet.

I rarely read them in the store either, except occasionally trades. I almost always buy them, and feel cheated later. And often keep them only because I like the art.
And read older stuff to satisfy my hunger for good storytelling.

Most recently, I read COMANCHE MOON by Jaxon, and INDIAN LOVER, and RECUERDEN EL ALAMO, also by Jaxon.

Before that, interviews of the Seaboard Atlas creators in COMIC BOOK ARTIST 16, after which I re-read the 60 or so comics in their line.

Also a HELLBOY-esque b&w indie called EX OCCULTUS.

And outside of comics, CHURCHILL, HITLER AND THE UNECESSARY WAR, by Pat Buchanan.

As I've said, I've read quite a bit more current material than you seem willing to give me credit for, no matter how many times I tell you that fact.

By the way, you're being the condescending insulting jerkoff you said you weren't being.



Frankly, neither do I. But I have friends who are into it, and I have some familiarity with players and the game through them. But to me it's just a bunch of guys chasing a teeny ball.

A logical conclusion is that I love comics, and keep trying new stuff. That I read more of the 80s-and-prior material, but also read a fair amount of the new stuff, more so for the art than the storytelling.

Do I read less current stuff than most comics readers? Yeah, no question, I said as much. But do I read enough current material to be familiar with the market, and flip through a lot of other stuff, to be aware of what's going on in the current market? Fuck yes.



Yeah, love-n-kisses.

wondy's post are the perfect mix between insecurity, an inability to think for himself, racism, elitism and a whole lot of stupidity. Someone needs to have a professional study his posts.

Once again, your odd fixation toward me on display.

Mxy, as leader of the anti-American, liberal conspiracy against Wonder Boy, I want to congratulate you on your zeal and hard work in the fight to destroy Wonder Boy (because, as you already know, it is a very important part of our evil, liberal plot to take over the world..... or something). I have received a letter from Fidel Castro and Osama bin Laden expressing their gratitude for your hard work. I'll give it to you at the next meeting. Remember that you're supposed to bring the snacks this time as it's Pro's turn to bring the drinks.

I've said I understand that a million times, Donna. I've never disputed the fact that you think these works are somehow hurt by their darkness. It's the "GOOD" part what's relevant to my argument. And that takes us to...



No, Wondy. You only saw it that way because you think everyone's out to get you.

I wasn't calling you an hypocrit. When this whole thing started, I wasn't making an argument about YOU... I was making an argument about comics. You said "these works are good BUT...", and I took the "good" part and used it to prove that, if these works are dark and good, so can others. That's my whole argument here.

The argument only became about you once you started showcasing your stupidity (as you're bound to) and it became irresistible for me to point it out. The fact that you took my arguments as a personal attack (when in fact my personal attacks are all clearly distinguishable from my arguments) only goes too prove how broken your mind is. You are barely a thinking person, Cassie.

I think an hypocrit is someone who consciously contradicts their own opinions. You're too oblivious to see the flaws in your "reasoning". There's no ill-will in your intolerance, only the purest, most sincere form of idiocy.

Uh no, I didn't claim superior knowledge about comics. You probably know a lot more about me about old comics because, well, you're old yourself. If I had to take a guess I'd say you were still in your teens (or very early 20s) when Action Comics #1 came out, so you were part of its target audience. Those comics were intended for you and you read them first hand, Diana, therefore you have a perspective on them that I lack.

However, you're not part of the targent audience anymore, my dear Queen Hippolyta. You are the target audience of erectile dysfunction ads. I'm the target audience now, therefore it's only natural that I should be more familiar with the current state of comics than you. It's nothing to be ashamed of (except perhaps the useless penis part). It's simply the way of the world. So, no, I don't know about COMICS than you... I know more about CURRENT COMICS because (and this is the tricky part, the part that makes your head hurt) I READ LOTS OF THEM.

You go to great lenghts to prove that you do read some new comics, and that you keep with them through various ways (such as real friends who you definitely have because you are don't seem like the type of intolerant idiot people would avoid), but that's NEVER going to be the same as READING LOTS OF THEM. The fact that you don't even acknowledge that I (someone who reads lots and lots) could know AT LEAST A LITTLE MORE than you (someone who reads very little and cries) dooms your entire argument, because it proves how unreasonable you are.

You've also said you read what "you can stomach". It's been established that "what you can stomach" isn't much. You've said many times that you think the great majority of modern comics are crap, THEREFORE you can't stomach them, THEREFORE you read very, very, very little. Enough to give you whining fodder, but not enough to give you an accurate idea of AN ERA YOU ADMIT TO HATE.

Again, I'm not calling you an hypocrit. I don't expect you to understand why reading lots of new comics might give someone a better understanding of the curent state of the industry; I don't think it's within your brain capacity to comprehend that.



You (in this scenario) may have a better undestanding of writing in general, but that doesn't change the fact that I (in this scenario) know a lot more about Poe after reading the whole book and not just two of his stories. Reading those two stories entitles you to say "I think this is crap and I don't want to read it anymore". It doesn't, however, entitle you to say "This is DEFINITLELY crap and I know for sure that anyone who reads it is a complete degenerate, and if they attempt to defend their position I shall get outraged and weeps lots".



Uh no. If you're gonna claim I said something like that, please quote me saying it (you know, like I do). Don't just pull shit like that from your ass.

I think all eras have their flaws. Some more than others. Personally, the era I dislike the most is the late 70's-early 80's "polyester era". The Silver Age is actually among my favorites. You only think I hate the Silver Age because you tend to think everyone's opinions are as two-dimensional as yours. Not everyone is a fucking moron, Artemis. You need to learn that your limitations are not the world's.



No, no, I don't make it up as I go along. Unlike you I'm clear on what my opinion is. (I insist, I'm not calling you an hypocrit. Just stupid.)

Soon the whole world shall be Negroed and Mxycanized. Hail Satan and Mother Russia!

The sexual tension is unbearable...the two of you make fuck so we can move on.

p.s. Rob is gay.


RAWK!!

Y'know, for a guy who pretends to have me on "ignore" and who pretends to not even read my posts, you sure attack me on a regular basis, and obsess over my every move on these boards.

I thought it was only rex! And me. And Joe, of course. And Pro. And Doc.

And reality.

Well... In your case, that's definitely true.




Others who are easily impressed by shock value elements, profanity and cynicism. I'm not.
The works you praise are garbage, lauded with acclaim they don't deserve.



Actually, it stems from the fact you're an asshole who looks for any excuse to attack someone you disagree with. Your mocking and insults have nothing to do with what I posted, it's just your arrogant way of dealing with anyone who disagrees with you.



No, they're not. Because it's all about the insults for you, and they're peppered in every sentence you post. There's no discussion from you, it's just pure antagonism.



Thanks for proving my point. Again. More insults, even as you claim to be making a reasoned argument, allegedly distinguishable from your insults. You don't know how to post without insults.



The spelling is hypocrite, by the way. Initially I thought you made a typo, but you continue to misspell it over and over. How very educated and non-idiotic of you. Only the purest and most sincere form of idiocy on your part, I'm sure.

Regardless, my "reasoning" (as you need to express in quotes) is that you deify shit. You worship garbage.
Culture is intended to pass on to the next generation the very best that previous generations have created, to advance our culture and build on it. As I've described it before, books like PREACHER, TRANSMETROPOLITAN, Morrison's JLA: EARTH 2, and similar series, which I have all read and am not speaking about in judgemental ignorance of what they are, are just a concentration of the most vulgar elements one can imagine (extreme profanity, graphic violence, sexual perversion, in a deliberately vulgar gonzo extravaganza) and whatever minor elements of decent writing they might contain are "art" in the way that encasing a crucifix in a jar of urine is art.

That is my reasoning. I make a valid point. Because you disagree, in your pathological uncivility, you feel a need to not just respectfully disagree, but call me an idiot and heap whatever other insults on me. I can take the insults in stride. You just prove my point. The fact that you feel the need to take it to that level just proves the extent of your dimentia, and the extent of your malice.



So to summarize your argument: You're an idiot who thinks Garth Ennis' PREACHER and similar Dark Age works are good writing, better written than other comics, because they are "mature" and have profanity, sadism, vividly graphic violence and mutilation, people raping corpses, bondage, homosexuality, and whatever other shock-value elements they can toss in the books. And just generally crap on the whole idea of adhering to any moral standard.

And, fanatic and idiot that you are, because I disagree with you, you need to get in my face and harass me relentlessly to prove... that you're not the idiot?
Just amazing.

I'm loving this thread. I used to "spar" with David on the original DC Boards back in the early '00. The one remarkable trait I remember clearly about discussing/debating/fighting with him was his signature move: He takes any negative reaction to his comments as the most personal thing on the planet. He then insults you because of it. When you insult him in return, he then complains about you picking on him. He then takes the EXACT SAME INSULT, and throws it back at you (almost verbatim). After that, it's just the whole victimized routine that builds on bold, caps-locked tantrums.

I love you David. Never change.

There'd better be some FUCKING FRITOS, Mxy! FRITOS!!!


And I mean the dipping kind, not those little waver things either...

What the fuck are you reading, man? Faust??



What is morality? Do you mean Christian morality? Agnostic or Aethestic morality? Buddhist morality? American? British? Human? Alien? Rob?

Mxy is right. Throwing terms like that around requires a bit more distinct focus. How could anyone understand where you're coming from if we don't know what you base your argument on?

Oh and btw, I am reminded by Page 1 of this thread that David first began this discussion in 2007. Then, a YEAR LATER came back with a response. I haven't re-read anything past Page Two yet, so I don't know if there's another gap in time before this last ten month stint.

At this rate, he should be completely satisfied and done with the thread by 2013...

So, if someone insults me, and I throw the exact same insult back at them... I'm the aggressor for just responding and defending myself ?!?

What a fair standard you have, Pro.

And gee, when someone calls me an idiot, etc. etc, like 20 times, and says some very personal insults, as Mxy has, it's completely unreasonable to take it personally?

I generally give as I receive, and I often take a lot of insults in stride before I fire back. You guys are very brave when you run in packs.

As I recall, there is. My apologies, Pro, but life intervenes, I have other things I need to do. I respond at length as I have here the last day or two, and at some point I have commitments and just don't have the time to respond. And sometimes I run across the topic and respond months later. I'm far from the only one here to bump a years-old topic.

Often I don't respond because it's just a troll mock-fest, where you guys absolutely won't let it go, no matter how many times I respond. So why even get on the ride at all?
I probably would have done myself a favor if I never resurrected this topic. It's typical RKMB. Last week or so a group ganged up on M E M. This week it's my turn. After that the focus for a while will be on Snarf, or G-man, or Pariah. It's just the way it is. I don't see myself as a victim at this point, it's just a random rotation. At one time or another it'll be your turn, Pro.

We make fun of who ever is being the biggest tard at the moment. You bring this on yourself.

Can someone keep track for me how many times WB says I've wronged him? I know that by simply posting in this thread that I've incurred a three or four page quadruple spaced rant about how evil I am from him.

You're such a dumbass, doctor.

Years ago, you claimed to not care what I post, and allege that my posts are so beyond the pale that you don't even read them, and put me on "ignore".
That was like five years ago.
And then, during that entire five years, you hypocritically snipe at me on a regular basis. Once wasn't enough in this topic, so you came back for more, bravely jumping on the bandwagon while others attack me.
That's the full extent of my interest in you. Exposing your pettiness and hypocrisy, flicking you off me like a flea, and moving on without a second thought.

You're the one who secretly obsesses over my posts and in a cowardly way snipes at me from the sidelines when others attack me every few months. For someone who doesn't even read my posts ( or so you say, but your posts demonstrate otherwise as you pursue a grudge vendetta against me for five years and counting)

Um, Wondy, point of information. If Doc claims not to read your posts but does so, it doesn't make him a hypocrite. A hypocrite is someone who claims to have certain beliefs, but does not. Doc is not claiming a belief system about you. He might be a liar (if you're right) but being a liar isn't the same as being a hypocrite.

Not for nothing, home slice, but you don't exactly "flick [him off you] like a flea, and [move] on without a second thought." It's more of a "respond to every comment he makes with paragraphs outlining his initial wrong and lambasting him." In other words, "the full extent of [your] interest in [him]" seems to be to rise to every comment and barb he levies against you, taking the bait every time. You can say that Rex and pro and Doc are "obsessed with" you, but it's really just a case of you making a great target.

Just saying.

You're not claiming superior knowledge... but you claim superior knowledge of the modern era?

Not even knowing me personally, that's quite a reach, on many points. You at various points claim I know nothing about the modern comics era, and then backpedal slightly to say you have superior knowledge of the current era. Either way, you do allege your superiority.

Comics, modern or otherwise, are not overly difficult to follow. I know who the writers and artists are, I know what series they are working on, I know the general thrust of what's popular in the industry, and I read a fair representative amount of what's published. Whatever geeky minutia you consider yourself to have "superior knowledge" of is just your silly arrogance. You may read more comics, but we both know what's coming out.

So again, this is just more of your over-torqued-up insults and namecalling toward me, over a very minor and debatable point.




I've stated my age multiple times, and won't extend you the courtesy of repeating my age for you now. Suffice it to say, I started reading in the early 1970s, and that a majority of the writers, artists and readers are roughly the same age as me. These creators are the life's-blood of the industry, and when these "old" people are gone, the industry will implode down to nothing, and join LP records, pulp magazines and big-little-books on the ashbin of history.
I must not be too old, because three years ago, I was dating a very pretty 23-year-old girl, although I generally prefer women closer to my own age.
Most people are astonished when I tell them my age, and say I could pass for being in my 20s. I take good care of myself.



Others in my demographic age group, perhaps. Not me.



You again allege your superior comics knowledge, laced with apoplectic irrationality and insults. With no real basis for that attitude toward me.
Again: we both know who the writers and artists are, we both know who's doing what series.

You may have more fanboy-obsessive knowledge of the minutia of the secret origin of Robin 4, or how many points are on a batarang, or what issue Garth Ennis portrayed someone fucking the gunshot wound in the assasinated John F. Kennedy's head, or how many crotchless panties are drawn in the latest "warm tribute" by Grant Morrison to the innocence of the Silver Age, but while I know that excrement is out there, I really don't care to look at it.

If that stuff has meaning to you and gives you "superior knowledge" then goody for you. It doesn't mean anything or manifest "superior knowledge" to most people.



Again, you don't know me. But of course, there's nothing intolerant about the character assassination you're unleashing on me here, for simply not agreeing with your opinion about new comic books.

Which of us is intolerant here, Mxy? I think your slanderous attacks manifest that quite clearly.



I do read a lot, and look at many more titles beyond that.

I freely acknowledge that yeah, you likely know more about the new books, and certainly enjoy them more. But how much do I need to know, beyond what's published and who's writing and drawing it? If I feel the need to know more than that, I buy and read the works I like.
NO ONE, including even superior-acting condescending snots like you, read EVERY title that's published, so spare me your "superior knowledge" crap, and the unwarranted personal insults.



Again: I do read a fair amount of new material, and I'm quick to praise the stuff I like.

Books like Mignola's HELLBOY series, LEAVE IT TO CHANCE, SOJOURN, Waid/Kitson's LEGION (at least in the beginning). I was initially excited about Jim Shooter working on LEGION again, and disappointed when it came out. I like Van Sciver and Churchill's art, but am turned off by the writing that accompanies it, which was my complaint about Jim Lee over 20 year ago and ongoing. Jim Lee is the essence of what I despise, as much as Morrison, Ennis and the like. Because Lee produces a book that looks good, until you actually read it. And then, there's just nothing there.



The weeping part is, of course, just more of your silliness and insults. But I do think the modern comics overall are foul, profanity-laden, and reliant on extreme graphic violence, rape, sexual perversion and other shock elements that mask a lack of good writing.
I don't think anyone who reads Grant Morrison or Garth Ennis is degenerate. But I do think someone in their teens or 20s who reads this stuff is more impressed by the shock elements than I am, and would confuse these tittilating gonzo elements for profoundness and good writing. At some point in your late 20s or 30s your exposed to enough shock value that it ceases to be shocking, loses its impact, and is less impressive.

I prefer work with better prose, such as Don McGregor/Craig Russell's work on AMAZING ADVENTURES/Killraven, combined with a more heroic and upbeat message. Alan Moore's SWAMP THING, MIRACLEMAN and other 80s works have a similar good prose as well, although again, with less pleasant dark elements tossed into the mix.



Okay. I'll own up, in review, that you didn't actually say you have a preference to the new material. And beyond your eagerness to mock and ridicule me, you really haven't clarified WHAT your own standard for quality is. I could agree with some of what you say about comics aesthetics and the merits and flaws of various eras more easily, if what you said wasn't so woven with personal insults and baseless assumptions about my person and character.

There is in some ways a better standard of writing, a more dynamic narrative style in the new material. Sure.
But again, it is tainted by unpleasant elements. And the quality of comics writing (the ones I love too, pretty much) is laughable to readers of books, outside the narrow niche-market subculture of comic books.

Fantasy fiction readers thought it was the height of silliness that an issue of SANDMAN ("A Midsummer Night's Dream") won the World Fantasy Award for best story of the year, and changed the rules so it would never win again. And I'd agree with them. Neil Gaiman is still no Ramsey Campbell.

There are some arguable superior merits in modern comics, but in some ways --as I said earlier-- the earlier material was arguably superior in other ways:
1) it was skillfully written for a wider audience, that could appeal to both older and younger readers.
2) the stories were less padded, and arguably more inventive and less formulaic
3) there was a vastly wider array of genres in past comics aeas: war, western, romance, detective stories, science fiction, monster stories, humor, funny animals, teen stories, that certainly had the potential to reach a far wider market.
4) they certainly had far higher sales and reached a much larger audience
5) they had an inspiring optimism and fun, and sense of whimsey that made them appealing in a way the dark material of the current era could never hope to
6) ironically, because of censorship, they couldn't use many of the old tricks that current writers get away with, and so had to be more inventive in the stories they told.
7) they established the storytelling devices, characters and "universes" the current era still uses, so despite the new twists --and often vandalism-- of the current writers, what they do is inherently derivative and uncreative, relative to the old masters.

It's funny that you find the late 70s to early 80s the least interesting era, because I find it (as part of a continuous great era from 1968-1985) to be the most inventive era in comics history, giving us the perfect mix of mature writing and heroic storytelling of an earlier era (again, McGregor's KILLRAVEN, Starlin's WARLOCK and DREADSTAR, EPIC ILLUSTRATED, SABRE by McGregor/Gulacy, the Eclipse Comics line, the Pacific Comic line, the First Comics line, Englehart/Rogers' DETECTIVE 471-476 (collected as STRANGE APPARITIONS tpb), BIZARRE ADVENTURES.

After the darkness set in around 1986, I kept reading, but never again have seen the ratio of quality material and diversity that existed prior to that.




I answered that above. Again your baseless insults. And I could just as easily call you closed-minded and a fucking moron, that you feel a need to insult me for simply disagreeing with you point of view, on something as silly as comic books.



I give examples of what I like precisely, and why. You just lash out with insults, with only the vaguest clarification of what you base your insults on. You haven't explained what you consider so great in the new books, and it is still unclear precisely what your standard is, other than that because you disagree with my stated examples of quality, you feel a need to call me a "fucking idiot", "moron" and so forth, for simply disagreeing with you.

on an as-raised basis, every 6 months or so that he snipes at me. I respond, that's it, and point out the absurdity of his periodic vendetta posts toward me.