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.
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.
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.
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.
