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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
blah blah blah I once touched a preacher comic and my anus bled
Ok!
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 !
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)...
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.
... 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.
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.
Your purpose here is no doubt just to annoy me.
My main purpose is to amuse myself. If I happen to annoy you while I'm doing it, that's just an added bonus.
i.e., you make it up as you go along, to try and annoy me. I've picked that up all along.
You can make all the condescending assumptions you want about what I allegedly know and don't know, but the fact is I've followed what's published, and read as much as I could stomach.
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.)
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.
Also, "following" comics through the internet and through imaginary friends isn't the same as ACTUALLY READING THEM.
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.
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.
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.
And I love the arrogance with which you assume otherwise.
Yeah, love-n-kisses.
