You're not claiming superior knowledge... but you claim superior knowledge of the modern era?
EXACTLY! Wondy, this is a huge step for you. Have a cookie.
Not even knowing me personally, that's quite a reach, on many points.
I've formed my opinion based on the information avaliable (as have you). Obviously, there's a chance I may be wrong (as could you... even if you don't even consider the possibility).
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.
Of the current era? Yep. Many, many times. Never denied it.
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.
Oh, no, they're not very difficult to follow. Not difficult at all. All one has to do is read them.
Knowing Goeff Johns is writing Green Lantern and Hawkman is guest-starring isn't, and can never be, the same as reading the comic. If that was the case they wouldn't bother putting out the fucking things, they'd just sell us the solicitation info.
This particular point has to be the most hopeless battle you've ever tried to fight (and you're the guy who tried to deny the CIA's involvement in South America, until I showed you their declassified documents and you shut up). In what universe is "keeping up" with something through indirect sources the same as or even comparable to being immersed in it?
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. That they are the life's-blood of the industry, and that when these "old" people are gone, the industry will implode down to nothing, and join LP records, pulp magazines and bi-little-books on the ashbin of history.
I'm sure NO ONE thought comics would die once guys like Kirby, Toth and Eisner retired. I'm also sure everyone who read WW2 comics as a kid LOVED everything that was published in the 70's. (At this point you will argue that comics in the 70's evolved the medium without being so gosh darn rude, unlike those 90's heathens, but the point remains: some guy, somewhere, HATED that Green Lantern was suddenly a negro and was disgusted that Lois Lane could vote. You're, in more than one way, the spiritual successor to that guy, Wondy.)
Most people are astonished when I tell them my age
Wondy, I'll extend you the courtesy of leaving that one alone. Don't say I never did anything for you.
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.
Nah, I know a lot of useless information about the comics I read as a kid (mostly Superman), but I don't pay much attention to that stuff these days. I don't even bother with "Secret Files and Origins" type bullshit, or continuity-wank in general. I'm more interested in enjoying stories despite what universe they fit or don't fit on, and I'm fascinated by the evolution of narrative storytelling. When I read Morrison and Quitely's The Bat-Man I was more intrigued by what Quitely did with the onomatopeias than Robin's new hairdo.
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.
Wondy, I can't assassinate your character if everyone here already hates you.
Which of us is intolerant here, Mxy?
You! Next question?
I freely acknowledge that yeah, you likely know more about the new books, and certainly enjoy them more.
And therefore my opinion is more informed than yours. Nice. Thank you. You're really making progress here. I'm proud of you.
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.
You don't NEED to know more than that. If, for example, you decide you don't like a comic because the cover is yellow, that's perfectly fine. However, not reading the comic disqualifies you from saying that is without the shadow of a doubt a piece of excrement. That just makes you look stupid.
Why can't you just say "it doesn't interest me so I don't read it"? That's what I do. I don't like wrestling. If someone asks me about wrestling I'll say "I don't know, I don't watch it", not "IT FUCKEN SUCKS AND EVERYONE WHO WATCHES IT IS A GAYLORD".
So you read one Preacher TPB. One tangential to the main storyline, but still. You read it all by yourself (clap clap), so now you have every right to judge this particular story and find it to be pure excrement. That's fine. However, one TPB is 1/9 of the entire story. You have a good enough idea of the style used in the series to know you don't want to read any more... and this means you are ignorant of what happens in the rest of the story. You simply don't have enough information about it to conclusively declare it to be crap.
By your own admission, bright moments in Watchmen and Swamp Thing redeem these stories (dare me to look up the post). And yet, you don't even accept the possibility that the same thing could happen in Preacher. Does it? Fucked if I know, I haven't finished reading it yet. But when I mentioned the romantic subplot present in the trades I have read, and how well-written it is, I remember you seemed genuinelly surprised. "What? Real emotion in this comic? But there's a gay black man saying 'fuck' in it!" You need to realize that these things aren't mutually exclusive.
(btw, I've made this part extra large so that you may, if you wish, say "I'm not reading all this gibberish" if you need an excuse to bail out of the conversation for another ten months. I won't think any less of you if you chicken out again, I promise.)
Again: I do read a fair amount of new material, and I'm quick to praise the stuff I like.
But at the same time you admit hating the great majority of what's being published, and not reading comics you hate. (No one's saying you should.)
I don't think anyone who reads Grant Morrison or Garth Ennis is degenerate.
I guess that's as close as I'll get to an admission that you overreacted.
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.
On the contrary. Kids today are more used to this stuff than adults, mainly thanks to games, so seeing someone being gored in a comic is just another detail.
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.
So you realize that good prose and shocking elements aren't mutually exclusive. Of course you won't think there's much of a chance of it being present in a Garth Ennis comic, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. MEANING THAT an issue of Preacher you haven't read
could prove you to be completely wrong about this series. I know you don't find this to be likely, but there's a difference between thinking that and knowing there's no way it can happen.
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 just like good comics, and I don't think a gore scene disqualifies a book from being good. I simply don't see the connection between offensive content and quality. It's not because I'm a huge fan of that stuff. I don't like gore movies, not because they make me sick, but because I find them to be boring. If a comic is all gore or all cussing, I'll probably get bored with it. But if it uses gore and shocking stuff as one in many elements that conform a narrative (like Preacher, in my limited experience), then I'm okay with it.
I'm glad we live in a time where a writer can have a character cut someone's dick off and shove it up their arse if he thinks it's necessary for the story he's telling. Doesn't mean I condone using scenes like that for pure shock value, but there's a huge difference between both scenarios.
