moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime) (02/04/86)
OK, Tim, as far as I can see you objections to "God Loves, Man Kills" (or, at least, your objections to our views of GLMK) are for two basic reasons, one major and one minor: MAJOR: It doesn't deserve the acclaim it's getting. MINOR: It is a caricature of a TV preacher Well, all I can say about the first point is that everyone has a different opinion about this book. I think it is about the best thing Claremont has done, which you may agree with; I also think it is a fine example of what it is titled to be, i.e. a "graphic novel". After re-reading it several times, I find the things I enjoy about it most (and the elements I find which are most effective at moving me) is the excellent graphic composition of the book. The way that Anderson sets up panels and moves from scene to scene, the use of P.O.V. shots, all add up to give a very cinematic feeling to the book (and I think the rather blurry artwork may actually help this). It also has a rather claustrophobic, dark feel to it throughout. Admittedly, it has poor moments at points -- Xavier's brain-washing is poorly handled. But again, let me come back to the point that I feel, when reading this, as if I'm watching a film; and Anderson and Claremont use this to raise a level of tension, of relief and of anger which extend beyond the dialogue -- if this were in book form with no illustrations, the writing would not look nearly as impressive. As to originality -- no, I don't think the plot was particularly original. Originality is a difficult thing to find in any genre these days; outside of some of the things done by Moore and some of the independents (Loebs, Burden), not much shows fantastic originality in stories. Heck, even those mentioned above use the same basic ideas seen in literature everywhere; however, they add original "tweaks" which are noticeable enough for the average reader to say "That's different!" (Norwegian Bachelor Farmers take note). I'm re-reading David Copperfield these days, and I have to admit that I don't find this particularly original; rather, my enjoyment stems from Dicken's humorous eye for human nature, his wonderful characterization, and his dialogue and careful eye in describing detail. In short, finding originality in literature is tough to do; precedents are there for you wherever you go. So if your grading comics strictly on originality, then I think you going to be pretty dissatisfied. If you find super-hero stories infantile, then I'm sure you won't enjoy the majority of things reviewed in net.comics. For better or worse, the majority of comics deal with the super-hero genre. Most of us who read a lot of comics accept that genre, even though a lot of us believe that Sturgeon's law about the percentage of crap in anything extends to the comics field. Me, I grade on several things: depth of characterization; artwork and the way it's presented; dialogue; absurdity; and most importantly, whether I enjoyed myself or not. "Thunder Bunny" is certainly not Twain, but I get a kick out of it nonetheless, due to its light-hearted manner to the super-hero theme. Not satire, but more the tongue-in-cheek effect of Beck & Binder's Captain Marvel. So, in summary, the above is why I put God Loves, Man Kills where I do. I wouldn't rate it any higher than an A, i.e. one of the best products of that year in comics. It has a niche in my comics memory. Mainly, it moved me, due to the elements above. If you feel the sentiment is smarmy, fine; I don't, and I feel that in this book Claremont has captured the "persecuted family" that defines his X-Men better than in any other X-Men appearance he has written (a feeling which has been lost of late in his works). Well, onto the minor point. You seem to feel that Stryker lost his potency because of his one-dimensionality; that it comes down to "Black Hats vs. white hats". Well, I admit that Stryker is not developed into a full character, though I don't think he's the icon you seem to elaborate on. A comic or graphic novel has a limited amount of space to define something in, and Stryker shows the limitations of this. However, I don't see (and I've said this before) why you feel Stryker represents fundamentalists. He seems to be someone who has mixed religion with the anti-mutant fervor, and I'm not at all sure that it goes any farther than that. Besides, I don't see Stryker as evil, especially "comic book evil" (`Nyah-ah-ah'). I think the reason I found him effective was that he is a crazed fanatic, who believes absolutely that he is doing God's work. In comparison, I find Fallwell and the majority of the fundamentalist preachers you and I both seem to object to as ranging from intolerant narrow-minded people who are trying to alter the constitution to fit their ideas of morality, to con-men (Fallwell fits here). And as to a "punch-out", by FAR the best thing about this book is the conclusion, with the X-Men and Kitty refraining from attacking Stryker. His own fanaticism leads him to draw on her, and the rescue comes from OUTSIDE the group of heroes -- from someone not involved in the conflict, someone who has seen that the prejudice Stryker believes in is wrong -- from someone ORDINARY (the implication: "like us"). This moment is effective due much to the frame-by frame pull-away from Stryker to the close-up of the cop -- but I find that this scene almost always makes me release tension, due partly to the effective build-up in tension in the frames before that, but due mostly to the feeling that this IS still a society that believes in right and wrong, and has not let fear dull its humanity completely. I'd almost call it a moral K.O., or a re-affirmation, after all the fear and bigotry in the rest of the book, that there is still a right and wrong in this country; that the fanatics are not in control, and that the reason of the masses is still there. I feel that it had much less to do with than the idea of prejudice. One can still think back to some of the atrocities of the 60s during the civil rights movements and realize that things like this are possible in Americans (another good moment -- perhaps trite, but effective -- is where Kitty says to Ms. Hunter "What if she'd called me a NIGGER-lover?"). Perhaps, there, is the core point to the excellence of this book -- Claremont and Anderson got the true, awful feeling of prejudice by the seat of the pants and held onto it through the majority of the book, depicting it from it's more conventional, frequent forms (name-calling, suspicion) to the very rare ultra-extreme (child killings). >Would someone care to enlighten me on the virtues of this >marvelous piece of work, without feeling the need to insult me in the >process? (Ha ha ha...) >-=- >Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot, Centram Systems West, Berkeley >uucp: {sun,lll-crg,well,dual,ptsfa,frog,decvax}!hoptoad!tim We aims to please, Tim... "Here's the holiday schedule for Monday's observation of Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, when the following will be closed: - Governmental offices - Post offices - Libraries - Schools - Banks - Parts of Palm Beach and the mind of Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina." -Dennis Miller Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, allegra, sb6, lbl-csam}!fluke!moriarty <*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
zarifes@bnrmtv.UUCP (Kenneth Zarifes) (02/08/86)
> here). And as to a "punch-out", by FAR the best thing about this book is > the conclusion, with the X-Men and Kitty refraining from attacking Stryker. > His own fanaticism leads him to draw on her, and the rescue comes from > OUTSIDE the group of heroes -- from someone not involved in the conflict, > someone who has seen that the prejudice Stryker believes in is wrong -- > from someone ORDINARY (the implication: "like us"). This moment is > effective due much to the frame-by frame pull-away from Stryker to the > close-up of the cop -- but I find that this scene almost always makes me > release tension, due partly to the effective build-up in tension in the > frames before that, but due mostly to the feeling that this IS still a > society that believes in right and wrong, and has not let fear dull its > humanity completely. I'd almost call it a moral K.O., or a re-affirmation, > after all the fear and bigotry in the rest of the book, that there is still > a right and wrong in this country; that the fanatics are not in control, and > that the reason of the masses is still there. > This is the best analysis I've read/heard about this story. Way to go Moriarty!! -- {hplabs,amdahl,3comvax}!bnrmtv!zarifes --Ken Zarifes
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (02/12/86)
I have to say that I considered for a while whether or not to answer this, because it really doesn't seem to have whole lot to do with what I said about "God Loves, Man Kills". But then, it is the only answer that didn't involve pesonal attacks, so I suppose I should. In article <2667@colossus.fluke.UUCP> moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime) writes: >OK, Tim, as far as I can see you objections to "God Loves, Man Kills" (or, >at least, your objections to our views of GLMK) are for two basic reasons, >one major and one minor: > >MAJOR: It doesn't deserve the acclaim it's getting. >MINOR: It is a caricature of a TV preacher > >Well, all I can say about the first point is that everyone has a different >opinion about this book. I think it is about the best thing Claremont has >done, which you may agree with; I also think it is a fine example of what it >is titled to be, i.e. a "graphic novel". After re-reading it several times, >I find the things I enjoy about it most (and the elements I find which are >most effective at moving me) is the excellent graphic composition of the >book. The way that Anderson sets up panels and moves from scene to scene, >the use of P.O.V. shots, all add up to give a very cinematic feeling to the >book (and I think the rather blurry artwork may actually help this). It >also has a rather claustrophobic, dark feel to it throughout. Admittedly, it >has poor moments at points -- Xavier's brain-washing is poorly handled. But >again, let me come back to the point that I feel, when reading this, as if >I'm watching a film; and Anderson and Claremont use this to raise a level of >tension, of relief and of anger which extend beyond the dialogue -- if this >were in book form with no illustrations, the writing would not look nearly >as impressive. No, I think the best work Claremont did was the Phoenix story, which really was moving. This is a sloppy third or fourth. I do, however, agree with you (although the book is now sitting in Pittsburgh, so I have to go from memory) that Anderson's handling of movement is good, and that he does keep this moving along well. I take this for granted as a minimum requirement of comic art, though. In the absence of other redeeming features, I still see Anderson as a typical, though slightly better than average, Marvel-style artist. Nothing spectacular: and as you'll recall, it was the incredible praise heaped upon this novel that I was protesting. You are also correct about the cinematic feel of the book, but if this had been a movie, I'd walk out. As a movie, it sucks, whereas it is somewhat good as a graphic novel. The false-death tricks are even cheaper and flimsier in a cinematic context. There is no real sentiment or emotion, just cheap tricks designed to produce these feelings, such as artificially matching friend against friend ("artificially" because they have no real conflict on the level of their identities; the conflict is all on the physical level, produced because one has been brainwashed). >As to originality -- no, I don't think the plot was particularly original. >Originality is a difficult thing to find in any genre these days; outside of >some of the things done by Moore and some of the independents (Loebs, >Burden), not much shows fantastic originality in stories. Heck, even those >mentioned above use the same basic ideas seen in literature everywhere; >however, they add original "tweaks" which are noticeable enough for the >average reader to say "That's different!" (Norwegian Bachelor Farmers take >note). I'm re-reading David Copperfield these days, and I have to admit >that I don't find this particularly original; rather, my enjoyment stems >from Dicken's humorous eye for human nature, his wonderful characterization, >and his dialogue and careful eye in describing detail. In short, finding >originality in literature is tough to do; precedents are there for you >wherever you go. > >So if your grading comics strictly on originality, then I think you going to >be pretty dissatisfied. Now this is a point I am sure I was very clear on. The graphic novel incorporated SPECIFIC, TRITE plot elements. I did not make some general criticism of unoriginality, which is what you are defending against. I showed, first, that the overall plot was 100% identical to the usual villain-bashing plot of comics. I also showed that it repeatedly used artificial means of creating tension, and that these artificial ways were those that have been used literally thousands of times, probably tens of thousands, in comics. In particular, these were false death and artificial conflict between friends. None of this has been responded to at all. The graphic novel was not merely unoriginal, but incredibly trite, using not once but many times extremely simplistic, trite, and manipulative plot elements. I have to run, so I'll finish this up later. Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot {sun,ihnp4,frog}!hoptoad!tim