You didn’t come off rude. Quite the opposite actually.

(I can’t do quotes right. I apologize.) Sorry if I seemed rude. You did give your reasoning, but I just feel it was just too much of a leap, and some of the things you said just seemed to be pulled in from nowhere (the Muslim thing, for instance). YMMV, though.

>And to criticize Miller’s work as a self-indulgence >rather than an important work? Sure, it probably is. I >don’t even like Frank Miller’s writing, especially on >Batman. But to have Morrison criticizing someone for >disguising self-indulgence as important work or for >being self-important?

Granted, Morrison is very self-important…but his self importance is limited to his work in the comics field and being the ‘God of comics’, which is fairly innocuous, (also, I’m pretty sure that most of what he says is self-parody) whereas Miller’s self-importance is going on to make grandiose statements about making a difference in the war on terror and fighting terrorism, thru his comics, (and he seems to be dead serious), which to me is a bit tasteless. Going back to the Siegel and Shuster, or Jack Kirby war comics…I’m pretty sure they weren’t as weirdly self-important or making such extravagant claims as Miller is – or at least, I can’t find any examples of such…
I may be being hypocritical, but I can put up with one better than the other. Miller is really irking me these days.

Except it’s not remotely similar- it’s a hypothetical examination of what might have gone through Hitler’s mind the one period he was (apocryphally?) in England. No punching-by-superheroes in there.

And to criticize Miller’s work as a self-indulgence rather than an important work? Sure, it probably is. I don’t even like Frank Miller’s writing, especially on Batman. But to have Morrison criticizing someone for disguising self-indulgence as important work or for being self-important? Why not just have Nicole Richie give nutritional advice or Ike Turner give marriage counseling while we’re at it? After finally reading his Animal Man run last year, I don’t really think Morisson has the grounds to accuse anyone of being self-important or self-indulgent.

The irony is that I like Morrison’s writing much better than Miller’s. I think Miller’s unreadable a lot of the time. I like Morrison’s writing usually, I’ve trained myself to ignore a lot of his self-indulgent metacommentary when I can. When he restrains himself to just telling a story instead of trying to be a shaman, like in JLA, he’s incredible. It’s just his “rockstar God shaman of comics” shtick in interviews that I hate.

And again, I think you’re simply reading what you want to read into it and simply pulling stuff out of thin air. He never said that superheroes shouldn’t fight real world problems, did he? He never said people shouldn’t criticize Al-Queda. All he was criticizing was Miller’s self-importance and ‘decadent indulgence’, and that’s fair game. You’ll notice he doesn’t say anything about the other comics that feature terrorists or evil Muslims. He only mentions Miller.
Like it or leave it, Miller’s comic isn’t going to do anything at all. It IS a self-indulgence, disguised as ‘important work’. Read any of Miller’s interviews – he really does think he’s making a important stand, which is nonsense. Morrison’s point is entirely valid, and has nothing to do with the criticisms of Muslims or anything else you seem to WANT it to be.
Now, I never said any of that either, so I’m simply going to skip over your justification of why superheroes should do it, as I never said they shouldn’t
You’re arguing points that neither of us made, to prove a point YOU want to make. At least it seems that way. A criticism of Frank Miller’s attitudes towards comics is certainly not the same as a blanket hatred of all war comics, nor criticism of Muslim treatment, nor any sort of support for Al Queada. In fact, the tone in which he speaks of our troops fighting against Al Queada certainly seems to show that he holds them in high regard.

Oops. Guess he’s got a case of Miller-itis too.

As if he’s explicitly going to admit that’s his real reason.

It’s a simple inference. If he was really against the concept of using superheroes to tackle real-life threats, why has he never spoken out about this before “Holy Terror Batman?” Superheroes have fought Hitler, Communist Russia, the Mafia, Communist China, Neo-Nazis, the IRA and others. Is it because Al Qaeda is more heinous? Nazis killed even more innocents than Al Qaeda. Communism killed more people than even Nazism. That can’t be it. Is it different than the past examples because real soldiers fight Al Qaeda and we’re disrespecting them? Real soldiers fought Nazism, Communism and Irish terrorists. Real cops fight crime in the streets. That can’t be it. Is it because it trivializes a real-life tragedy? IN that case, maybe he should decry his own “New Adventures of Hitler,” which one can argue trivializes the Holocaust. None of his purported reasons for hating this book explain why these past examples are okay, since they fail the same litmus test.

The only real difference left is that this book tackles Muslims and is written by a creator whose popularity has dwindled, while the past books tackle groups that are more politically correct to hate and were done by creators who are too lionized to criticize. Hence, he’s appearing ballsy and principled while actually just picking on safe targets and being hypocritical.

Wow! Despite the fact that he didn’t mention Muslims at all, you somehow manage to get all that out of the interview. Impressive! Please, direct me to the part of the interview where he picks on Miller for ‘picking on Muslims’. Please!
All I noticed was the part where he speaks fairly complimentary against the soldiers who are ACTUALLY risking life and limb against Al Qeada in the war on terror, and how he feels they’re doing more good than Frank Miller. A comment I agree with wholeheartedly. Now, do you disagree? If so, I’d LOVE to hear your justification.

Why, yes, that makes complete sense. I’m completely going to eschew morals and ethics.

Way to miss the point, bro. I was using those deliberately ludicrous examples to show how dumb Morrison’s logic about not criticizing Al-Qaeda without enlisting to fight them personally is when that logic is applied to other areas of criticism. If you agree that all those examples are ridiculous and offensive, then isn’t is equally ridiculous and offensive to expect Miller to “completely contort his life to justify his admonition at “brutality” or an ethnic genocide” like Al Qaeda?

David, thank you for giving me hope about reader comprehension. I have to wonder if people seriously misconstrued my point or if they got it but just played dumb to avoid countering it with intellectual honesty.

The problem is, Morrison is becoming a parody of himself and opening himself to similar ridicule with his “I’m going to save the industry through ‘mad non-sequitir ideas’ and intrusive meta-commentary that makes the books more about him and his thoughts on comics rather than about the actual characters themselves.

*sobs*

“I don’t see Miller doing a Batman vs. Terrorists as something to get worked up over.”

How was Morrison getting “worked up” about it? Miller is the one who’s worked up, saying Osama bin Laden is as deadly a threat as Soviet Russia. Morrison is just heaping mockery upon a richly deserving target.

well, last time i checked, there still aren’t any Es or Os in the Muslim alphabet. what they have are Is and Us. thus it’s “Muslim” instead of “Moslem”, “Muhammad” instead of “Mohammed”. it was one of the first few things they taught us in Elementary Philippine Geography and History (at least in our school) here in Manila.

so, it’s probably more “al Qaida” than “al Qaeda”.