"Can we all just quit with the manga circle-jerking? It’s big right now, and for a few more minutes, because nerds have an unhealthy Asian culture fetish. Give it just a bit of time, and it will disappear as fast as Asian animation will. It’s oversaturated its market and it’s only a matter of time before too many of the nerds get real jobs and real lives and realize that they’ve never actually understood an iota of it, and that they couldn’t understand most true manga without having grown up in an Asian cultural context. It’s only a matter of time before the kid readers grow up and realize that they want more than glorified Golden Age BAM-POW storytelling with ludicrous catchphrases thrown in for good measure."

And, of course, the supply of children is finite. Once these ones grow up, there aren't any more. Unless people were to somehow produce new children, who could grow into manga just as the current children are growing out of it...but I suppose that's just crazy talk, isn't it?

Face facts; manga hasn't oversaturated a small market, it's tapped into that unbelievably vast one that American comics publishers have spent the last twenty years studiously ignoring in order to show everyone who gave them a wedgie in junior high that it is so cool for grown-ups to read Batman, so there! DC and Marvel gave up on the unbelievably lucrative kids' comics market, and manga's picked it up.

@25: How does someone like you, who so clearly hates superhero comics, and pretty much anything that sells remotely well in North America, end up at a site like this? If you hate North American mainstream comics so much, you really don't need to yammer on about it to those who do.

@39: Can we all just quit with the manga circle-jerking? It's big right now, and for a few more minutes, because nerds have an unhealthy Asian culture fetish. Give it just a bit of time, and it will disappear as fast as Asian animation will. It's oversaturated its market and it's only a matter of time before too many of the nerds get real jobs and real lives and realize that they've never actually understood an iota of it, and that they couldn't understand most true manga without having grown up in an Asian cultural context. It's only a matter of time before the kid readers grow up and realize that they want more than glorified Golden Age BAM-POW storytelling with ludicrous catchphrases thrown in for good measure.

@53: Could you be any MORE pretentious? Kirby makes it pretty clear from the first issue of New Gods that The Fourth World is a deconstruction and reconstruction of classic mythologies. You don't need a college-level mythology course to get it.

@59: It was unfair of me to judge 53 as pretentious. "No one important"? What, your wife is important? I don't give a blitz about your wife. What, is she important because she's not American? Geez, your kind make me wanna puke.

@69: You loved Seven Soldiers? But it was just factory genre fiction. Isn't that way beneath you?

@71: The greatest tragedy of the last 150 years or so of art is the strange belief that form is more important than content. It's made art so much more elitist and condescending than it ever was when it was just pretty pictures and stories made for rich people. The original point of art, if anyone gives enough of a damn about history to remember, was to express stories, not to baffle everyone with how new and hip and revolutionary the form was. Form is meaningless if content is lost.

@81: You keep arguing against the power fantasy, on the face of it, without ever providing a warrant behind it. What's wrong with a power fantasy? Beowulf is a great power fantasy. And as far as the necessity of the distancing effect: it's almost always necessary. Without it, commentary is ham-fisted and more suited for essays than for fiction. One of Kurt Vonnegut's most underrated works, for example, is Venus on the Half-Shell, which uses the sci-fi distancing effect extremely well. Better, I'd say, than some of his more popular books, although I love 'em all.

@92: He said "can afford," not "rich." That means that somehow, be it via high test scores and scholarships, or working the government loan system, or just being a rich prick, you get an advanced degree in this country by being able to afford it. It's not freely available.

@ almost everybody who's mentioned Ellis: What about Bad World?

@ almost everybody who's mentioned Ennis: What about The Authority: Kev, and all the follow-ups? Now hold on, bear with me. Storywise, Kev and More Kev were in many ways just the same old rehashings of how much Garth Ennis hates superhero comics, thankfully with a bit more subtlety than he often employs when making that particular point. And yes, they exist within the visual status quo of comic book art, as well as the mold of a pre-existing, more or less conventional superhero universe. But by focusing entirely on a supporting character, a nobody, a guy who doesn't count for anything whatsoever, counts for even less than a guy like Perry White or Jimmy Olsen, and casting the traditional lead players as bit players in a comic that (at least with the first couple) bore their name in the title, Ennis did indeed successfully craft a new take on the superhero story. "Revolutionary" is in the eye of the beholder, but all the Kev stories were new, fresh, and fun to read. They're everything comics should be. Most aggravatingly, they proved that Ennis can do new, fresh, and fun, as well as make his point about superhero comics subtly, and yet he still refuses to do this most of the time.

And then there's The Boys. At least early on, the series blew me away. Essentially, it told a conventional-style superhero story, but it cast folks that, in the DCU or the Marvel U, would be considered supervillains, as the protagonists. That's more revolutionary than it sounds. A book like Lex Luthor: Man of Steel was basically an attempt at justifying the actions of one of the classic villain. In The Boys, Ennis took the archetype of protagonists as essentially blameless, justified in their use of violence for almost any reason, vs. antagonists who are always wrong, who are almost one-dimensionally bad people, who end up causing more harm than good even when their intentions are noble, and turned the whole thing on its head. Ennis seemed to be saying, "Well if superheroes get to have THEIR stories told in such a black-and-white fashion, the supervillains should too!"

Of course, then he went and ruined it by turning the book into a transparent diatribe against all superhero comics, a boring rant against the very thing that was making his book enjoyable: one-dimensional, simplistic storytelling. I'm still reading it, hoping it gets better, and because I like to see something through when I start it, but I'm not holding my breath for a return to the gold that the first few issues were.

That was when I discovered comics, X-Men, Spider-Man. I liked X-Men because I felt like it was a place where I could be with those who were like me, or like I felt myself to be. And I liked comics like Spidey because he lived in a universe where (usually) the good guys always won, it was a place where justice actually existed, and I could feel safe.

I've kept my interest in these kinds of comics for a long long time (2 decades), as I still deal with anxiety and PTSD issues (flashbacks and whatnot) regularly, I enjoy the idea of superhero comics as they have classically been known up until what you call the "deconstructionist" period.

Now, everything is a mess. It's truly become an adult's medium, not because of a refusal to push the envelop further but because of an eagerness to.

Look at Spider-Man and what has been done to him as a result of civil war; a character deemed generally all ages has become much more dark and violent, and while the idea of bringing comics closer to reality has its merits, it does have the effect of alienating those of us who have strong attachment to the characters.

Anyhoo, I've veered off topic, but I guess my basic point was that you can't push the envelope all the time, and shouldn't have to try. I've never read any of the titles you've mentioned aside from the aforementioned x-titles (which i found lacking), because sometimes you just want to read enjoyable stories about characters you can care about, not philosophical illustrated treatises on the nature of the various neuroses of the comic readership.

If I want that, I can go see my therapist.

"The CONTEXT in which you compare Crumb to Ware could just as easily be used to compare any two major cartoonists. So, yeah, it gets ignored."

I'm talking about the similarity in their content (which seems obvious to me), and the fact they juxtapose that content against styles of delivery that the reader is more used to seeing handle very different material.

That sounds pretty specific to me. How would you use that context to show a similarity between Charles Shulz and Richard Corben?

Or are you using debating society tactics to try to undermine my point?

"My point from minute numero uno, is that the brilliance is in the design."

I agree with you, his design is brilliant. At no point have I argued with this. But is it
(a) completely unique
or
(b) heavily influenced by (read, cribbed mercilessly from) old newspaper strips and comic books (as well as old advertisments, cereal boxes, and other forms of packaging and commercial art)?
I say it's the latter, while you seem unable to pick one. Maybe it's because of your straight-jacket idea that the only good work is work that breaks new ground (and in quite specific areas, at that), which completely ignores and/or devalues craft, which is where Ware's real value lies.

"EITHER what I’m saying is wrong, wrong, wrong and you gotta explain why, OR I’m wrong and there is this huge cross-influence between the two."

There IS a huge cross influence in terms of content. Comics of this nature- comics about ordinary people living ordinary lives, with an emphasis on bleakness and pessimism inherent in capitalist culture ("sad little narratives" indeed) didn't exist before Crumb. Yes Ware's design sense is very different from Crumb's (although they are mining very similar ground there, too, they just use what they find in completely different ways), but that in no way negates the similarity in content. Why should it? Form and content are considered seperately in every other artform, why should it be different for comics?

"Swear to God if I thought for half-a-second you knew everything I was saying I’d save myself the trouble."

Which just makes it even more irritating when you repeat things I've already said back at me as if they'd never have occured to me.

"Well, not before Chris Ware started working I haven’t.

[you know what? I'm not even gonna touch that. It's fucking beautiful and eloquent in it's simplicity]

But, see, this ISN’T an actual counter-argument. It’s not really an anything. It SOUNDS like yer trying to cover up your lack of knowledge with bullshit."

Well I suppose it does if you're coming from the standpoint of an ASSUMED lack of knowledge on my part, and that this is some kind of arguing competition.

Otherwise it sounds like what it is- a presumption of knowledge on YOUR part. That is to say, I think you know full well that your claim was ridiculous. I'm not arguing for an audience, waiting for some imagined vote at the end. I just wanted YOU to know that I know you're talking shit.

You are not reading my posts from a the standpoint of someone who wants to have a discussion- you're not trying to work out what my opinion is, or why I hold it.

You are looking for debating points, and in the process, missing mine.

Still don't see how our TECHNICAL assessments of Ware's work differ, by the way.

And I've explained repeatedly why Ellis uses what you consider to be tired old story structures. Here's a hint: It's very similar in intention to the way Ware uses what I consider to be tired old page structures...

But it doesn't matter what I actually SAY, your just looking to pick holes.

You know, social skills can be a real help in life. Just a thought.

A) I agree with Greg. Comics should break new ground.

B) I disagree with Greg. (And this is what got buried.) Formal experimentation with the way stories are told, not content, is the most important way for the medium t' grow.

C) Chris Ware is an example of a formal innovator pf storytelling structure. Warren Ellis is not, although he is dealing with the way politics is structured and his sociological impact more'n any other writer.
Still, there are better political writers workin' outside the comics medium than Ellis. (Hunter S. Thompson, for one.) And better futurist writers. (Asimov or Dick, dependin' on yer taste.)

Therefore Ware or any experimentalist storyteller working in comics is more unique and a more important artist than Ellis, or any writer doin' stuff in comics that has been done better in books.

And, for the record, I make this distinction even though, taken as a whole, I like Ellis' writing more than Ware's.

You're just kind of... um..... there, dude. You make not-exactly-arguments which provide the basis for me to talk about stuff I think is interesting.

I don't think your dumb, but, yeah, I think you're a poor debater. And that's probably gonna creep into my posts here. Really. Swear to God if I thought for half-a-second you knew everything I was saying I'd save myself the trouble.

You say

"no self respecting alt-comix fan should be saying shit like that. Have you ever BEEN to a small press con?"

Well, not before Chris Ware started working I haven't.

But, see, this ISN'T an actual counter-argument. It's not really an anything. It SOUNDS like yer trying to cover up your lack of knowledge with bullshit.

You know what would consitute and ACTUAL argument? SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES. of people who've treated their comic books as art objects who were working pre-Chris Ware.

Or, for that matter,

If you name names, I'll say "Oh. I didn't know that."
And then I'll shut the fuck up and move on.

And, meanwhile, ya spend the rest of your time attacking offhand examples I'm making and ignore the ACTUAL POINT I'm tryin' to make. The CONTEXT in which you compare Crumb to Ware could just as easily be used to compare any two major cartoonists. So, yeah, it gets ignored. 'Cause there's no way any sort of worthwhile critical judgements can be made working from that context. And I point out that One of your, ACTUAL arguments is comparing two folks who are using completely different frames of reference to acheive completely different visual effects that utilize the medium in completely different ways isn't Even reeeeeeemotely fuckin' useful.

My point from minute numero uno, is that the brilliance is in the design.

And you ignored that, and keep harping on Crumb. So I explain how they're not the same, and you say you know that but you disagree but that it's been done before. But you can't have both. EITHER what I'm saying is wrong, wrong, wrong and you gotta explain why, OR I'm wrong and there is this huge cross-influence between the two. And then you gotta explain why THAT is, and then relate it specifically back to Ware and Crumb.

And I've said my Ellis piece. In mind numbing detail.
You over-simplified it, and ALSO mangaged to get it wrong, but I think it's pretty clear if ya go back.
I think Ellis is a good writer, often. And I think he could be better if he'd do some structural experimentation and move further away from traditional pacing and structure. (And also perfectly functional if you remove the Chris Ware bits.)

What do I want from you? Keep doin' what your doing. It's a fine example of how not to construct an argument, and it provides a springboard for me to lecture onanaonanonanon about stuff that interests me.

Also, please think about how my assessment of Ware's work differs from yours. So far as I can see the only difference between us is that I don't think what he's doing is particularly original. We agree on WHAT he's doing, just not on whether he's the first to do it, and how important it is. Why is that such a problem for you?

I'm not going to be drawn into a debate with you about your invented split between "design based comic art" and "cartooning based comic art" because it really should be obvious to anyone at all with an interest in the medium that all comics are a mixture of both design and cartooning, and while some artists obviously lean one way or the other, to say that they are somehow now split into two seperate mediums- or movements, or whatever you want to call it- is just pigeon holing, and either way it doesn't just magically nullify any cross influence between the two.

I didn't comment on Building Stories because I don't THINK I've read it. There is a Ware story currently being serialised in one of the sunday papers I buy- not sure which one, either the Observer or the Independent- and that involves architecture a great deal. It's diverting, and the architectural drawings are very pretty. I don't know if that's the comic you're on about though, so I don't feel able to comment on it. Perhaps it contains some incredible technique Ware hasn't used in anything else of his that I've read. If so, then that's great. I'll give him some points, or something. Whatever makes you happy. But the chances that by reading one book I will completley change my tastes and suddenly Ware will be my favourite cartoonist? Unlikely. the chances that it will cast all the rest of his work in a bold new light that makes it look new and innovative to my eyes? Take a guess. Frankly, I'm still not sure what you want from me.

And anyway I'm not surprised I left it out. I just don't know where to start when responding to your posts, I'm bound to miss stuff. There's just so much to take issue with. Take your ridiculous claim that Ware is the first to treat comics as art objects... no self respecting alt-comix fan should be saying shit like that. Have you ever BEEN to a small press con? And your continual mixing of subjective and objective arguments... Ellis does not make good work because you don't like action movie dialogue in comics. You don't think it makes for good character work, while others might say it allows for character work to be done more quickly, thus allowing to focus on things BESIDES character... but that doesn't matter, 'cos YOU don't like it?

Maybe you don't like Ellis because you're not the target audience? Or is that not allowed?

I know that's why I'm not a big fan of Ware. His work has absolutely nothing to say to me. Doesn't mean it's not good, I think it's very good indeed.

But the fact that every single thing of his that I HAVE read makes me think of someone else's work means that I simply cannot view it as innovative.

I think I've made it very clear, over and over again, that I know and understand everything you've been repeating at me about modern american alternative comics. I just don't view them from the same vantage point that you do. You see them as relevant and exciting. I see them in their historical context, since for me they have no relevance. I don't deny their quality. But from where I sit it just looks like more of the same, which isn't even a bad thing, really.

But please, stop insulting my intelligence. And stop treating this like a fight that needs to be one or lost. You've been coming at me since my first post, guns blazing, because I had the CHEEK to praise an authot you son't like. For god's sake. GROW UP.

Your argument is, again, Crumb did it first.

You remember the last time you made THAT particular comparason and everybody jumped on yer shit, 'cause it sounded like you didn't know what they hell yer on about? What makes you think it's gonna go over better this time?

I'm a little embarassed I gotta do this, cause it seems fairly obvious from where I'm sittin' but what the hell.

Ware is NOT Crumb. To reduce it to influences, Windsor Mccay is NOT Kurtzman.

And, to strip it down once more, and this is the big one:

Design based comic art is not the same thing as pure cartooning based comic art.

Again. In Capital letters:

DESIGN BASED COMIC ART IS NOT THE SAME THING AS PURE CARTOONING BASED COMIC ART.

Ware and Little Nemo are using the entire page to create their effect. It's a whole-as-greater than the sum of it's parts thang. It's about using the whole page to create a specific effect.

Capiche. Crumb and Bagge and Kurtzman (and Kirby, and Stanley, and Jason to toss off a few more names) are different animals. The emphasis is on SPECIFIC FIGURES in SPECIFIC PANELS, and the space between 'em.
The emphasis isn't on making cool lookin' pages. The empasis, to borrow a term from rap music, is on flow, and creating specific rhythmic effects with the panels, not on the overall design of the piece.

Completely. Different. THANG!

Which ain't t'say that Ware is better than Crumb, or vice versa. And th' comparison holds up s'far as to say that both their work synthesized other people's work. Which is true of every artist everywhere. But the overall end product is so different that it defies comparison.

An' I notice how you ignored my specific example of "Building Stories" as bein' more-or-less completely unique.

Which I guess you had to if you wanted to pretend like you still had an argument.

And back t'poor Ellis. It's not that I don't like Science Fiction or Action Movies. Read back. Notice how I never said or implied anything of the sort?

I'm not especially fond of action movie style DIALOUGE transmitted to comics, 'cause it just isn't particularly effective for writing character based stories. But I got nothing against 'em on the screen.

And... nah, I'm not gonna repeat my arguments about the distancing effect of science fiction and when it works and when it doesn't. I'm sorry if I'm unclear, dude, but that's the best I can write. ANd if you got that I hate Science Fiction outta that, well, either my writing skills are shit or you weren't payin' attention. Even if it's # 1 I'm too lazy to re-cover the same ground twice.

My argument, on the whole, is simple. The best artists find new ways to convey information. Crumb did. Ware did. Morrison... Eh. I'm not sure yet.

The artist who are... shall we say... less great rely on the ol' tried 'n true storytelling styles to convey their stories, even when it hurts their work. Which is where Ellis falls. And I wish he didn't, because I think he's got potential to do great stuff, and it frustrates me that he's stuck in conventional storytelling modes.

I'm gonna drop the subject after this, 'cos it's got nothing to do with the original post; and the only reason I'm still involved in this conversation is because it's bugging the hell out of me. I've been wlking around in a bad mood for two days now because of this!

Look, you obviously mean well, and feel very passionatly about what you love and that's GREAT. Ware deserves to have a devoted fanbase, for the sterling work he does. But in a coversation it's customary to listen to what the other person says before responding. For example:

"Have you really LOOKED at Ware’s stuff? Thought about the way he conveys information?"

Well, yes, I think I have. I wouldn't feel comfortable talking this much about it otherwise.

"It’s synthesizing a set of influences (early 20th century strip cartoonists, mostly) that have been ‘most completely ignored by other comic writerartists, and used them to tell these sad little ongoing narratives."

Is that not pretty much EXACTLY what I already said- a couple of times? Unless you didn't catch that that's what I meant when I mentioned McCay and Herriman, in which case you need to do some googling of your own mate.

And if you really think think it's original and new to use old fuunybook techniques to tackle incongruous material, then lo, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth for I will once again be forced to invoke the mighty Crumb. And Clowes, and Bagge, etc. etc.

Ware is a very talented cartoonist with his own style doing important and popular work. He is not the second coming of christ. Here endeth THAT lesson.

As for Ellis... are you even aware of the elitist streak in your argument? You don't like sci fi stories or action movies, therefore for Ellis to do any good work he must leave those infuences behind. Because good work can only be work YOU like, apparently. I call it elitist because of the way you casually invoke action movies and SF as being OBVIOUSLY bad, with little to back it up (apart from your "distancing" argument about SF, whish you must surely understand is a subjective consideration?). They're just ganres, with no limits on the quality and depth of the work made for their audience. Ellis is quite cearly interested in making his work accessible to as wide an audience as he can. By using those "conventional, simplistic dramatic structures" he allows his work to be enjoyed by a far wider group of people than you would allow him to reach with your rules about what is or isn't good or important work.

I've written a little play about our converstaion:
(disclaimer- what ofollows is obviously blatantly biased)

ME I like this guy. I think he's good at what he does.
YOU: NO! THAT GUY'S SHIT!
ME: well, I disagree.
YOU: NO! HE'S SHIT! If you'd ever heard of THESE GUYS that your obviously too dumb to have ever seen, you'd KNOW THAT!
ME: Well, I do know about those guys, they're cool, but not really to my taste. And my guy still isn't shit.
YOU: NO! HE'S SHIT! If you'd ever heard of THESE GUYS that your obviously too dumb to have ever seen, you'd KNOW THAT!
ME: Uh, didn't we do this bit already?
YOU: NO! HE'S SHIT! If you'd ever heard of THESE GUYS that your obviously too dumb to have ever seen, you'd KNOW THAT!
ME: Hello...?
YOU: NO! HE'S SHIT! If you'd ever heard of THESE GUYS that your obviously too dumb to have ever seen, you'd KNOW THAT!
ME: Are you even listening to me...?

I'm not claiming authority, I stating my opinion. And all I said was that just because someone has a qualification, doesn't make them automatically more intelligent than those who don't. And if you find THAT offensive, you're an elitist prick and that offends me.

And I didn't say that all academics are RICH, I said they could afford to study- which alot of people can't. Some of us have to leave school and get full time jobs while still in our teens, just to make sure the rent and bills get paid. If we're not allowed to enjoy works of art and literiture, and understand and interpret them for ourselves, then again I call elitism.

I think it’s something you read more to convince yourself that you’re smart than because you actually can’t wait to turn the other page.

Animaol Man? Seriously? I have always had a tendency to read the 'easy rading' comics first so back in the day I'd always read Justice League before Sandman or The Question because it was a light and breezy read. Number one on my list though was always Animal Man, because though it did get mindblowing towards the end of the series it was always a light breezy read at the same time.

I don't think you could every read a light and breezy read like that to convince yourself you're clever. I this accessibility is something that has been lacking from most of Morrison's work ever since (with WE3 and Earth 2 being the big exceptions - although I haven't read ASSM yet) - though I still love a lot of it.

Anyway this conversation's a bit too in-depth for me but I just couldn't let that comment go.

(BTW in case you didn't guess you can count me in the list of people who thing Morrison's best work in Animal Man)

In other words, yet again you're claiming authority on a subject about which you know nothing. Also, you've offended me.

Come now. Kirby was much more of an autodidact than he was ever an academic. I'm pretty sure it's still possible to obtain the knowledge the same way he did, ie being curious, motivated, and having access to materials (libraries are still around, amazingly enough, along with this weird new electronic information network some guy at a bar told me about). None of it (with all due respect to the late King) is stuff that you really need trained professionals making airplane noises as they bring the spoon to your mouth in order to get.

And T: thanks for supplying that reason as to why people might enjoy something you don't. Here I thought people had different tastes, but you've really opened my eyes to the real issue of effete snobs vs. Real Men. Or whatever.