Comments on: 365 Reasons to Love Comics #348

By: VCHAGZ

VCHAGZ — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:01:36 +0000

i’m not even sure you are qualified to talk about comics if you have never read Gaiman’s Sandman

By: Bill Reed

Bill Reed — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:03:55 +0000

Most of the libraries around here don’t even know what a graphic novel is. I might be able to bum some copies off of acquaintances.

One day, I shall purchase them.

By: Apodaca

Apodaca — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:00:01 +0000

Some libraries carry The Invisibles, Bill. That’s how I read the majority of the series.

By: Bill Reed

Bill Reed — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:44:15 +0000

Well, I’ve read two volumes of Invisibles…

If you’d like to give me the 320+ dollars to purchase the entire set, you’re more than welcome to.

By: Graeme Burk

Graeme Burk — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:42:29 +0000

Okay, Bill… you haven’t read The Invisibles OR The Sandman?

There are no words.

By: Bill Reed

Bill Reed — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:09:37 +0000

I’ve never read Gaiman’s Sandman, actually, and while I’ve read up on all the later Sandman retcons and revisions, I wasn’t particularly keen to put them in this article, which is more of a celebration of the original series and concept.

I hadn’t any idea a G.K. Chesterton analogue showed up in Sandman, either. Now I’ve got to read it (I just, you know, need 200 dollars to buy the series).

By: Graeme Burk

Graeme Burk — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:58:46 +0000

Continuity is a necessary by-product of having a character in a shared universe. I think it’s how you use it that matters. With Neil Gaiman’s Sandman, it mostly is used to create layering that causes extra resonances if you’ve read the original sources (whether that be Kirby and Simon’s Sandman or Matthew Cable or Prez)… the same way knowing G.K. Chesterton makes Fiddler’s Green all the more fascinating.

In the case of the Kirby/Simon Sandman, Gaiman was pulling the late ’80s revisionist trick of saying ‘There was more going on than you knew’ and pulling back the curtain to reveal, in effect, that the entire ’70s Sandman series was a lie. Brute and Glob were really running the show and using the Sandman and Jed to develop their own dream realm. It’s a crucial detail I’m surprised isn’t in the main article.

(Also not in the article is the detail that in the comics there were two Sandmen: Garrett Sandford was the scientist who became the Sandman for the ’70s series. Roy Thomas brought him back in the ’80s for a couple of appearances and had former Silver Scarab Hector Hall adopt the mantle after he died in Infinity Inc. The amazing thing about the appearance in Gaiman’s Sandman is that he took all this into consideration!)

By: Comics Should Be Good! » 365 Reasons to Love Comics Archive

Comics Should Be Good! » 365 Reasons to Love Comics Archive — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:02:10 +0000

[...] 348. Sandman [...]

By: jazzbo

jazzbo — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:43:54 +0000

This is one I actually knew what it was before clicking below the fold. Kirby’s Sandman rocks.

And not to be snarky, but considering Greg just posted a column talking about continuity porn, isn’t Gaiman incorporating this Sandman into his series the height of continuity porn? I mean, most people had never heard of this character, even longtime DC superhero fans. I thought Gaiman’s use was great, but I do feel that the same people will praise continuity by one writer and then condemn it by another.

I’m just babbling at this point, aren’t I?

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:37:24 +0000

Um, didn’t they kill this Sandman off pretty thoroughly in Gaiman’s Sandman series, and then again during Infinite Crisis? Of course, they could bring him back any time …

Did this ever come out in trade?