It seems to me another argument in favour of CHRONOLOGY if you're attempting to document something. Things happen in order -- not randomly or chaotically. It's one of the reasons that I want the Correspondence files maintained chronologically at the Off-White House after I'm gone. It seems obvious to me that you want to link things as much as possible where and WHEN they occurred, but that tends not to be what institutions -- and biographers -- do.
Someone who wrote a LOT of letters, I think you'll see more pertinent information if you read ALL of the letters he or she wrote that day/that week/that month in order. i.e. Scott Fitzgerald and Hemingway. What ELSE did he write the same day? Did he refer to an episode with a different nuance?
Unfortunately those are the kind of things you USUALLY can't control. Institutions is institutions and biographers is biographers. They want to take YOUR story and make it THEIR story.
I'll do what I can, but that's really all I can do.
I am a big spanish fan of Dave Sim (ask him who send his Rip Kirby spanish reprints!). I know he can not answer letters, so I´m writing here asking, please, for some info in a mysterious issue: I have recently purchased the 3 books of Cerebus Archives, and the entire Glamourpuss series. I have been very shocked to found that Cerebus Archives ran for more of 15 books!! I´ve tried to buy it, but It´s absolutely imposible to find. In every single place it only appears the 3 books I already have.
So, here´s my question: Were these really published? If the answer is "yes", Where can I find it?
Thank You very much in advance. Best wishes to you all.
The absolutely overwhelming majority of biographies I've read go through their subjects' lives in chronological order. I can think of one or two exceptions that were trying for a literary effect. Dave's claim otherwise is the kind of thing I mean when I say he doesn't know how to find or assess evidence. If you stick to facts that are objectively verifiable, you can support your speculative arguments better.
Hello, Manuel! You say you have the entire glamourpuss series. If you look at the back cover of glamourpuss #26, the last issue, you will see a reproduction of all of the front covers of glamourpuss, as well as all of the covers of Cerebus Archive, in the order in which they were released. The reason why they (Cerebus Archive back issues) are so hard to find is that most of them were only available on a print-on-demand basis from a company called ComiXpress. I don't know if they are still in business, but if they are you might be able to demand that they print some more for you. If you do, and if they do, expect to wait about six months to receive the books. At least six months.
Actually, Damian, many biographies that I have read, and I've read a lot, tend to begin with the retelling of some seminal event which occurred in the adult phase of the subject's life. Then, in the next chapter or part of the book, it goes back to basic chronology. I think that when you wrote what you wrote, you might have been thinking of autobiographies, which do tend to be strictly chronological in nature.
Hi Jeff! Thanks for the phone message. Yes, these ARE the kinds of things I wanted you to let me know about.
In an ideal world I'd be back at the Off-White House working on my RIP KIRBY COMMENTARIES (roughly eight months and counting: not quite halfway through) preparatory to scripting the rest of THE STRANGE DEATH OF ALEX RAYMOND instead of having to come down to the Wifi place to defend myself as a researcher. My research is EXHAUSTIVE and always has been, Damian. What I think you're objecting to is that I don't draw Feminist Theocracy propaganda conclusions FROM my research. You're certainly not alone in that.
Where I DO think you're alone -- or close to it -- is that MOST of the AMOC viewers, even (and sometimes especially) the devout feminists are open-minded and interested in what I have to say. BECAUSE it's well-researched and well thought-out. They're interested in a variety of viewpoints and they appreciate that I have the courage to say what I think and that I say interesting things that are worth considering. Often I change minds once they get a little more exposure to the Real World as opposed to the Feminist Theocracy propaganda portrayal world. I can't remember the last time you had anything good to say about me and my work. Which makes it odd, to many of us, that you post here so often. Just saying.
Hi Manuel--many thanks for the RIP KIRBY reprints which were all that were available back then. In Spanish. ComiXpress went out of business years ago. Print-on-demand was a failed experiment. I'm still working on ways to make my work available in the context of the Feminist Theocracy, but it's almost impossible. They are very powerful and they eradicate anything that ISN'T the Feminist Theocracy. My best advice is to read AMOC. This is where all the announcements take place: failed experiment after failed experiment. Hi again Jeff: No rush on JAKA'S STORY, CEREBUS OR CHURCH & STATE II. So proofread whichever one you're inclined to proofread. Speaking of proofreaders, former CEREBUS proofreader Diana Schutz turned 61 today!
Most of the archives I've come across seem to be arranged more so by topic than chronologically. For example, the Margaret Mitchell Archives are sorted primarily by subject and sub-topic and correspondent. This was a big hindrance when trying to look into something related to SDAOR that was spread out between a few different sections of the archive, but if it had all been sorted chronologically, would have been easier to track down, especially since the incident and follow-up events involved several different people. Whoever ordered and grouped the archives probably didn't think the incident warranted it's own subject heading, since most people would consider it minor or irrelevant. But that really doesn't help someone trying to look into what was going on during a specific period in someone's life. What one person might consider to be trivial (e.g. an archivist) might be considered to be important by someone else (e.g. a researcher).
I believe Dave DID help set the record straight about there being an actual hand written version of Mary Hemingway's journal during her trip to Africa, as opposed to the misapprehension that it was all originally typewritten.
Thanks a lot for your quick reply. Yes,it was exactly the back cover of Glamourpuss who kept me thinking about Cerebus Archives. Unfortunately, as Dave points, ComiXpress shut down 3 years ago. So, I will have to wait if they appear on ebay. Can´t these be bought directly to Dave?
Anyhow, that´s my 2 cents on Glamourpuss: beautiful and very interesting stuff. The Raymond et al part is superb. They don´t make things like this anymore. And that´s a real shame!!!
And about Cerebus Archive I found it to be delicious and hilarious, with stories like "Life suit", and Dave making a selfportrait while looking in the mirror.
Adding the masterpiece Judenhass to the can, I would say that, YES, there has been much life after Cerebus. And no, Dave has not become a politician or a cabaret Singer (you have to read the spanish "Historia de los comics" to understand the joke).
And now, time for the long delayed Cerebus Covers and the much awaited "The strange death of Alex Raymond".
Dave says, "I can't remember the last time you had anything good to say about me and my work." Well, he's old; it was yesterday.
Dave further thinks that people are "interested in what I have to say. BECAUSE it's well-researched and well thought-out." It is neither. Who thought an article from The Onion was real? Who claimed the USA's population was declining? And who then moved the goalposts when he was corrected with verifiable facts? What I object to, Dave, is that your conclusions are not justified by your premises. You can feel as smug as you like with your name-calling, but it remains a fact that reality is not as you perceive it.
(As a sidenote Eddie says, "I believe Dave DID help set the record straight about there being an actual hand written version of Mary Hemingway's journal during her trip to Africa, as opposed to the misapprehension that it was all originally typewritten." Did Dave prove this by something other than finding a single photograph of Mary holding a pen? Sorry to be snarky; that's the only evidence that I've been directed to, and I'd genuinely like to examine the case.)
Jeff says, "(Whatever Dave wants, Dave gets...)" Yeah, that pretty much sums up his entire contribution.
The strange thing is that there's plenty to celebrate about Cerebus without being required to agree that Dave is a great thinker. He's not a great thinker. He is (or, I guess, alas, was) a great cartoonist.
How many people here think that I am a sycophant? How many think that I'm a close friend of Dave Sim, enjoying afternoon tea and crumpents with him, daily?
Bottom line? He told me a while back that I was in the "60-40" or "70-30" category.
Meaning, we kinda get along, but not so much.
Which is just fine with me.
I just think that it's important to defend ideas. And, I think that Damian, despite his professed admiration of Dave, is a nay-sayer and a borderline troll.
And, BTW, despite Dave having asked me to call him when I see Damian's kind of trolling, I will continue to defend myself, as well as Dave.
But, please, let's not turn this into a flame war, as they used to call it.
Admittedly, it would have been best if Tim had included a date with this picture, but while this picture wasn't concurrent with the C-Minus Kid, it's still the same person (albeit at a different point in life, which I believe was the point of Ibis's comment).
I certainly agree that keeping the Cerebus Archive in chronological order is probably the smartest idea -- as Eddie tells us, it creates a bitch of a problem years later for someone trying to search for something that's been organized on a different principle than chronology -- hell, just sorting through my own comic books is tough because I don't go strictly by alpha-numerical order!
I don't always agree with what Damian says, but I think it would be a loss for the blog if he were to stop commenting at all. (I missed him when he was gone for awhile!) Just like with what Dave writes about, I like to read comments from someone like Damian because they present a point of view that I don't necessarily share or agree with, but presents a "take" on an issue that can cause me to view a topic in a new or different way.
Because as valuable as the relationships that, say, Jeff or Sandeep have with Dave and their energies expended in promoting Cerebus and Dave and his work, they also appear to agree wholly with Dave. I'm not sure I've seen much substantive disagreements with Dave's views from either of them. Which is fine, of course (it's not like Dave has many folks wholly on his side, certainly). But I think it's valuable as well to have people like Barry Deutsch or Damian who are familiar with Dave's work and seem to be knowledgeable fans but also present another viewpoint on the work.
If the intellectual foundation of the ideas that Dave presents are solid enough, they should be able to hold up under "pressure" from one guy online, y'know? Daddy shouldn't need to be called every time someone says something that might be a little mean about what daddy said. (Ok, THAT was mean on my part. Consider it rhetorical exaggeration to make a point.)
Really, isn't expelling anyone who doesn't agree totally with your point of view something the Feminists do? (Not that Dave is calling for Damian to stop commenting, just wondering why he still does. Consider this a vote for Damian's comments as something valuable to the AMOC record.)
A few other things before I sign off:
I don't know that Dave "proved" that Mary Hemingway's Africa diary was originally handwritten and that the typewritten version was a later...edit, but I think it's certainly logical that she was writing her diary longhand first and typed it up later (as a rough draft of the story for Look, perhaps). It's certainly something that merits being pointed out, and if Dave approached the notion from an outsider's POV to point out that it probably happened that way, that's kind of the same thing I'm talking about with AMOC here -- perhaps a different point of view can shed a different light on events and the story, no? Something that someone too close to the events might miss?
And as I recall, Diana Schutz proofread only the Aardvark Comment/back of the book stuff, not the Cerebus text proper. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I seem to remember (maybe one of the interviews in the wonderful Following Cerebus 5 "Editing the Graphic Novel" issue?) Dave saying that she didn't touch the story pages. Maybe Dave can clarify?
Since the death of ComiXpress was apparently due to the Feminist Theocracy eradicating Dave's point of view, he should probably apologize not only to the owners of ComiXpress but to anyone else who was using the service to print their books, who lost out on a revenue stream because of it. ;)
And now, years later, Gerhard is going, and this time in Dave's place. Pretty fitting if you ask me, even though the rest of these artists won't be there. But Me and other Cerebus Torontonians will be there, doing our best to make as much noise about you, Gerhard, and Cerebus, as we possible can (appropriately of course!)
Yes, Travis, it is "crumpets". Even proofreaders need their work to be proofed from time to time.
No, Travis, it's not a case of me calling Daddy whenever Daddy gets attacked. As you might remember, Dave recently posted that he wants to be more interactive here, which he has been. But, he told me that he generally only checks out these comments about once a week, when he goes down to City Hall (which, by the way, has an excellent cafeteria). So, he specifically asked me to call him when I see a particularly snarky comment (which, by the way, used to be quite rare here [as opposed to the Yahoo Cerebus Group]; but which has certainly picked up in overall snarkiness lately.) Thus, I do. And, I might add, however dutifully I might do that, it is not without reservation nor without trepidation.
I don't want to be seen as the hall monitor or that kid in the front row of your third-grade classroom who always tattled on you.
I just think it's important to keep people honest. Which is why I agree that Damian's voice should be (begrudgingly) welcomed here. And, it's why I think your post, Travis, is a breath of fresh air.
However, having said that, I will continue to call out Damian on his snarkiness and call Dave when it happens. BTW, I suspect that Dave wants me to alert him so that he can try to circumvent my "speaking for him". That's fine--I certainly don't want to be the Archie...um,...guy who gets squashed by the Epop/Thrunk guy...
Damian says: “Did Dave prove this by something other than finding a single photograph of Mary holding a pen? Sorry to be snarky; that's the only evidence that I've been directed to, and I'd genuinely like to examine the case.”
No need to apologize Damian, just improve and don’t be snarky, but I’ll still accept your apology ;)
You may wish to look at the picture and all the notes for FORM&VOID that Margaret graciously referred you to more closely (at least, more closely than you looked at the SHADOW OF THE AXE storyline when you commented “there's no hint of the boy replacing his father, either in the household or with his mother,” when it says on page 2 panel 3, “I would then set about the running of our little farm, much neglected of late by my father”). Off the top of my head, I think it’s more than “Mary holding a pen.” She’s actually writing about the picture being taken in her journal as it’s happening, despite the archives insisting that the typewritten documents were the original source. You still might not find that to be enough (and if you genuinely wish to examine the case, the Hemingway Archives are available to the public), but then again, you do come across as someone having a strong anti-Dave bias and prejudice, especially when you regularly make snide and snarky comments on a blog dedicated to his work, such as stating that his comic about the Holocaust (the HOLOCAUST) should be forgotten, specifically questioning his ethics and not Gerhard or anyone else’s about selling prints of artwork used for other people’s comics, calling him a joke, saying he never draws well, etc. Which is fair enough; you may wish to come across as someone with a bizarre personal axe to grind who makes snide comments on a blog dedicated to an artist and their work. You may even aspire to actually BE that kind of a person. I personally wouldn’t, but I guess it’s a kind of fame and sustenance for the ego.
Thank you, Eddie, for your thoughts. So your answer to my question about Mary Hemingway is "No." As I said, I'm interested in the subject, and will pursue the matter elsewhere.
I think it's disingenuous of you to conflate the Holocaust with Dave's comic about it. Are you seriously saying that the Holocaust is so serious a subject that no creative work that takes the event as its subject can be criticized? (Obligatory snark: I look forward to your no-doubt-eloquent defence of Hitler Sucks, with Jon Martin in the title role.) The Holocaust should never be forgotten, but Judenhass is eminently forgettable. The writing achieves all the depth of a Sandra Bullock movie whose moral is "racism is bad". Tracing photographs of concentration-camp victims diminishes the horror of the original image, as I'm not the first to point out -- and doing so has been called disrespectful to the individuals depicted.
Incidentally, I understand we both patronize "The ComicShop" on West 4th Avenue. Helpful and friendly place (unsolicited endorsement).
Reg, you're right: it's not possible to praise someone in one venue unless you also praise him in another, and failure to do so is indeed evidence of bad faith. And if you criticize someone's work and they disagree, you're insane if you don't shut up. Ironclad logic there.
A closer (one might say accurate) reading of what I have said is that Dave is not good at drawing qua drawing. He is not good at photorealism ("interest doesn't equal aptitude", as some guy once said). Gerhard is indeed a much better artist than Dave, if we mean only depicting objects accurately and realistically.
However, Dave is not an artist (meaning draw-er); he's a cartoonist. That's where his strengths lie. I have praised his skills at caricature, layout, pacing, dialogue, staging, effect, and (of course) lettering. I have called Dave the English-language cartoonist most in command of his medium. I completely buy the characters in Cerebus, with their eyes halfway up their foreheads and their spaghetti necks and their claw hands. The best of them are fully-realized and -depicted people. (Gosh, that's a lot of motiveless Dave-hatred and trolling in one paragraph!)
Glamourpuss is a lesser work because Dave gave up all his strengths, right down to the lettering. "Cute teenaged girls in my best Al Williamson photo-realism style" couldn't sustain an audience. But a strong subset of comics fans (including myself) are very interested in Strange Death, and hope that Dave is able to complete it.
But Reg, Eddie, Jeff, Sandeep, and Dave -- why is it necessary that someone who suggests that a cartoonist's every glittering word isn't pure and perfect truth be a troll? Now Dave is sending spies out into the online world, and wonders why people think he's got a persecution complex? This is a bit weird, guys.
Damian: I am not a spy. I have made a very public (here, anyway) announcement of what I have been doing, and I continue to do so with the aforementioned reservation and trepidation.
BTW, it appears (but, of course, only two, or three, people know for sure) that it may have been your comment that was the first at this website to be removed by the moderator.
(Of course, many people have moderated themselves, but I think you might hold a singular honor. But, of course, I may be wrong.)
Flame war?
Let's go! Sorry; everybody else.
BTW, D., don't you have anything better to do, or other people to bother? I don't; I'm retired and disabled. But you? You seem to be in the pink of health!
Hey Everybody, For the record, Damian is very welcome to posts comments on AMOC, as is everyone else, if they stick to the the comments policy. You may not agree with him, but Damian often makes some interesting observations... And no, it wasn't his post I removed. So please, no more talk of trolls. Let's keep it civil people. Thanks, Tim
I appreciate Damian's points and I often find myself agreeing with what he's said, or at least recognising what he's talking about, but maybe seeing things differently.
When just need to learn to accept difference as difference and not a threat.
On a separate subject - OOOOOoooo Tim, who did you remove and why????
Okay, Tim. I'll try to be a little more thick-skinned when it comes to Damian's posts. As for Damian, the person? Probably a person I could easily sit down with at the local brewpub and share a couple of pints and converse with.
31 comments:
It is kind of hard to believe that this is also the C-Minus Kid.
Well, actually, it ISN'T.
The C-Minus Kid was twenty years later.
It seems to me another argument in favour of CHRONOLOGY if you're attempting to document something. Things happen in order -- not randomly or chaotically. It's one of the reasons that I want the Correspondence files maintained chronologically at the Off-White House after I'm gone. It seems obvious to me that you want to link things as much as possible where and WHEN they occurred, but that tends not to be what institutions -- and biographers -- do.
Someone who wrote a LOT of letters, I think you'll see more pertinent information if you read ALL of the letters he or she wrote that day/that week/that month in order. i.e. Scott Fitzgerald and Hemingway. What ELSE did he write the same day? Did he refer to an episode with a different nuance?
Unfortunately those are the kind of things you USUALLY can't control. Institutions is institutions and biographers is biographers. They want to take YOUR story and make it THEIR story.
I'll do what I can, but that's really all I can do.
Hello everybody:
I am a big spanish fan of Dave Sim (ask him who send his Rip Kirby spanish reprints!). I know he can not answer letters, so I´m writing here asking, please, for some info in a mysterious issue: I have recently purchased the 3 books of Cerebus Archives, and the entire Glamourpuss series. I have been very shocked to found that Cerebus Archives ran for more of 15 books!! I´ve tried to buy it, but It´s absolutely imposible to find. In every single place it only appears the 3 books I already have.
So, here´s my question: Were these really published? If the answer is "yes", Where can I find it?
Thank You very much in advance. Best wishes to you all.
The absolutely overwhelming majority of biographies I've read go through their subjects' lives in chronological order. I can think of one or two exceptions that were trying for a literary effect. Dave's claim otherwise is the kind of thing I mean when I say he doesn't know how to find or assess evidence. If you stick to facts that are objectively verifiable, you can support your speculative arguments better.
-- Damian
Hello, Manuel! You say you have the entire glamourpuss series. If you look at the back cover of glamourpuss #26, the last issue, you will see a reproduction of all of the front covers of glamourpuss, as well as all of the covers of Cerebus Archive, in the order in which they were released. The reason why they (Cerebus Archive back issues) are so hard to find is that most of them were only available on a print-on-demand basis from a company called ComiXpress. I don't know if they are still in business, but if they are you might be able to demand that they print some more for you. If you do, and if they do, expect to wait about six months to receive the books. At least six months.
Actually, Damian, many biographies that I have read, and I've read a lot, tend to begin with the retelling of some seminal event which occurred in the adult phase of the subject's life. Then, in the next chapter or part of the book, it goes back to basic chronology. I think that when you wrote what you wrote, you might have been thinking of autobiographies, which do tend to be strictly chronological in nature.
Hi Jeff! Thanks for the phone message. Yes, these ARE the kinds of things I wanted you to let me know about.
In an ideal world I'd be back at the Off-White House working on my RIP KIRBY COMMENTARIES (roughly eight months and counting: not quite halfway through) preparatory to scripting the rest of THE STRANGE DEATH OF ALEX RAYMOND instead of having to come down to the Wifi place to defend myself as a researcher. My research is EXHAUSTIVE and always has been, Damian. What I think you're objecting to is that I don't draw Feminist Theocracy propaganda conclusions FROM my research. You're certainly not alone in that.
Where I DO think you're alone -- or close to it -- is that MOST of the AMOC viewers, even (and sometimes especially) the devout feminists are open-minded and interested in what I have to say. BECAUSE it's well-researched and well thought-out. They're interested in a variety of viewpoints and they appreciate that I have the courage to say what I think and that I say interesting things that are worth considering. Often I change minds once they get a little more exposure to the Real World as opposed to the Feminist Theocracy propaganda portrayal world. I can't remember the last time you had anything good to say about me and my work. Which makes it odd, to many of us, that you post here so often. Just saying.
Hi Manuel--many thanks for the RIP KIRBY reprints which were all that were available back then. In Spanish. ComiXpress went out of business years ago. Print-on-demand was a failed experiment. I'm still working on ways to make my work available in the context of the Feminist Theocracy, but it's almost impossible. They are very powerful and they eradicate anything that ISN'T the Feminist Theocracy. My best advice is to read AMOC. This is where all the announcements take place: failed experiment after failed experiment.
Hi again Jeff: No rush on JAKA'S STORY, CEREBUS OR CHURCH & STATE II. So proofread whichever one you're inclined to proofread. Speaking of proofreaders, former CEREBUS proofreader Diana Schutz turned 61 today!
The last biography I read was Norman Mailer's book on Lee Harvey Oswald, which starts with his time in Russia, before he came back to the U.S.
Just saying.
"They are very powerful and they eradicate anything that ISN'T the Feminist Theocracy."
That must be why the Twilight books failed.
Most of the archives I've come across seem to be arranged more so by topic than chronologically. For example, the Margaret Mitchell Archives are sorted primarily by subject and sub-topic and correspondent. This was a big hindrance when trying to look into something related to SDAOR that was spread out between a few different sections of the archive, but if it had all been sorted chronologically, would have been easier to track down, especially since the incident and follow-up events involved several different people. Whoever ordered and grouped the archives probably didn't think the incident warranted it's own subject heading, since most people would consider it minor or irrelevant. But that really doesn't help someone trying to look into what was going on during a specific period in someone's life. What one person might consider to be trivial (e.g. an archivist) might be considered to be important by someone else (e.g. a researcher).
I believe Dave DID help set the record straight about there being an actual hand written version of Mary Hemingway's journal during her trip to Africa, as opposed to the misapprehension that it was all originally typewritten.
If I *were* to write a biography of Dave (which I've threatened to do many times, over the years), I would begin with the clause:
"And, then, he said...:
Happy birthday, Diana! Hope you're not upset with my proofreading *your* proofreading.
(Whatever Dave wants, Dave gets...)
!!!
Ha!! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
Correcting the corrections of the corrector.
I love this job.
Hi Jeff and Dave:
Thanks a lot for your quick reply. Yes,it was exactly the back cover of Glamourpuss who kept me thinking about Cerebus Archives. Unfortunately, as Dave points, ComiXpress shut down 3 years ago. So, I will have to wait if they appear on ebay. Can´t these be bought directly to Dave?
Anyhow, that´s my 2 cents on Glamourpuss: beautiful and very interesting stuff. The Raymond et al part is superb. They don´t make things like this anymore. And that´s a real shame!!!
And about Cerebus Archive I found it to be delicious and hilarious, with stories like "Life suit", and Dave making a selfportrait while looking in the mirror.
Adding the masterpiece Judenhass to the can, I would say that, YES, there has been much life after Cerebus. And no, Dave has not become a politician or a cabaret Singer (you have to read the spanish "Historia de los comics" to understand the joke).
And now, time for the long delayed Cerebus Covers and the much awaited "The strange death of Alex Raymond".
Best wishes!
I couldn't have put it better by mine own self, Manuel!
Dave says, "I can't remember the last time you had anything good to say about me and my work." Well, he's old; it was yesterday.
Dave further thinks that people are "interested in what I have to say. BECAUSE it's well-researched and well thought-out." It is neither. Who thought an article from The Onion was real? Who claimed the USA's population was declining? And who then moved the goalposts when he was corrected with verifiable facts? What I object to, Dave, is that your conclusions are not justified by your premises. You can feel as smug as you like with your name-calling, but it remains a fact that reality is not as you perceive it.
(As a sidenote Eddie says, "I believe Dave DID help set the record straight about there being an actual hand written version of Mary Hemingway's journal during her trip to Africa, as opposed to the misapprehension that it was all originally typewritten." Did Dave prove this by something other than finding a single photograph of Mary holding a pen? Sorry to be snarky; that's the only evidence that I've been directed to, and I'd genuinely like to examine the case.)
Jeff says, "(Whatever Dave wants, Dave gets...)" Yeah, that pretty much sums up his entire contribution.
The strange thing is that there's plenty to celebrate about Cerebus without being required to agree that Dave is a great thinker. He's not a great thinker. He is (or, I guess, alas, was) a great cartoonist.
-- Damian
How many people here think that I am a sycophant? How many think that I'm a close friend of Dave Sim, enjoying afternoon tea and crumpents with him, daily?
Bottom line? He told me a while back that I was in the "60-40" or "70-30" category.
Meaning, we kinda get along, but not so much.
Which is just fine with me.
I just think that it's important to defend ideas. And, I think that Damian, despite his professed admiration of Dave, is a nay-sayer and a borderline troll.
And, BTW, despite Dave having asked me to call him when I see Damian's kind of trolling, I will continue to defend myself, as well as Dave.
But, please, let's not turn this into a flame war, as they used to call it.
Can't we all just get along?
"Crumpets", Jeff.
Man, this many comments for a picture?
Admittedly, it would have been best if Tim had included a date with this picture, but while this picture wasn't concurrent with the C-Minus Kid, it's still the same person (albeit at a different point in life, which I believe was the point of Ibis's comment).
I certainly agree that keeping the Cerebus Archive in chronological order is probably the smartest idea -- as Eddie tells us, it creates a bitch of a problem years later for someone trying to search for something that's been organized on a different principle than chronology -- hell, just sorting through my own comic books is tough because I don't go strictly by alpha-numerical order!
I don't always agree with what Damian says, but I think it would be a loss for the blog if he were to stop commenting at all. (I missed him when he was gone for awhile!) Just like with what Dave writes about, I like to read comments from someone like Damian because they present a point of view that I don't necessarily share or agree with, but presents a "take" on an issue that can cause me to view a topic in a new or different way.
Because as valuable as the relationships that, say, Jeff or Sandeep have with Dave and their energies expended in promoting Cerebus and Dave and his work, they also appear to agree wholly with Dave. I'm not sure I've seen much substantive disagreements with Dave's views from either of them. Which is fine, of course (it's not like Dave has many folks wholly on his side, certainly). But I think it's valuable as well to have people like Barry Deutsch or Damian who are familiar with Dave's work and seem to be knowledgeable fans but also present another viewpoint on the work.
If the intellectual foundation of the ideas that Dave presents are solid enough, they should be able to hold up under "pressure" from one guy online, y'know? Daddy shouldn't need to be called every time someone says something that might be a little mean about what daddy said. (Ok, THAT was mean on my part. Consider it rhetorical exaggeration to make a point.)
Really, isn't expelling anyone who doesn't agree totally with your point of view something the Feminists do? (Not that Dave is calling for Damian to stop commenting, just wondering why he still does. Consider this a vote for Damian's comments as something valuable to the AMOC record.)
A few other things before I sign off:
I don't know that Dave "proved" that Mary Hemingway's Africa diary was originally handwritten and that the typewritten version was a later...edit, but I think it's certainly logical that she was writing her diary longhand first and typed it up later (as a rough draft of the story for Look, perhaps). It's certainly something that merits being pointed out, and if Dave approached the notion from an outsider's POV to point out that it probably happened that way, that's kind of the same thing I'm talking about with AMOC here -- perhaps a different point of view can shed a different light on events and the story, no? Something that someone too close to the events might miss?
And as I recall, Diana Schutz proofread only the Aardvark Comment/back of the book stuff, not the Cerebus text proper. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I seem to remember (maybe one of the interviews in the wonderful Following Cerebus 5 "Editing the Graphic Novel" issue?) Dave saying that she didn't touch the story pages. Maybe Dave can clarify?
Since the death of ComiXpress was apparently due to the Feminist Theocracy eradicating Dave's point of view, he should probably apologize not only to the owners of ComiXpress but to anyone else who was using the service to print their books, who lost out on a revenue stream because of it. ;)
It was my incendiary C-Minus kid crack, wasn't it? It led to this wild rumpus!
And now, years later, Gerhard is going, and this time in Dave's place. Pretty fitting if you ask me, even though the rest of these artists won't be there. But Me and other Cerebus Torontonians will be there, doing our best to make as much noise about you, Gerhard, and Cerebus, as we possible can (appropriately of course!)
Yes, Travis, it is "crumpets". Even proofreaders need their work to be proofed from time to time.
No, Travis, it's not a case of me calling Daddy whenever Daddy gets attacked. As you might remember, Dave recently posted that he wants to be more interactive here, which he has been. But, he told me that he generally only checks out these comments about once a week, when he goes down to City Hall (which, by the way, has an excellent cafeteria). So, he specifically asked me to call him when I see a particularly snarky comment (which, by the way, used to be quite rare here [as opposed to the Yahoo Cerebus Group]; but which has certainly picked up in overall snarkiness lately.) Thus, I do. And, I might add, however dutifully I might do that, it is not without reservation nor without trepidation.
I don't want to be seen as the hall monitor or that kid in the front row of your third-grade classroom who always tattled on you.
I just think it's important to keep people honest. Which is why I agree that Damian's voice should be (begrudgingly) welcomed here. And, it's why I think your post, Travis, is a breath of fresh air.
However, having said that, I will continue to call out Damian on his snarkiness and call Dave when it happens. BTW, I suspect that Dave wants me to alert him so that he can try to circumvent my "speaking for him". That's fine--I certainly don't want to be the Archie...um,...guy who gets squashed by the Epop/Thrunk guy...
Damian says: “Did Dave prove this by something other than finding a single photograph of Mary holding a pen? Sorry to be snarky; that's the only evidence that I've been directed to, and I'd genuinely like to examine the case.”
No need to apologize Damian, just improve and don’t be snarky, but I’ll still accept your apology ;)
You may wish to look at the picture and all the notes for FORM&VOID that Margaret graciously referred you to more closely (at least, more closely than you looked at the SHADOW OF THE AXE storyline when you commented “there's no hint of the boy replacing his father, either in the household or with his mother,” when it says on page 2 panel 3, “I would then set about the running of our little farm, much neglected of late by my father”). Off the top of my head, I think it’s more than “Mary holding a pen.” She’s actually writing about the picture being taken in her journal as it’s happening, despite the archives insisting that the typewritten documents were the original source. You still might not find that to be enough (and if you genuinely wish to examine the case, the Hemingway Archives are available to the public), but then again, you do come across as someone having a strong anti-Dave bias and prejudice, especially when you regularly make snide and snarky comments on a blog dedicated to his work, such as stating that his comic about the Holocaust (the HOLOCAUST) should be forgotten, specifically questioning his ethics and not Gerhard or anyone else’s about selling prints of artwork used for other people’s comics, calling him a joke, saying he never draws well, etc. Which is fair enough; you may wish to come across as someone with a bizarre personal axe to grind who makes snide comments on a blog dedicated to an artist and their work. You may even aspire to actually BE that kind of a person. I personally wouldn’t, but I guess it’s a kind of fame and sustenance for the ego.
Take Care and Good Luck :)
Thank you, Eddie, for your thoughts. So your answer to my question about Mary Hemingway is "No." As I said, I'm interested in the subject, and will pursue the matter elsewhere.
I think it's disingenuous of you to conflate the Holocaust with Dave's comic about it. Are you seriously saying that the Holocaust is so serious a subject that no creative work that takes the event as its subject can be criticized? (Obligatory snark: I look forward to your no-doubt-eloquent defence of Hitler Sucks, with Jon Martin in the title role.) The Holocaust should never be forgotten, but Judenhass is eminently forgettable. The writing achieves all the depth of a Sandra Bullock movie whose moral is "racism is bad". Tracing photographs of concentration-camp victims diminishes the horror of the original image, as I'm not the first to point out -- and doing so has been called disrespectful to the individuals depicted.
Incidentally, I understand we both patronize "The ComicShop" on West 4th Avenue. Helpful and friendly place (unsolicited endorsement).
Reg, you're right: it's not possible to praise someone in one venue unless you also praise him in another, and failure to do so is indeed evidence of bad faith. And if you criticize someone's work and they disagree, you're insane if you don't shut up. Ironclad logic there.
A closer (one might say accurate) reading of what I have said is that Dave is not good at drawing qua drawing. He is not good at photorealism ("interest doesn't equal aptitude", as some guy once said). Gerhard is indeed a much better artist than Dave, if we mean only depicting objects accurately and realistically.
However, Dave is not an artist (meaning draw-er); he's a cartoonist. That's where his strengths lie. I have praised his skills at caricature, layout, pacing, dialogue, staging, effect, and (of course) lettering. I have called Dave the English-language cartoonist most in command of his medium. I completely buy the characters in Cerebus, with their eyes halfway up their foreheads and their spaghetti necks and their claw hands. The best of them are fully-realized and -depicted people. (Gosh, that's a lot of motiveless Dave-hatred and trolling in one paragraph!)
Glamourpuss is a lesser work because Dave gave up all his strengths, right down to the lettering. "Cute teenaged girls in my best Al Williamson photo-realism style" couldn't sustain an audience. But a strong subset of comics fans (including myself) are very interested in Strange Death, and hope that Dave is able to complete it.
But Reg, Eddie, Jeff, Sandeep, and Dave -- why is it necessary that someone who suggests that a cartoonist's every glittering word isn't pure and perfect truth be a troll? Now Dave is sending spies out into the online world, and wonders why people think he's got a persecution complex? This is a bit weird, guys.
-- Damian
Damian: I am not a spy. I have made a very public (here, anyway) announcement of what I have been doing, and I continue to do so with the aforementioned reservation and trepidation.
BTW, it appears (but, of course, only two, or three, people know for sure) that it may have been your comment that was the first at this website to be removed by the moderator.
(Of course, many people have moderated themselves, but I think you might hold a singular honor. But, of course, I may be wrong.)
Flame war?
Let's go! Sorry; everybody else.
BTW, D., don't you have anything better to do, or other people to bother? I don't; I'm retired and disabled. But you? You seem to be in the pink of health!
Go bother someone else. Please.
Hey Everybody,
For the record, Damian is very welcome to posts comments on AMOC, as is everyone else, if they stick to the the comments policy. You may not agree with him, but Damian often makes some interesting observations... And no, it wasn't his post I removed. So please, no more talk of trolls. Let's keep it civil people.
Thanks,
Tim
I'm with Tim on this - dissent is not disrespect
I appreciate Damian's points and I often find myself agreeing with what he's said, or at least recognising what he's talking about, but maybe seeing things differently.
When just need to learn to accept difference as difference and not a threat.
On a separate subject - OOOOOoooo Tim, who did you remove and why????
Okay, Tim. I'll try to be a little more thick-skinned when it comes to Damian's posts. As for Damian, the person? Probably a person I could easily sit down with at the local brewpub and share a couple of pints and converse with.
Oh, and I'm with iestyn--dish, Tim.
Honestly, this seems like a reasonably well-behaved crowd as far as interweb comment boards are concerned.
Post a Comment