PAUL SLADE:
Published between 1981 and 1984, Dave's six Swords of Cerebus volumes were his first attempt to collect the book in a more permanent form. He gave each story included in these volumes a prose introduction, explaining where the book stood when he’d been working on that particular issue and how he was thinking of its prospects at the time. We’re currently covering the intros from Swords volume 2. Also check out the full 'Swords Of Cerebus' Introductions Index.
at the earliest possible opportunity," says Dave.
Next week: Rochester in November.
5 comments:
Should be "What you lack in heroism you make up FOR in brutality?" or "What you lack in heroism you MORE THAN make up FOR in brutality?" Just an offhand thought while reading it.
I was definitely more of a "playgoer" dialogue writer than a "moviegoer" dialogue writer, although I wasn't consciously aware of it at the time: most of my favourite movies were adapted from plays.
Did I catch that when I was proofing? I think just FOR works and MORE THAN MAKE UP FOR might be hard to fit in.
Hi Jeff! All of them are fine, I think. The question is always going to be the same: If this is how I did it back in 1979, does changing it constitute revisionism? I tend to err on the side of "Yes, it does" because I didn't revise myself for more than thirty years. On the literary/revisionist side of the question (the" Jeff Seiler side" typically) if "MORE THAN MAKE UP FOR" is more accurate in a literary sense then it shouldn't matter if it's easy or difficult to fit in. The artwork has to be subordinate to more accurate literacy. AWAY THE ARTWORK!!
Fortunately you don't "go there" because you know that that isn't a viable option relative to what we're all trying to do.
But, that doesn't mean that some creator might not come down directly on that square: "My artwork always has to be subordinate to more accurate literacy." Particularly with the technology we have now. Because it's in the public domain and McKay isn't here to argue with us, you COULD Photoshop out some of Windsor McKay's artwork on LITTLE NEMO to make room for cloned lettering on those weird pages where he doesn't leave enough room for the lettering and letters up the side of the word balloon. Always a WTF? moment when I'm reading NEMO.
My letterer/reader self would really like to see that, to be honest. I'll live without the part of the tree trunk you would have to lose to make that happen so I can read the narrative without getting pulled out of the story by WTF?
The Jeff Seiler in me needs to say it's "Winsor McCay". Heh.
Hmm. Yeah, Dave, I'm not a big fan of WTF moments when reading comics. Just like how you told Gary that some of his typos kind of took you out of the the story. Thank you for seeing my side of the equation. But, as always, you have the "final edit" when it comes to my proofreading/copy editing.
Travis, back in the aughts, when we were going to the S.P.A.C.E conventions in Columbus, Ohio, Dave set up a visit for us Cerebus Yahoo Group SPACERS to the comic strip museum (I have forgotten the official name) at The Ohio State University.
We got a guided tour of the archives, where most people never get to go. As the guide was talking to us, I leaned up against a filing cabinet that just happened to be the one out of which she wanted to pull a drawer a few minutes later.
I moved aside to make room and, thus, was standing right next to the drawer as it opened, revealing a page of original artwork by McCay. I don't think it was from Little Nemo, but it dated to the late 1800s, IIRC.
A VERY cool moment.
Thanks again, Dave. We had a few good times back then, our hardy (and hearty) little band of adventurers, didn't we? Remember the reading that you did of "The Night The Ghost Got In" at Thurber's childhood home, the setting of the story? Remember our (you and I) very civil debate with the Obama supporters, in the hallway?
Heh. I wonder if they remember that?
Good times. Fun times. But maybe only in the sense that you and I would consider them so, eh?
Post a Comment