Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site hoptoad.uucp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!hoptoad!tim
From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: net.comics
Subject: Re: God Loves, Claremont Kills [No personal attacks here, B'wana]
Message-ID: <511@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Wed, 12-Feb-86 15:21:53 EST
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.511
Posted: Wed Feb 12 15:21:53 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Feb-86 03:06:35 EST
References: <735@k.cs.cmu.edu> <2667@colossus.fluke.UUCP>
Reply-To: tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 82

I have to say that I considered for a while whether or not to answer this,
because it really doesn't seem to have whole lot to do with what I said about
"God Loves, Man Kills".  But then, it is the only answer that didn't involve
pesonal attacks, so I suppose I should.

In article <2667@colossus.fluke.UUCP> moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime) writes:
>OK, Tim, as far as I can see you objections to "God Loves, Man Kills" (or,
>at least, your objections to our views of GLMK) are for two basic reasons,
>one major and one minor:
>
>MAJOR:  It doesn't deserve the acclaim it's getting.
>MINOR:  It is a caricature of a TV preacher
>
>Well, all I can say about the first point is that everyone has a different
>opinion about this book.  I think it is about the best thing Claremont has
>done, which you may agree with; I also think it is a fine example of what it
>is titled to be, i.e. a "graphic novel".  After re-reading it several times,
>I find the things I enjoy about it most (and the elements I find which are
>most effective at moving me) is the excellent graphic composition of the
>book.  The way that Anderson sets up panels and moves from scene to scene,
>the use of P.O.V. shots, all add up to give a very cinematic feeling to the
>book (and I think the rather blurry artwork may actually help this).  It
>also has a rather claustrophobic, dark feel to it throughout.  Admittedly, it
>has poor moments at points -- Xavier's brain-washing is poorly handled.  But
>again, let me come back to the point that I feel, when reading this, as if
>I'm watching a film; and Anderson and Claremont use this to raise a level of
>tension, of relief and of anger which extend beyond the dialogue -- if this
>were in book form with no illustrations, the writing would not look nearly
>as impressive.

No, I think the best work Claremont did was the Phoenix story, which really
was moving.  This is a sloppy third or fourth.  I do, however, agree with
you (although the book is now sitting in Pittsburgh, so I have to go from
memory) that Anderson's handling of movement is good, and that he does keep
this moving along well.  I take this for granted as a minimum requirement of
comic art, though.  In the absence of other redeeming features, I still see
Anderson as a typical, though slightly better than average, Marvel-style
artist.  Nothing spectacular: and as you'll recall, it was the incredible
praise heaped upon this novel that I was protesting.

You are also correct about the cinematic feel of the book, but if this had
been a movie, I'd walk out.  As a movie, it sucks, whereas it is somewhat
good as a graphic novel.  The false-death tricks are even cheaper and
flimsier in a cinematic context.  There is no real sentiment or emotion,
just cheap tricks designed to produce these feelings, such as artificially
matching friend against friend ("artificially" because they have no real
conflict on the level of their identities; the conflict is all on the physical
level, produced because one has been brainwashed).

>As to originality -- no, I don't think the plot was particularly original.
>Originality is a difficult thing to find in any genre these days; outside of
>some of the things done by Moore and some of the independents (Loebs,
>Burden), not much shows fantastic originality in stories.  Heck, even those
>mentioned above use the same basic ideas seen in literature everywhere;
>however, they add original "tweaks" which are noticeable enough for the
>average reader to say "That's different!" (Norwegian Bachelor Farmers take
>note).  I'm re-reading David Copperfield these days, and I have to admit
>that I don't find this particularly original; rather, my enjoyment stems
>from Dicken's humorous eye for human nature, his wonderful characterization,
>and his dialogue and careful eye in describing detail.  In short, finding
>originality in literature is tough to do; precedents are there for you
>wherever you go.
>
>So if your grading comics strictly on originality, then I think you going to
>be pretty dissatisfied.

Now this is a point I am sure I was very clear on.  The graphic novel
incorporated SPECIFIC, TRITE plot elements.  I did not make some general
criticism of unoriginality, which is what you are defending against.  I showed,
first, that the overall plot was 100% identical to the usual villain-bashing
plot of comics.  I also showed that it repeatedly used artificial means of
creating tension, and that these artificial ways were those that have been
used literally thousands of times, probably tens of thousands, in comics.
In particular, these were false death and artificial conflict between friends.
None of this has been responded to at all.  The graphic novel was not merely
unoriginal, but incredibly trite, using not once but many times extremely
simplistic, trite, and manipulative plot elements.

I have to run, so I'll finish this up later.

Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot
{sun,ihnp4,frog}!hoptoad!tim