The Fifth Day of Classic Comics Christmas 2012

[Rob Allen]

I haven't seen much by Charles Vess but I want to see more.

I didn't know about that New Gods reprint series - have to find that some day. The Fourth World will be appearing on my list, though.

Cei-U! let me borrow Camelot 3000 a few years ago. I've been interested in Arthurian literature for years and thoroughly enjoyed it.

That first-issue cover of Unknown Worlds of SF caused a bit of controversy. The painting is by well-known sf illustrator Frank Kelly Freas, but at Stan Lee's direction, John Romita altered the faces of the humans. Stan and John later apologized to Frank.

[shaxper]

Why, thank you.

I don't suppose you're female, are you?

And if you are, I don't suppose you're also Eliza Dushku, are you?

Sorry, no. I'll let you know if anything changes.


Regarding Miller, I think he has some excellent ideas, and I generally like his writing style, but his artwork generally bugs me (except for on the Wolverine limited series, as I noted on Day 3) and I absolutely hate the characterization he imbues in most of his protagonists which often are interlinked with his odd political perspectives. I truly don't see much difference between Frank Miller and Dave Sim, except that Sim does more preaching off the page, and Miller spills even more of it into his characters. At least Sim seems to acknowledge on occasion that his (and Cerebus') beliefs make them schmucks.

[shaxper]

I'm fairly new to Marvel mags, but I love them when I can find them. I don't have any of that series yet.

I bought up a huge amount of the Bronze Age Marvel Mags this year, and I generally haven't been disappointed. The only two titles that didn't really appeal to me were Unknown Worlds of Science Fiction and Doc Savage. Both were well executed, but neither felt all that memorable to me and didn't leave me wanting to read more.

I also haven't spent enough time with Tomb of Dracula yet. The first issue didn't give me much of a feel for the short-lived series.

[dupont2005]

Put my day 6 choice in here by mistake

[dan bailey]

There are, however, people to whom I refuse to give money. Orson Scott Card, for example. I had no problem reading a used copy of Ender's Game. But no way I'd ever give that asshat any of my money.

I'm that way with Card, Miller, Sim -- interesting that shaxper mentioned him in the context of Miller a few minutes ago; if either one of them suddenly showed up in my yard for some bizarre reason, I think I'd deeply regret not owning a gun, because I view them both as disturbed & potentially dangerous -- & Mark Millar. And I think that's it. For all I know, Millar is a card-carrying anarchist (if anarchist carried cards), which would of course be perfectly cool, but the persona he projects is so smarmily self-congratulating that my stomach turns. (I view Quentin Tarantino in the same light, except that I find him even more revolting. I'd never give him a penny of mine, either, unless I could be assured that he'd spend it on something that would at least leave him permanently comatose.)

And it's not just politics; I mean, John Severin was known to be a virulent anticommunist, & we all know I worshipped the ground he walked on. Just off the top of my head, the comics writers Mike Baron, Troy Hickman & Batton Lash (a gifted cartoonist, too, of course) hold political views I find odious, but what the heck -- nothing about those guys' work makes me perceive them as ... for lack of a better word ... creeps.

[shaxper]

I'm that way with Card, Miller, Sim -- interesting that shaxper mentioned him in the context of Miller a few minutes ago; if either one of them suddenly showed up in my yard for some bizarre reason, I think I'd deeply regret not owning a gun, because I view them both as disturbed & potentially dangerous

The difference is I can still read and love Cerebus, probably because (as I noted before), Sim does most of his preaching off page and is also comfortable showing us that Cerebus is far from perfect, even when espousing Sim's religious and moral ideals, and sometimes specifically because he does so. Even in the last two volumes, in which we are directly preached to, the prophet behind this message (Cerebus) is shown to be deeply flawed and destined towards self-imposed tragedy by the close. He's not a character to be impressed by.

Meanwhile, Miller throws his beliefs right onto the page, whether sociopathic antiheroes, characters randomly complaining about women in power, or mocking the liberal agenda ad nauseam, and he never entertains the possibility that there's any fallacy in these opinions of his. They are always portrayed as absolutes; the people embodying these ideals always being in the right.

As was mentioned earlier in Day 6, Ronin might be the one exception to this.

[benday-dot]

8. Camelot 3000 #1 - 12 (DC, December 1982 - April 1985)



I'm not discussing The Maze Agency this year (which will shock many regulars) but that doesn't mean you can get away from a Mike W. Barr title.

Camelot 3000 has a lot of firsts to its name: it's the first maxi-series, one of DC's first 'direct only' titles and what I suspect is DC's first lesbian kiss (even if one of them was a male soul in a female body) and probably one of the first in mainstream comics (can anyone confirm this?).

Camelot 3000 takes as its starting point the legend that King Arthur will return at the hour of Britain's greatest need. That hour proves to be an alien invasion in the year 3000. Arthur sets off on a quest to gather the Knights of The Round Table, who have been reincarnated into new bodies and need to have their memories of who they truly are reawakened. This proves to be particularly upsetting for Sir Tristan, who discovers he has been reborn in the body of a woman.

This is an intelligent, well-written exploration of the Arthurian legend. This is no sanatized version, and Barr does not shy away from the darker aspects of the legend (such as Arthur's murder of all the children born on May Day). And it is gorgeously illustrated by Brian Bolland in one of his first US works.

Camelot 3000 expects a lot from its readers, and it helps if you have a working knowledge of the Arthurian legend, especially le Morte de Arthur by Sir Thomas Mallory. This is some broad stroke political satire that will not appeal to all readers (probably a hangover from Bolland's time on Judge Dredd), and, like many works of sci-fi written in the 80s, it assumes that there would still be a cold war raging between the US and the Soviet Union in the year 3000.

But, overall, an immensely satisfying and entertaining read.

Foxley, thanks for this pick and your great write-up. Unfortunately... get ready for stream of blasphemies... I was buying Camelot as it was coming out all those years ago, and I only made it to issue 4. I am big Arthurian fan, but I found the series a little, well, cheesy. And I (gasp) I have never been a huge Brian Bolland fan.

Everyone's different. I know you are the biggest Kirby fan (and while I may not be either, it could only be because I lack the hubris to make the claim) so its all good. And you do sell Camelot well.

[foxley]

Foxley, thanks for this pick and your great write-up. Unfortunately... get ready for stream of blasphemies... I was buying Camelot as it was coming out all those years ago, and I only made it to issue 4. I am big Arthurian fan, but I found the series a little, well, cheesy. And I (gasp) I have never been a huge Brian Bolland fan.

Everyone's different. I know you are the biggest Kirby fan (and while I may not be either, it could only be because I lack the hubris to make the claim) so its all good. And you do sell Camelot well.

I really hope there was supposed to be a 'not' between 'you are' and 'the biggest Kirby fan' or else I've been slandered!

[icctrombone]

The difference is I can still read and love Cerebus, probably because (as I noted before), Sim does most of his preaching off page and is also comfortable showing us that Cerebus is far from perfect, even when espousing Sim's religious and moral ideals, and sometimes specifically because he does so. Even in the last two volumes, in which we are directly preached to, the prophet behind this message (Cerebus) is shown to be deeply flawed and destined towards self-imposed tragedy by the close. He's not a character to be impressed by.

Meanwhile, Miller throws his beliefs right onto the page, whether sociopathic antiheroes, characters randomly complaining about women in power, or mocking the liberal agenda ad nauseam, and he never entertains the possibility that there's any fallacy in these opinions of his. They are always portrayed as absolutes; the people embodying these ideals always being in the right.

As was mentioned earlier in Day 6, Ronin might be the one exception to this.

You have to remember that Miller was dipping his toe in the water with Ronin and still didn't acquire the balls to start preaching on the page.

[T GUy]

8. Spoof. #1-5. (Marvel.) 1973-74.

The last three issues also had a WHAT IF...? Feature to go along with the parody pieces. Here's Steve Gerber investigating What If Famous People were Santa Claus, from issue 4:

Dear Mr Gerber,

How many of the readers of Spoof did you expect to 'get' that crack about Yoko Ono looking for her hand in a snow suit?

Best wishes,

Picky of London

P. S. That one about Paul trying to sleep was obscure enough...

[MDG]

For all I know, Millar is a card-carrying anarchist (if anarchist carried cards),..

That reminds me of a line by John Sayles, where an old lefty is distressed that people are "wearing nametags at the anarchist's convention."

Meanwhile, Miller throws his beliefs right onto the page, whether sociopathic antiheroes, characters randomly complaining about women in power, or mocking the liberal agenda ad nauseam, and he never entertains the possibility that there's any fallacy in these opinions of his. They are always portrayed as absolutes; the people embodying these ideals always being in the right.

Ever read Mr. A?

[dan bailey]

That reminds me of a line by John Sayles, where an old lefty is distressed that people are "wearing nametags at the anarchist's convention."

Ah, yes -- great short story. (The fact that Sayles is my favorite director doesn't hurt, of course.)

Ever read Mr. A?

Ditko gets a bit of a pass for being a great artist. Miller, politics aside, has always struck me as horrible on a downright Liefeldian scale; what others see in his grotesquely misshapen renderings simply escapes me.

If I didn't find his art genuinely repellent, I'd probably forgive him all sorts of (IMHO) sins. (See also, of course, Ditko.) I do tip my hat to him for standing up for Jack Kirby during the latter's battle with Marvel over his original art.

[Cherokee Jack]

THE GRACKLE. Acclaim, Four issue series by Mike Baron and Paul Gulacy.

Crime comic about an ex-cop nicknamed "The Grackle," who busted 39 dirty cops while working for Internal Affairs. The story is well done by Baron (I'm a fan), but the big selling point here is the Gulacy art. It's done in black and white. This link has some pages from it: http://www.comicartfans.com/galleryroom.asp?gsub=45774

There is a little bit of fantasy in the story, as it involves firefly, a drug that from time to time causes the user to spontaneously combust.

http://www.comics.org/series/5824/covers/

[thwhtGuardian]

You have to remember that Miller was dipping his toe in the water with Ronin and still didn't acquire the balls to start preaching on the page.

I don't think that was the case at all, it seemed like it was very much due to a conscious effort of his that Ronin's message went against the grain of the typical male power fantasy.

[benday-dot]

I really hope there was supposed to be a 'not' between 'you are' and 'the biggest Kirby fan' or else I've been slandered!

Ha... right you are. Consider the "not" inserted my friend, a true republican in the Kirby monarchy.