Maybe we can try again without all the flaming.

I'll behave if everybody else does.

Okay. I wasn't in on it last time...what's the topic about?

Basically, it's about perceived differences between people who mostly read mainstream comics and people who mostly read indies.

Or superhero fans vs. Journalistas, if you will.

I'm going to be lazy and quote myself from the other thread because it might be helpful:

Here's a link to the first page of Gene\'s thread .

Quote:

"Or superhero fans vs. Journalistas, if you will."

And see, that's where I thought it went awry. There's a lot more out there than superhero fans and "Journalistas." I don't consider myself either one (I will say that I've enjoyed quite a few superhero comics in my day and don't care for most of what the "Journal" admires). Almost from the very start the thread turned into yet another dreary argument between representatives of these two particular factions. I for one tried to talk about how there's more to comics than these two particular genres, but the discussion moved on without me.

Quote:

"It's really obvious why "A Contract with God" is important, both historically and as a literary work. But what makes it better than, say, the early issues of "Kurt Busiek's Astro City" from back when it was winning all those awards?"

I understand your asking this question. Nobody on the thread that I recall explained why they thought "Contract With God" was superior without being insulting and dismissive.

So, why IS "Contract With God" superior to "Astro City?" I can think of some arguments to raise in "Contract's" favor myself. But what do its admirers think?

That's where my frustration starts coming in. Most of the time, indie fans can't be bothered to explain this stuff in a way that somebody who would rather just read old issues of Marvel Team-Up could understand.

Instead, the more typical pattern is to be sarcastic and condescending and accuse people of being too stupid to appreciate Luba, or whatever is being discussed. Maybe a rant about how Marvel Team-Up helped ruin the medium would get thrown in for good measure.

Would it really be so awful to drop the testosterone levels a little? A comment about "A Contract with God" more along the lines of, "Well, it's not my favorite, but it did help convince people here in the states that the graphic novel is a viable format and it probably helped pave the way for the Frank Miller stuff you like..." would do a lot more good than accusing somebody of being an emotionally stunted, basement dwelling fanboy virgin.

Of course not … because you would rather just read old issues of Marvel Team-Up.

And that’s fine – those are wonderfully fun comics – but when you say outright, “This is what I’d rather do and I can’t understand why I should care to do anything else,” it’s pretty clear that you’re not particularly interested in any part of the artform beyond “Entertain me.”

And that’s fine, too. No one has to have a desire to see what unique ways the medium can be used to tell stories, or how certain types of story are told differently in this artform compared to others, or how stripping away the pure entertainment layers of comicdom reveals previously unforeseen possibilities. If it’s not important or interesting to you, it’s not important or interesting to you. But when people attempt to say, “These things are worthwhile,” you don’t even want to go down that road because, as you’ve already made clear, you don’t care.

Which makes the constant “no one has managed to convince me why I should care!” baffling since you so clearly don’t want to be convinced. You come right out of the gate wearing a big sign that says, “I don’t care.”

Which is, truly and genuinely, fine. Just stop pretending otherwise.

The thing is... I really am curious about why I should care. If you don't believe me, that's fine but being snarky about it doesn't help anything.

It’s truly one of those, “If you have to ask the question …” things, don’t you think?

Because I sure do.

With your “Why should I care about this?” it’s abundantly clear that no matter what anyone ever says or does, your mind is set firmly where it is and is not willing to step into a point of view other than the one you already have. Your posts over the years have shown this to be pretty much true. It’s not an inquisitive exploration of something you’re not familiar with but interested in, it’s an overt message of, “I have no interest in this, and I bet you can’t make me be interested in it.”

And it’s true, no one can make you interested in this stuff (nor should they, if you’re enjoying what you’re reading). But it’s like a taunt for you. A dare.

You want to know “why,” you repeat time and again that you want to know why, but 1) the very fact that you ask why says a great deal, and 2) time and again when people have offered a “why,” you’ve made with the poo poo.

Your “why should I care” is not an “educate me about this because I’d like to know more,” it’s a dismissive, scoffing, “oh, you silly indie snobs, I dare you to convince me why I should care about your boring comics.”

And if you can’t see that, you’re simply not being honest with yourself.

If you’re not interested in the artform as an artform, preferring it solely for escapist entertainment, that’s totally cool in my book. Honestly, I hope you always manage to find the kind of stuff you like and that it gives you the enjoyment you want – and I hope if it’s really good, you’ll tell people, because solid escapism is always a welcome diversion. None of this is a critique or criticism of your reading preferences. I simply don’t buy for a single fleeting moment that you honestly want to open yourself to anything other than what you already like is all I’m saying.

All I can say is that "A contract with God" better be damn good, because "Astro City" is.

I remember Harvey Pekar mentioning that he didn't think much good of Eisner's later works. Something like, the harder he tried to be 'deep', the worse it got. I don't recall it in detail.

Being a pioneer in a field, doesn't mean you are producing stellar work by default.

Sometimes, I don't know if you can compare these works. Can you compare WATCHMAN with MAUS for which is better? I don't think so. They are both stellar in their own right.

I have read some fantastic novels in my day and I have read some bad ones. I have read some good Star Trek novels and some bad ones. I have read some good examples of "literature" and some really bad ones that everybody says are good. (Hint: think "Ulysses" by James Joyce. Everyone says it is the best novel of the 20th century...)

Taste is subjective.