"200" posts!

The concern of writers is summmed up in this brief telegram:

Period shortage mustn't continue to stop
Stop-stoppage must come to full stop stop
We must reslove it and stop stop-stoppage stop


Your truly
Tom Stoppard

[This message has been edited by Cory Fuka (edited 05-07-2000).]

JML

Heh..

JML,

Good luck getting a straight answer out of Sam. It’s a Sisyphian task.

Pat,

I suppose the irony of trying to use a quote from an unrepentant intellectual like Gertrude Stein to dismiss other intellectual "phonies" escapes you.

There is no reason the same person cannot enjoy both Joyce and Chandler, John Ford and Godard, Bach and the Sex Pistols. I like all of those, and I suspect many of my fellow "elitists" do as well. It’s one thing to simply not like Joyce, Godard, etc., it is quite another to say, as you are, that there is only one acceptable way to create art and present stories, and that anything that deviates from that approach is not only wrong, but a fraud. You are the only one here who is saying "This is the only way" while all of the "elitists" are expressing appreciation for multiple kinds of approaches to art and storytelling.

Face it, Pat. You’re an elitist.

Oh, I agree absolutely, but I think this works against your point, which, if I understand it correctly, is that comics are suited to broad action-driven stories and not to subtle dialogue-driven ones. Unless Feiffer is the exception that proves the rule.

Say, I've just realized something- nearly everything you've praised in this thread was on the Journal's Top 100 List! Namely: Feiffer's works (6, 50), Caniff's Terry and the Pirates (23), Ditko & Lee's Spider-Man (35), Calvin and Hobbes (36), Sugar & Spike (78), Foster's Prince Valiant (100). Groth and Thompson's personal lists included all but one of those, too (Groth excluded Sugar, Thompson excluded Valiant).

Maybe you guys have more common ground than you suspect. (Or wish to suspect...)

[This message has been edited by Chris Ekman (edited 05-07-2000).]

Looks like we've got him on the ropes here. Add Pat's unabashed ardour for most of the curriculum of Art Comics 101, namely Maus and Love & Rockets, and the facade melts away to reveal what must be considered in the final analysis the most extreme elitist attitude to surface on a comic-related message board. The guy looks down his nose, formerly Pinocchio-like until revelatory data was recently ferretted out, at not only the so-called "common man," as evidenced by his admiration for the likes of Prince Valiant, one of the driest, stuffiest not-exactly-comics ever to see print (also co-published by his "arch-nemesis" Kim Thompson!), but at the large group of people whom society has (unjustly) chosen to refer to as "intellectuals."


[This message has been edited by Jamie Salomon (edited 05-07-2000).]

The picture gradually comes into focus. "Former" Journal writer O'Neill is still employed by Groth & Thompson. These recent series of threads featuring as their centrepiece Pat vs. Kim were in reality a cruel hoax on the rest of us, inviting us along to join in and get some "practice", running us throught the course like mice, while Pat and Kim compared notes after hours, yukking it up at our Pavlovian responses!

Think about it. A constant hum throughout the responses to and comment's about Pat's "positions" was utter disbelief that such points could be argued at face value. Why do you think that not one other person was arguing alongside him? Because there aren't any! We've been had! Hope you had fun guys! Oh, the ignominy of it all!

Oh, Sam....

We're still waiting for your answers to the two simple, yes or no questions put to you by JM Lofficier.

Okay, well, we're not waiting because we all knew that you'd run away from a direct question....