There's that term again, "lifting"

The word "lifting" is allen's way of accusing people of something that sounds like copying but is ambiguous enough a term that he doesn't have to prove or defend his accusation.

As opposed to what? Television, where we're going to get a new American version of the new British version of Sherlock Holmes? Music, where one of the most popular genres of the last 30 years was based on repeating riffs from the songs of other musicians? Movies, where just this summer we're seeing a prequel to a film that came out in 1979 and a complete reboot from scratch of a franchise that's only 3 flicks and 10 years old? Books, where everyone from Robert E. Howard to Margaret Mitchell has had other writers exploit their work?

Why should comics be any different?

Mike

I've been following Steven Moffat's reaction to the new American version of Sherlock Holmes. Not unlike Moore's reaction to the Watchmen prequels, except for Moore having created the Watchmen.

Moffat claims it will take away from his version somehow. Despite the several year head start? Did the American versions of Being Human or The Office hurt the Brit versions? Besides anyone who sees the American version first now, wasn't looking for the Brit version anyway.

And besides, it's not an American version of the Steven Moffat version, it's just an American version of Sherlock Holmes. It has similarities, like the source material, a present day setting and characters, but Moffat wasn't the first guy to come up with the idea of a modern take on Holmes adventures. It's been done several times. His show is freaking good, probably one of the best versions of Holmes. But it isn't a new idea to modxernize Holmes, and Moffat doesn't have any more claim on the character than anyone else either.

You're absolutely right. The one storytelling medium(*) that can be executed by one person with a pencil should be dominated by recycled corporate-owned and corporate-controlled properties, just like all the rest.




* Prose requires the reader to imagine their own imagery, generally resulting in multiple interpretations.

Does Cooke's work or does it not feature many elements COPIED FROM the work of Bruce Timm (who in turn takes from Alex Toth and Jack Kirby) and Milton Caniff? Are you saying that Darwyn Cooke is a complete original?

Not this "one creator-one comic" crap again. It would be one thing for a professional to be all twisted up with that sort of aesthetic absolutism. It's 100x worse when it's some deluded fanboy.

Mike

You seem to be making an argument that Cooke's work has obvious influences, but you are using terms that have quite different connotations.

By making statements like you did above...

"I could tell simply by looking at Cooke's work that he has no conscience,"

"He has no qualms about lifting material from other artists,"

"...does it not feature many elements COPIED FROM"

...you are seemingly accusing the guy of more than just being influenced by other artists, you seem to be accusing him of something nefarious, by lifting or copying elements with no conscience from other artists.

Since you aren't offering examples of tracing or even swiping, I assume you are just talking about influence. So I have t ask, do you have a problem with an artist having influences? Are you claiming that any artist influenced by any other artists isn't worthy of respect. What artist's aren't influenced by other artists?

That they can't tone down the more overt elements by the time they reach Cooke's age.



What artists that are as critically lauded as Cooke has been are as overtly "influenced" by other artists as Cooke is?

No, you're absolutely right, Mike. Even one guy sitting alone at his drawing board shouldn't be able to get away from corporate control.

Define "tone down"

Do you mean he should artificially change what he draws like to better distinguish himself from any influences?

How do you know his style isn't just what it is, similar to Timm's, both men having spent so much time in animation.