So... anyone else find Watchmen hard work? Maybe find the art in Sandman a bit off-putting in places? Find Stan Lee's dialogue a bit unwieldly at times?
I should say right now that I'm not trying to slag off any of those comics or anything else I mention (I found Watchmen's compelling, Sandman wonderfully imaginative and Stan Lee... well, he gave me Spiderman. And a bunch of other good stuff). I just think that as a younger reader (and by younger I mean 23, so I'm not going nuts with the word) too much reverance is given to this stuff sometimes.
I guess the stuff I'm talking about are books like the aforementioned Watchmen and Sandman along with the likes of Dark Knight, Arkham Asylum and Maus. These were seminal works that took massive steps to show the mainstream that comics (and super-heroes) could be for grown-ups and they were excellently produced. But they were twenty years ago.
Since then writers and artists have picked up the ball and run with it and, speaking as someone who didn't grow up with that stuff, I kind of think they've done it better. Since Watchmen took a poke around the psyche of men in tights two decades ago we've had Bendis's Daredevil. Since Grant Morrison gave us his post-modern take on what grown-up superheroics could look like in Arkham Asylum we've had his Invisibles (which I will stand by as a superhero book amongst other things, just not right now) and the Authority. Since Dark Knight stormed the shelves we've had... Knightfall? Eh, you got the picture with the first two.
I'm not saying the newer stuff I've mentioned breaks ground in the same way as something like Dark Knight, but I do think they're better. I think people are holding onto the eighties a bit too hard. I know a bunch of people grew up with it, but I didn't. When Watchmen came out I was four. And I kind of feel like I'm expected to care a bit more than I do because most of the guys making comics right now read that stuff when they were kids.
So... I guess that's my rant. I'm not going to pretend to be more bothered about Watchmen than I actually am.
What does anyone else think? Or alternatively: start queuing here to fight me.
I think a lot of this depends on a point that you touched on, that of age. I've read comics for most of my life, starting on the early Marvels & Gold Key titles of the 60s. I read the Ditko Dr. Strange, the Steranko Nick Fury, Adams/O'Neill Batman, Uncle Scrooge, the drug issues of Spiderman & Green Lantern, the Harvey reprints of The Spirit. I read the comics of the 70s that in retrospect seem dumbed down from the high points of the previous decade and could be a reason I stopped buying comics and got read of my collection. I read the independents of the early to mid 80s, through to the flood of graphic novels. So I've seen the development of comics as sequential art through the natural act of been a comic reader. The acceptance of a comic or graphic novel as a "Great" is something I find hard to do. Whatever the industry has published has never really ever broken any new ground for me. You admit that you were 4 when Watchman was first printed. So everything new you've read since you started buying comics can claim to be influenced by Moore and Gibbons work. But for you that's the norm because you know no different, until you read older material. So why should you accept it as a "Great" just because somebody else says it is? Don't get me wrong there have been innovations (Maus and I Was There/Barefoot Gen for their subject matter, Marvels for it's photo realism). But for me everything just builds on what has gone before. It's a logical progression. There are no "Greats" unless you define it in terms of sales. There are varying degrees of good and bad comics and your interpretation of such will be dependent upon a number of factors not least of which maybe press and hype. And more to the point it will differ considerably from a person either older or younger than yourself. In essence there is nothing new or "Great", merely distillations of older ideas, trends or styles, copped from mainstream, small press or underground. There are titles that should be read. But is the Watchmen or Dark Knight better than Eisner's Sunday Spirit sections? Or Jack Cole's Plastic Man? It all boils down to an individual's experience and perception of a title. As in life publishers and critics are always looking for the next big thing to push on the buying public. But that doesn't necessarily mean originality or the thing is "Great". Whether that's a jaded attitude or not is open to debate.
Personally, I think we're in a golden age of comics right now. And at OK Comics we seem to be reaching a wider audience than ever. But most new or 'born again' customers visit the shop because they loved Sandman or Watchmen or Dark Knight. These books are like ET, Full Metal Jacket or Citizen Kane... It's just a good job that comics has it's equivalent of Scorcese, Soderbergh and Linklater.
There's not much to add to Mr Nimbus who is as well reasoned, polite and all-seeing as ever. (Don't you wish he was your dad? Or older brother?)
But because I can't resist a good yak:
The Golden Age of comics was famously defined as "when you were twelve". Which is true. Or maybe now its "when you are 23". The point remains.
Hence OKComics is right that now is the Golden Age of comics for most comic fans. But for fossils like me it was the '70's/''80's. Just an accident of birth.
When I talk of "The Greats" I just mean mainstream comics we can all agree were landmarks in terms of execution, enjoyment, and as summations of all that came before, the only two anyone seems able to reach a consensus on are Watchmen and Dark Knight. So for convenience I, and maybe others, use these two as a kind of shorthand for quality.
I could list my personal "Greats" but after those two it's moving into personal preference. (American Flagg! anyone? No. Thought not. And I think that's 'better' than either Watchmen or Dark Knight. Sacre Bleu! Everyone else must be wrong! (That last sentence is a Joke!))
Watchmen and Dark Knight may simply be "Great" because they are twenty years old and are still very, very good. A list of "The Greats" is also just there to provide an introduction to how good comics can be to newbies. If someone introduced me to comics via Rom Space Knight, I doubt I'd have hung around.
But, I would never define a "Great" by the number of units shifted. That's horrible. That makes Spawn #1 the "Greatest" comic ever made. (Maybe it is.)
Some of the stuff produced now may well be part of "The Greats" but it has to stand the test of time first. A "classic" isn't a "classic" the day it comes out. ( My money is on New Frontier making it.)
Like mr Nimbus I try and view comics as a continuum along which there have been various highlights. As he says though these are all pretty much down to preference. They are also down to access and remembering to view a comic in a broader light than its physical appearance. Superman #1 is a pretty poor comic by today's standards but it is still "Great", because of its importance (and I quite like its naive style, ah...but the personal is creeping in already).
I think for most young people on here Preacher occupies the same spot as Watchmen does for us fogies. Problem? No.
Basically you like the new stuff and aren't bothered about Watchmen. Well..OK. I don't think anyone could have a problem with that. I don't really know why you think they would. If anyone reccomends anything they are just trying to spread the fun of comics not putting you in an emotional armlock until you renounce your taste and accept theirs.
And Stan Lee's dialogue is how real people speak isn't it?
you should hire some hot female models where in OK Comics t-shirt and hotpants to stand outside ur store and or walk around town, handing out flyers. That might work.
