From: lsmith@myria.cs.umn.edu (Lance "Squiddie" Smith)
Subject: Re: Deep and Meaningful questions on Sandman (was: Silly questions)
Organization: Idol Squids of the Pagans
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 02:12:35 GMT

In <gf9W=yi00gpIMLOFIr@andrew.cmu.edu> "Andrew C. Plotkin" <ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

Yikes! My simple response to Andrew's post has grown without bounds. Proceed
with caution!


>Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.comics.misc: 8-Dec-92 Re: Silly questions
>on Sandman Lance Squiddie Smith@dec (1503)
                                 ^^^
                             When did Digital give me a job? Why
                             wasn't I told?

["Rainie died in issue #20. What's she up to these days?" deleted.]

>> However, I think it remains something that one might discuss politely.

>POLITELY, my TUCHUS! <thpbpbpbpbthhh>

I expected no more from a thicked skulled Kiltie who doesn't have enough
sense to get out of Pittsburgh! neener neener neener!

>...oh, sorry. :-)

Yeah, right. B{)

Just a reminder that I don't necessarily endorse the theory that Rainie
didn't die and go where other mortals go when they die. I'm just arguing
to use up some of my copious free time.

>My impression (and I haven't looked over the
>books to prove this, it's just an impression) is that Gaiman doesn't
>think that sort of consistency is terribly important. *What* happens is
>more important than how it happens.

This is a bit of a loaded statement. I'd say that Gaiman is consistent 
in his stories, but the mechanics of how he tells the stories may not
be so consistent. How's that?

>We have (all right, now I'm trying to prove it) seen lots of people die
>in _Sandman_. 

Have we? After issue #8, where we first see Death, I don't think there 
have been a lot of deaths where we don't see Death turn up. Most deaths
actually happen off-page. We see the results after, but we don't see the
entities (as they're not always people) die.  

>There isn't a whole lot of consistency. If the story
>involves Death, we see her. In other stories, we don't, even if other
>Endless are present (consider Unity Kincaid.) In some scenes, people go
>off with Death after dying, and where they go is mysterious and Not
>Revealed; but we also see people wind up in Hell or the Dreaming after
>they die. Or be reincarnated. The special effects are drawn to fit the
>story, not vice versa.

I don't think the Emperor Norton story or the public school story concern 
Death and yet she turns up in each of those. I'd say a better approach would
be that we see Death when we're concerned specifically with the character
that dies and what happens to them. 

I think that we see people wind up in different places might help the 
argument that Rainie doesn't die a mortal death. If people can wind up in
the Dreaming after they die, then why can't the also go to Ra's domain?

>Also note how the Endless move around. In previous stories, Dream has
>just shown up where needed. Now he's on a physical journey. Sometimes he
>knows things, sometimes he doesn't. 

Hmmm, I think I disagree with what you're getting at here. I doubt the
abilities of the Endless are based upon what is happening in the story. 
I can't think of anything that the family has done that is drastically
inconsistent. The Endless often move physically when on Earth. Can you
provide any specific examples of things you find inconsistent? 

>There's a tendency on r.a.c.m. to
>put IMHO way too much significance on these details.

I'm torn how to answer this. On one hand, I'd say you're right. We should
pay attention to the story and not the small elements that go into it. 

However, Neil puts a lot of little things into each story and many of 
these have a way of turning out to be important later. If people enjoy
looking for these small clues, then there is nothing wrong with them 
trying to piece them together. If we spent all our time on the small
details (like the hand gesture on page 24 of #44) and not be concerned 
about the story itself, then we'd be missing the point.

On the whole, I think there is very little wasted action within Sandman. 
Most things have their purpose. Gaiman seems to have a large section of
his Universe filled out, but we haven't necessarily seen all of it yet. 
We get peeks at it and occasionally he'll show us things before they're
obviously important. Only when the series is over will we have a better 
idea of the role that elements of the story played.

(BTW, in the Preview interview Gaiman talks about writing his story for
Spawn. He says he gave McFarlane "far more plot than he can use in one 
issue in terms of various philosophical backgrounds to Spawn's universe."
I have this picture of Todd sitting down paging through this Yellow Pages
sized script looking for the bit where Spawn finally zots someone. Maybe
if we're lucky, Todd will increase Mr G's script into two issues.) 

----------------------------
  Lance "Cr2O3.2H2O" Smith | "Just as I was lining up on the Me 109's tail
    (lsmith@cs.umn.edu)    |  I got a good look into the cockpit. You won't
     These are days of     |  believe what I saw. Bloody Jerrys have peanuts
     miracle and wonder    |  flying fighters!"    _Biggles meets Mr Peanut_