From: mkelly@ovid.helios.nd.edu (michael kelly)
Subject: Re: Rec.arts.sandman
Reply-To: mkelly@ovid.helios.nd.edu (michael kelly)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:12:37 GMT


 michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:

|> But the name "rac.vertigo" implies that *only* Vertigo titles would be
|> appropriate to discuss, whereas I think it would follow the split in
|> interests more to have one group for standard, super-hero stuff, and
|> one group for Vertigo *and related stuff*.  As far as definitions, I
|> figure that that would work itself out on its own.  If the group
|> reading rac.mature doesn't want to talk about Lobo, then it wouldn't
|> get talked about.

Ok...I've kept extremely quiet on this subject since I first suggested 
rac.vertigo back in December. I'm in favor of such a split. If anyone
wants to see my reasons and thoughts, they are after the ^L



1) There has been plenty of evidence that all of the titles in what DC
is calling the vertigo line have staying power with regards to 
generating discussion in rac, and now racm. I have seen people argue that
certain books are scheduled to end (Sandman being the prime example) and
thus we won't need a subgroup.

Poppycock. I've seen more posts about old Swamp Thing, Hellblazer and
Sandman then I can remember. Granted these titles are currently being
published by DC, but I don't think it is Nancy Collins work on ST that
is generating discussion about "American Gothic". Just as netters 
discussed the original Star Trek during the early & mid 80's (while only
the movies were being produced) netters will still be discussing Sandman
while the one-shots are coming out.

2) rac.vertigo is the most convenient subgroup to come along in *years*.
Anything under the vertigo imprint will be discussed there, anything not
under the vertigo imprint will not be discussed there. Lobo, Maus, Alan
Moore's Superman stories, Cages, Jon Muth's Dracula, will all have to 
stay in racm. 

Problem: What about books that are now vertigo but weren't before? Like
the Books of Magic, Black Orchid mini-series, The House of Mystery, et al.

Solution? I can't offer a static solution, but I can offer a dynamic one.
rac.vertigo should be allowed as much freedom as possible, but people should
recognize that vertigo-specific topics belong in rac.v not rac.m, and once
a topic strays from rac.v then it should move to misc. 

3) The ghetto-zation of a subgroup is a myth. I will never understand why
people feel this way. I didn't understand it the umpteen times
r.a.tv.quantum-leap failed, I didn't understand it when rac.creative (or
rac.lnh) failed to get off the ground, and I'm not sure I understand it now.

Subgrouping is a simple method of organizing News. It reflects the popularity
and the amount of traffic generated by a specific topic. It is not an 
effort to eliminate undesirables, nor is it an opportunity for an elite to
move away from the great unwashed masses. 

I know that I will continue to contribute on racm, because much of what I
enjoy falls outside of vertigo. I also know that I would contribute to
a rac.v because of my fondness for those titles. I'm sure others will do the
same. Some others will choose to participate in only one or the other.

blah blah blah. I've written enough, and I'm pretty sure my damn newsreader is
going to put this in dead.letter anyway.



-- 
+               Mike Kelly, Notre Dame Department of Physics                +
+                                                                           +
+ mkelly@doc.helios.nd.edu          "The more you drive,                    + 
+ mkelly@undhe5.hep.nd.edu                 the less intelligent you are."   +
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc