From: tweaver@nyx.cs.du.edu (T.C.Weaver)
Subject: Re: The Trouble with SANDMAN (Unrepentant Heresy About To Be...)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 17:45:14 GMT


 conty@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Conty III) writes:

>Jason Lee Smith <js06+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
 
>> and the Season Of Mists was one of the best stories I've ever read,
>> but all in all, I've found it rather intellectually prententious, and
>> a whole lot of it was merely borrowed from Alan Moore's  work.
>
>Only at the start.  Since then, he has discovered his own literary voice,
>which is different from Moore's, and still very good.

Agreed that Neil has his own literary voice, but I don't think it's copied
from Moore's at all. Gaiman's initial writing (in the days before comics!)
is that of a literary chameleon - his book on Douglas Adams' work shows
humour very like that of his subject. That doesn't mean it was merely
borrowed - the stylistic emulation helped his book be more than an arid
assessment and made it more of a companion volume.

Now, when Neil started writing comics, he didn't use Moore's devices (the
notorious panel transitions, for example). What Gaiman had in common with
Moore was a use of good English which was applied to experimentation in the
comics field. And maybe a soupcon of the intellectual pretension you mention |-)

I would have thought that the problem of Hell in Season of Mists would be seen
much more as work in Moore's domain (like the Swamp Thing storyline about the
nature of the battle between Good and Evil) than Conty believes, yet it is
entirely consistent with Gaiman's conception of Sandman as a vehicle for
metaphysical fantasies.  


>> Apart from that, I find his stuff a little dull,
>
><shrug>  I disagree, but we can leave it at that.

I think it would help if Jason said *why* he found it dull. I mean, I find
it interesting because I can engage with the same concerns... if I were
interested in continuity, I'd probably be as annoyed as the recent posters
about Lyta Hall; if I were interested in action plots, I'd be bored by
stories like _The Bimbos of Night_ (despite the hurricane).

But I like the characters, and I like the universe, and the way it's realised,
so I elect to spend time there.

>> and the fact that he doesn't always has a concrete plotline in mind
>> when he writes has not added to my respect of Gaiman as a writer.
>
>That, IMO, is one of the (if not THE) biggest weaknesses of Gaiman.  He
>seems unable to maintain a reasonably coherent plot for a multi-issue series.

<laugh> What do you think of Dickens? I think Dickens' work shows the flaws
of serialisation much more - improbable coincidences, a nice character for
readers' empathy, a bunch of villains with distinguishing characteristics
constantly re-emerging to grab our attention... I'd much rather have Gaiman's
thematic arcs and sets of short stories.

In answer to Jason, I find that having the characters determine a plotline is
much more interesting than writing rigidly to a plan (but then, I've always
liked uppity personae), and in answer to Conty, I think the plots *are*
coherent - where are the inconsistencies? Or even irrelevant issues?

>> 	Also, I really can't stand McKean's artwork on the covers.
>
>That's perfectly understandable.

If, again, a matter of personal choice rather than judgement.

Tanaqui (who, alas, also thinks Death is cute. Personal privilege |-)

Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc