/lit/ - Literature

I've read Frank Miller and his shit sucks dick.

Not saying that comics as such do not have potetial, but fuck dat guy
srsly

ok his batman one was aight

alan moore is brilliant

intelligant, thought provoking, insightful and sometimes profound

he really did take comics to a new level of art


frank millar is like the zach snyder of literature all style no substance

i like it but its books with pictures, not books with words, and as such it's kind of more a topic for /co/

but i definitely like comic books. whether we call it 'literature' is kind of meaningless.

>>1664930
>frank millar is like the zach snyder of literature all style no substance

that's kind of a dumb thing to say because 1) there is some sort of substance to miller 2) there's nothing wrong with being all style; the problem with snyder is that his style is boring, lifeless, hollow, etc. which is not true of miller imo.

>>1664936
zach snyder i tell you

ZACH SNYDER

>>1664924
comic book series that have a definitive beginning and ending can be good. those marvel comics with millions of issues and hundreds of spinoffs are rubbish.

>>1664939
lol. yeah i don't know, i just know that i like/respect miller a hell of a lot more than snyder

>>1664940
i think ongoing stuff can be good but it tends to have a different kind of merit. i like a lot of older ongoing comic books because of the awesome energy and inspiration and the level of crazy creative fertility, i guess. there's something elemental about it. check out, like, jack kirby's dc work to see what i'm talking about. & you do get stuff reminiscent of this in things like grant morrison's work.

>>1664940
thumbs up
same goes for book series, tv series and so 0n

>>1664946
*now whispering*
....zzaaaaaaach ssssssssssssnydder

>>1664924
>do you view it as literature?

the answer is meaningless. what's important is the reaction of the reader to the work, not whether the work is important or not

>>1664954
noooooooooooo

>>1664958
zzzzach.....

SNYDER

>>1664967
you were saying?

>>1664967
you called me?

>>1664984
*COUGH COUGH* n-n-n-no....

>>1664986

the first dark knight book is a lot of fun, the second is technicolor puke

watchmen was interesting in fits and starts but jesus those entry level epigraphs opening each chapter are the worst thing ever

>>1664995

not to be overly detail obsessed, but those parts are at the end of chapters, not the beginning. either way they're easy to skip without missing much

>>1664988
fuck you you watery cunt

Eisner, Sims, Milligan, Morrison, DeMatteis, Thompson, Busiek, Ellis and Gaiman should be cited in favor of Moore/Millar. Neither have been relevant for a long time, and citing them just comes off as babby's first graphic novel. Like a sign of "I HEAR THESE ARE FOR ADULTS, THEY AREN'T 'COMICS' THEY'RE GRAPHIC NOVELS" wahh wahh wahh.

What do I think of comic books?

Nah. Nice try, troll.

>>1665023

strong truth

>>1665023
yeah but moore is still awesome and frank miller is still pretty awesome

also it's fucking miller, not millar. mark millar is not a particularly good comic book writer and also completely different from frank miller.

>>1665021

>>1665023

oh wait. strong truth except for gaiman. he should be excluded by the same criteria you cited

>>1665034
(I own thousands of dollars in comic books, and I still have to Google the names to remember, what the hell)

The only Millar I can even tolerate is Red Son, and even then, it's just a fun series, but nothing deep.

>Moore is still awesome
I take it you haven't read this Lovecraftian series? Two out of the four issues were dedicated to fish rape. I can't take the man seriously as a writer or an individual.

And while I prefer not to shit on MillEr for TDKSA, because I get what he was going for, I still thought his All Star Batman was ridiculous and nothing of particular merit.

Considering both author's have only put out things worth ridiculing in the past decade, I'm hesitant to to call them anything more than average now.

>>1665044
I'd agree, except I feel the fact that Sandman was 75 issues and inspired so much more really goes in the face of what >>1664940 said, in its own way.

>>1665058
re: moore - yeah a lot of his more recent stuff is weird and Out There but frankly that doesn't really bother me. like, i respect the fact that he's doing his own thing, i think it's valid and worthy of respect. re: miller i think DKSA is underrated, haven't read ASB so can't comment but have heard good things about them. feel like both of them are definitely past their peak, but are still valid writers, both had great transformative works in the eighties, and both are important figures in the field

gaiman is also in the category of "really popular and well-known but also awesome"

>>1665058
> Neither have been relevant for a long time, and citing them just comes off as babby's first graphic novel

sandman ended in 1996. since then he's published novels and wore leather jackets. i think he's past his expiration date by your very criteria

>>1665071
I wouldn't discredit his novels; while I'm not in love with them by any means, he definitely puts out a steady stream of quality.

In terms of comics though, I know he had a rather decent run in Wednesday Comics, and Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader was great. I think he got his opus out of him, but he's still more relevant than Moore or Miller.

>>1665064
I mean, I know they're important for what they did to the industry (though it could easily be argued that Moore did more bad than good, though it's all in the past anyways)
I just think there are lesser cited authors with works just as rich. To start a "Is comic literature hurr?" discussion and citing those two sort of devalues the discussion because they each have their rather obvious faults and pretensions.

If you want to read a literary comic, read Moonshadow by DeMatteis.

>>1665089
>I just think there are lesser cited authors with works just as rich. To start a "Is comic literature hurr?" discussion and citing those two sort of devalues the discussion because they each have their rather obvious faults and pretensions.

yeah thats totally on point, and i agree that all the people you listed are rad and worthy - in some ways more worthy and more good than moore and miller. i think we p much agree, just trying to say that despite their popularity and their standings and their flaws moore and miller are really very good, and in a weird way it's easy to forget that. v for vendetta still is amazing even if its popular with a lot of assholes and they made a terrible movie out of it, you know?

>>1665089

i politely disagree with you on gaiman. i vehemently agree with you on all other matters. we're quibbling when we're on the same side. i'll stop pestering about gaiman

>>1665097
I can understand what you mean though. Like when I'm on /co/ and someone's asking for "good" comics, and the first three things stated are "Preacher, Transmetropolitan, Sandman", and it's like, really? Again?

I know that's condescending in its own right, but that's essentially what we were disagreeing over, "modern" authors versus relevance and all.

>>1665094
I never really got on the butthurt "OMGOSH THEY CHANGED THE ENDING TO WATCHMEN?" or "V for Vendetta sux lol" bandwagons. I've learned not to hold a grudge against art because of its fans.

Also, I'd motion to add Robinson to my list. Starman from the 90s is a great example of another series that consistently put out quality for an 80+ issue run. Also more literary than most comics.

>>1665113
I mean, I'm not butthurt about it, I just don't think the V for Vendetta movie was very good

if you're not disliking m&m for their fans, i'm not sure what you're doing? because yeah, they're flawed, but your objection seems to be that they're flawed and people talk about them too much. and i don't think you're wrong but come on dude.

again, I think we pretty much agree with each other.

>Graphic Novels
>Not calling them comics
Embarrassed?

>>1665133
Eh, my dismissal really isn't over the fans, more the state of the industry; really a complaint against Moore than Miller, since where Miller mostly faded into irrelevance, Moore continues to start shitstorms left and right. His interviews are incredibly insulting and I hate him as a person.

But you're right, I meant that fans comment over the film analogues. I was arguing about this on /co/ the other night. It's annoying to see Moore name-dropped as the supreme writer of "adult" comics, as if that alone validates any argument that comics have literary worth.

>>1665144
My mom used to call them graphic novels around me.
I told her to just call them comics.
Anyone who's too ashamed by what they are is lame.

>>1665156
1) I find it really hard to complain about Moore, despite the effect he had on the industry being largely bad, because he is really, really good and because (again) so much of what he does is a result of his persona and the fact that he has his own concerns/interests/projects. I said this before, I know, but I kind of feel like in a genre like comics where there's so much homogeneity, it's hard for me to dislike someone who is an artist with his own viewpoint and his own style and obsessions. you know? so despite him being a dick and having a bad effect, he's still written some really good stuff and he's still... a breath of fresh air, i guess.

agree completely that the level of namedropping around him is kind of twisted. and think that people def need to expand their horizons. people should be namedropping eisner, for chrissake.

2) straight-up call them funnybooks. fuck it.

>>1665144
This. Nothing wrong with "comic books" unless you're twelve years old and are afraid of looking "immature."

Anyway. Miller's recent craziness should not detract from his Daredevil, Batman, and early Sin City stuff. Moore is still relevant; you'd only think otherwise if you don't like LoEG. Which is okay, but you're missing a great series.

>>1665169
Is it weird that I thought Miller was a stronger artist than a writer? Sure, what he did with noir in comics was great, but it seems on par with Brubaker now (who I'm not even that crazy about), and sometimes even inferior. It's just that he was a great fucking penciler.

I like Alan Moore and genuinely think some of his stuff, From Hell especially, is as close as comics will get to genius.
That having been said, I would never mention this in real life because of how annoying it is to hear him namedropped all the time.

I think comics are a legit medium. Alan Moore is just scratching the surface. A lot of good ones have been mentioned in the thread already, I'd probably add the work of bros Hernandez.

>>1665196
From Hell is fucking awesome.

>>1665191
not at all - i'm not really into his writing, even the stuff from before he went crazy, but his art is always fun to look at for me, even the stuff from after he went crazy

Can comics be a great narrative form? Yes they can. Akira alone proves that. Who the fuck cares if they're literature or not?

A Small Killing was Literature. Big Numbers would have been if he'd finished it. Depends what you mean by literature though.

Zac Snyder lol. I love this board.
Captcha = correct scatend

zach snyder is surprisingly handsome for a guy who directed sucker punch, even though there is an unsurprising meatheaded neckbeardy quality to his handsomeness