Creator Bout 1: Battle of the Brits part 1 Moore vs Gaiman

[Not Jake]

Year One was my first Batman story other than a couple single issues over the years. DKR was my second.

And yeah, I think if DKR WAS my first Batman story, it'd still be my fav, since everyone's pretty familiar with the general Batman story, whether it be through the flicks or the animated series. I watched cartoons long before I got into comics.

 

[Sandman138]

Hmmm I'm crazy about both of them. However, I chose Gaiman. In a fight though, it would have to be Alan Moore. His magickal skill I think would come in handy, even though I think Neil could possibly gain the upperhand by telling a really really convincing lie.
Anyway, the thing about Alan Moore is that he makes you feel as if your next door neighbor could be a superhero. His writing doesn't take you anywhere, it brings that place to you. When I got done reading Watchmen, I turned on the news expecting to see video footage of a Lovecraftian monster sitting in the middle of Manhattan. After "V for Vendetta" I felt pretty much the same way (just replace the monster with a vigilante). He is an excellent writer and creator. However, Neil Gaiman is better.

Neil makes you question reality. He reminds you that perhaps being rational is illogical. When I was in 10th grade, my science teacher lent me "Stardust". After that, I almost got in trouble for buying "The Sandman" when my mom (thinking along the lines of $2.25) said "Oh go buy yourself a comicbook!" (it's her fault, don't give me $50 and tell me to go buy a comicbook). Anyway...Neil Gaiman is a true storyteller. He isn't just a writer or a novelist. He IS a storyteller. He can tell you the same story over and over again if he wants to, but you will never feel like it's the same thing, because every time he presents it to you, it's completely different from anything you've ever seen before. You don't really know what will happen with Neil Gaiman. PLUS his stories have amazing continuity.

The Sandman series
Books of Magic
Death: Time of Your Life
Death: The High Cost of Living
Stardust
Black Orchid
Mr. Punch
Swamp Thing (I think he wrote a few issues)
1602
etc.

Then you have his novels

Good Omens
American Gods (the best)
Neverwhere
Smoke and Mirrors (collection of short stories and poetry)
Anansi Boys
Etc.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I just wanted to add to that by saying that many times, Delirium seems to make the most sense of anyone. Oh, and I like your avy.

 

[Sandman138]

When I recommend Sandman to people I typically tell them to read the first two Volumes before forming their opinions. Personally, I feel that Vol 1 (Preludes and Nocturnes) is the least strong of the series. It's a lot more setup and a place were Neil had to establish things to get everything else rolling. Volume two (The Doll's House) is where things get really good.

I tell them to pick up Fables and Reflections.

 

[The Hero]

Then there's the remarkable character development of people like Dr Manhattan who by the end of the story are *gasp* no different.

By the end of the book,Dr.Manhattan has learned to respect life again,while at the beginning he didn't see a difference between life and death,and didn't care.

 

[XwolverineX]

I gotta give it to Alan Moore.

 

[Harlekin]

I've read Gaiman's Sandman now up until the last volume, which I still have to buy, and after having IMO, read sufficiently of both writers, IMO, Gaiman is the superior one.

 

[Marc]

By the end of the book,Dr.Manhattan has learned to respect life again,while at the beginning he didn't see a difference between life and death,and didn't care.

Except he already knows about this at the beginning. So he can't really learn anything as he knows he is going to learn it in the future so 'learns' it in the present.

 

[The Hero]

Semantics.

 

[Deathlok2001]

Moore

 

[XwolverineX]

The only Gaimen book I have ever read was:

Sandman: Preludes and Nocturnes.


So I cannot fairly judge,

 

[Deathlok2001]

The only Gaimen book I have ever read was:

Sandman: Preludes and Nocturnes.


So I cannot fairly judge,

dude, you love my toenails all painted & stuff. Admit it dagnabbit!

 

[Elijya]

there's no way you're in your thirties....

 

[Xofenroht]

Couldn't have said it better myself. I just wanted to add to that by saying that many times, Delirium seems to make the most sense of anyone. Oh, and I like your avy.

Thanks man, yours is quite nice itself.

 

[Seventh Soldier]

Gaiman. Gaiman makes me think, and imagine, and wonder, and question, and he makes what he writes feel...well, very often, epic. Moore is great...I love Promethea, and V for Vendetta is one of my favorite comics of all time. But, Gaiman has shown to me to be both a stronger writer, and a more persistently excellent one. For me, Gaiman has all of Sandman, and his novels, and all the little one-offs and stuff that's been STUNNING, while Moore has Promethea and V that's been stunning, then Top 10 and Watchmen that's been pretty good, then a lot of stuff that's been decent.

However, I've not yet read either person's Miracleman.

 

[The Question]

Well, I do think that V for Vendetta and Watchmen are definately up there with Gaimen's Sadnman books. But overall, Gaimen's produced more brilliant stuff.

 

[Marc]

Semantics.

Its a crucial element of change to you know... change.

The Q - See, I don't get this. Moore has done script after script of fantastic work for decades. Gaiman for me has Books of Magic, Stardust and maybe a couple of the Sandman books where he actually bothers to knuckle down to tell the actual story rather than another tangent. And those are 'comparable' to some of Moore's lesser work. What else is there? Black Orchid? Bleh. Perhaps 1602? Hahahaha.

Gaiman for the most part is in serious need of editing, he goes on tangents far too much and rarely finds focus for his stories. He hasn't got a great deal of work, and what he has is generally pretty weak when you poke it for more.

Moore on the overhand has claims for the best 'Batman' and Superman stories written, and he did this without 12 issue superarcs. That alone puts him on an almost untouchable echelon considering all the writers that have been and gone on those two characters with far less impact.

Then check out -

Halo Jones
Marvelman
V for Vendetta
Top Ten
A Small Killing
Swamp Thing
Tom Strong
Watchmen
Tomorrow Stories
Brought to Light
Another Suburban Romance
Promethea
Lost Girls
From Hell
Supreme
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Captain Britain

Most of this stuff trampling all over Gaiman for me. Far more content and far more consistency, and a focus that could burn through lead. I mean he has pushed the boundries until it bent over and called him Sir, way before their time for the most part as well.

EDIT: Oh and Lucifer>>>>>>Sandman

 

[Sandman138]

In response to this notion that Sandman is full of tangents. You sir are missing what the series is all about. Morpheus is not just the "Prince Of Stories" he is stories. And what happens to him? He is captured and taught that he is not as above humanity as he thought. The entire series is about humanity's relationship with the stories they tell and their attempt, specifically man's attempt, to exert control over stories, and this theme is present in every "tangent" for Calliope to A Midsummer Night's Dream and The Tempest, to Rose Walker and Jim's attempts to define their stories as women in a world of literature that is tied to men.

Morpheus' fatal flaw was his lack of humanity, and a story that cannot be tied to those that it influences is worthless: the beleived requires a beleiver. When the beleived ignores the importance of the beleiver (in a futile attempt to resist the change that has been put into effect at the begining of the series) the character of Lyta Hall is born, as she resent being ignored and thus chooses not to beleive. My point in all of this is that without what you call "tangents" this great epic story has no meaning. Daniel's paradox of being both what is mortal and what is eternal and his survival by embracing said irony is only signifigant if we understand why stories are both seperate from and fundamentally joined to the people that tell them and that comes as much from the "interludes" from (I put that in quotes because they are actually part of) the "main" story.

It is folly to see stories as no more than a series of plots and plot devices since a plot is just a surface for the sea of themes, premises, and true stories that lie just underneath. In otherwords, if you just look at the waves in the ocean, you'll miss the majesty of Hob's Leviathan.

 

[Sandman138]

I was exagerrating a bit, but the core's kind of true. Come on, how many comics has the guy done, even if they were good? only a handful. And yeah, he does bash pretty much the entire comics industry all the time

The industry sure, not the medium. I thought the reprints of old strips at the end of In The Shadow Of No Towers was a real celebration of the power of sequential art. Prisoner On The Hell Planet was amazing, and Maus is not just a great work of art in and of itself, it has also opened up the door for more graphic novels to attempt to deal with similar subject matter (there's an amazing one that I can't remember the name of at the moment, but it's about growing up as a girl in fundamentalist Iran. The use of cartoon completly removes the girls' individuality when they are forced to wear the "partial" burkas). Honestly, the comics industry is keeping the medium back in many ways, and the image of the comic books as kids fare is as much the fault of said industry as it is of the medium's uninitiated critics. I think Art Speigleman has done a lot for the medium.

 

[Elijya]

there's an amazing one that I can't remember the name of at the moment, but it's about growing up as a girl in fundamentalist Iran. The use of cartoon completly removes the girls' individuality when they are forced to wear the "partial" burkas).

Persepolis

 

[Sandman138]

Thanks. Have you read it? If so, what did you think? I was reading a friend's copy and only had time to get through the first two chapters, but what I read was really good. I think it may have been a bit too much like Maus in that it used the cartoon to tackle the loss of identity (in Maus, all Jews are made to look like the single image of the mouse, implying that they are Jews first, people second) but I think that theme almost worked better for Persepolis than it did for Maus, which works on other levels.

 

[Elijya]

haven't read it yet. I own it, though, it's in my "to read" pile, but I dunno when I'm gonna get around to it

 

[Mr. Green]

I haven't really read any Gaimen, but I've read V for Vendetta and I am halfway through Watchmen...

Okay... The guys at the comic shop hyped up Watchmen SO MUCH, saying that after I read Watchmen "I will like everthing else less". Okay... I am SO dissapointed in it so far. Cool story and everthing, but there is so much to kill momentum. I had to quit reading the articles and exerpts in between "chapters". Not only that, but the newstand + pirate comic seens pretty much slam on the breaks EVERY SINGLE TIME the pace picks up. Man, I really thought it was going to be so much better.

 

[Sandman138]

Go back and read the articles, and definatly read the pirate comic sequences. I skipped over them and when I reached the end I wanted to kick myself for it. Watchmen expresses a bunch of ideas about the nature of the hero in different forms from different points of view. They do seem to slam the breaks on when you're interested in just figuring out who-dunnit, but that's not Watchmen's real story, or I should say, the mystery is one level but it cannot simply be solved by finding the "culprit". You start to realize as you get closer and closer to the end how much all these seemingly unrelated archs are actually moving in parrallel towards an inevitable conclusion that can only be reconciled if you can see the story from each vantage point. Trust me, the ending is not nearly as satisfying if you skip over those seeming interuptions. I know it can seem tedious, but it's definatly worth it.

 

[Sandman138]

Not really, its not like the killing joke is in my top ten reads or anything either. Watchman may touch upon various topics, and genre's but it doesn't go anywhere with it... it thinks it does but I realy don't see where. The characters don't go anywhere, don't change, don't evolve, don't react in a 'real world' way and the end is extremely contrived. Its like he wrote this story not knowing the end, ran out of idea's and threw in some tosh about you know.

A story of the ends justifies the means? I can name episodes from TV shows with more weight, insight, character development etc.. Just about every series does some form of storyline about that. I'm sure even That 70's show accomplishes this. I already named some, I have yet to see where watchman has depth (where? I mean really... are you refering to the secret villain or something), realism (LOL!), commentary (what commentary is that, that humans need to be lied to in order to control... uhuh), re-readability (it revolves around the secret indentity of the villain, for me that does not make it re-readable) and you and I both know that I can name things all day and you will obviously detract from each one. If only for the purpose of proving your statement correct in your eyes.

A few examples of ends justifies the means stories (stuff you're likely to have read/seen) -

Kingdom come: Superheroes taking charge for the good of people.
V for Vendetta: Terrorism and killing to win a thread of freedom.
Preacher: Got someone to rip his genetalia off and stick it up his arse on the road to getting God to be held accountable.

Taking Kingdom come as an example. Depth wise you have a whole universe there, characters in every panel with their own history and story. Politics wise it goes over the idea of power and corruption in a much more realistic way than watchman. Real world wise, well as fantastical as it all was it wasn't as absurd as watchman (again the end, although stuff like the owl... c'mon). Commentary wise it has the same kind of message as above, a little more in-depth with the social commentary of the world around it as it actually involves human beings and the consequences. Which in watchman is only really looked at in the end and very briefly. As for rereading, as I said the key in watchman is the 'mysterious' villain behind things... once thats gone for you the rest of the story is rather bland. Like the rather poor attempt at love/romance/sex. Or the fact that these losers are supposed to be superheroes which is extremely hard to swallow. Then there's the remarkable character development of people like Dr Manhatten who by the end of the story are *gasp* no different. I felt that the only REAL character (as in background, purpose, depth, reason, evolvement, interaction etc.) was Rorschach. Even then at the end of the day he was a guy with an ink blot on his face, with a hat and coat who was angry (or over the top) a lot of the time. Various comics have more depth for the simple fact that they have history and have been through a butt-load of experiences. Stuff like Fables has more depth because it uses characters we know about and puts those things in a different concept.

Again though, I appreciate that I am very much in the minority in this... I just don't think it was anything special. I would expect that kind of story in an outer limits or twilight zone episode.

What about seeing it in a political/historical sense? One in which the Star Wars (talking about Reagan's defence plans) style apocalypse that was a major fear of progressives in the 1980's, is used (actually appropriated by a progressive elite) to transcend the bounderies of nations/ethnicity/gender to find a greater sense of human unity. One in which the merger of technology/politics/and human inequalities (Nixon is still president, and there is an indication that the supreme court has granted him the powers of a monarch) has created a world where the super-hero is just another tool that the government appropriates as a means to exercise command and control. There is a reason it is refered to as a postmodern superhero comic.

 

[The Hero]

I haven't really read any Gaimen, but I've read V for Vendetta and I am halfway through Watchmen...

Okay... The guys at the comic shop hyped up Watchmen SO MUCH, saying that after I read Watchmen "I will like everthing else less". Okay... I am SO dissapointed in it so far. Cool story and everthing, but there is so much to kill momentum. I had to quit reading the articles and exerpts in between "chapters". Not only that, but the newstand + pirate comic seens pretty much slam on the breaks EVERY SINGLE TIME the pace picks up. Man, I really thought it was going to be so much better.

Sandman138 is definitely right.The between-issue excerpts provide a bit of exposition towards many of the characters(especialy Hollis Mason),and the pirate comic interludes seem dull but truly pay off in a way that made me love the book.