Nathan's comments (member since May 31, 2008)

Nathan's comments from the On Reading Graphic Novels group.

Haven't read the Absolutes yet... one day I'll just break down and buy them all at once. Used, probably, so I don't have to read them while living in a box. =)

V For Vendetta is one of my all-time favorites, too. Every year, religious-like.

Dunno if I already mentioned, but another GN set I've really enjoyed is Strangers In Paradise by Terry Moore.

Dean wrote: "It was during the Azzarello run that I lost all interest in reading Hellblazer..."

You say you read up through Azzarello, Dean -- what did you think of Paul Jenkins' stuff? Warped Notions, Critical Mass, and so on, right before Ennis' short return and then Ellis and Azzarello. For that matter, what did you think of Ellis' work?

As for the stuff that came after Azzarello's run, I've only read Mike Carey's work after that -- I like his work so well that I felt I had to give it a shot, and I was glad I did. I think Carey really took Constantine back to some of his roots in the Delano / Ennis days, combining the human element and depth with intelligent plotwork... been a while since I read Carey's run, though. I should pick it up again, maybe try Denise Mina's work too, maybe Andy Diggle. I'm actually really looking forward to seeing what Peter Milligan has done with the series, since I LOVED his "Shade The Changing Man" series (which of course had a crossover with Hellblazer in there somewhere, and was interestingly done).

Okay -- but why?

What is it you liked so much about it? What elements did it have that other runs on Hellblazer didn't have? Do you feel that Azzarello's Constantine was in keeping with his character in the rest of the title? If so, how so? What are the main differences you can see between Azzarello's run and the rest of the title? What was your introduction to the Hellblazer title -- which issue or trade was the first one you read? How much of Hellblazer had you read before reading Azzarello's run?

Yeah, the Persepolis books were wonderfully done -- one of my favorites. Interesting genre, underexplored I think.

The movie version of Persepolis was quite good, too... Marjane Satrapi was very involved in the making of it.

After some comments in another thread on Azzarello's "Hellblazer" run, I wanted to put forward some thoughts and questions to you all. I've noticed that Azzarello's take on the series (issues #146 to #174) has a sort of polarizing effect on readers -- some people recommend it as the best of the title, while just about everyone else seems to have seen it as the least "Hellblazer"-ish run of the title to date. (Though I think we can probably all agree that it was a hell of a lot better than the "Constantine" movie...)

I personally didn't like Azzarello's run much at all -- for details, read my reviews of Hard Time, Freezes Over, Good Intentions, and Highwater. Some were better than others, and they were fine stories overall... but they just didn't seem like "Hellblazer" stories to me.

Mainly I just thought a discussion on all this would be interesting, but also I had some questions.

First, how many people are in the middle about Azzarello's run -- how many of you didn't feel it was especially better or worse than the rest of "Hellblazer"?

For those of you who liked Azzarello's run:
* What is it you liked so much about it?
* What elements did it have that other runs on Hellblazer didn't have?
* Would you say Azzarello's run is the best place to start on Hellblazer, and if so, for what reasons?
* Do you feel that Azzarello's Constantine was in keeping with his character in the rest of the title? If so, how so?
* How do you feel about the sudden and rather conveniently explained shift in setting to the American south for so long?
* What are the main differences you can see between Azzarello's run and the rest of the title?
* What was your introduction to the Hellblazer title -- which issue or trade was the first one you read?
* How much of Hellblazer had you read before reading Azzarello's run?

For those who disliked Azzarello's run:
* Did you feel it was at least a decent story, just not a good take on Hellblazer? Or did you feel it was just badly done overall?
* Was the shift in setting a problem for you?
* What were the main problems you had with Azzarello's run?
* What did you think about John's character in this run?
* What were the good points, if any, to this run?
* What was your introduction to the Hellblazer title -- which issue or trade was the first one you read?
* How much of Hellblazer had you read before reading Azzarello's run?

Feel free to ignore the questions and just converse, of course. They're just questions I find myself curious about, and would ask in a face to face conversation. =)

Here are my thoughts on the oft-discussed, rarely-resolved issue of "Comics vs Graphic Novels".

I don't feel it matters much, and I mostly understand what people are saying regardless of which term they use. I use both terms, without much thinking on it.

The original use of the term "Comics" was relevant to the term's root -- it referred to "funny books", books with pictures, that told funny kooky light stories that would make you laugh. Books mainly aimed towards kids and young people. Eventually all books with pictures were called "Comics" regardless of the content, a misleading terminology that seems to have a derogatory element, with people implying that books with pictures are all kid stuff and grownups read books with no pictures.

I actually like the term "Graphic Novel", and I think it can and usually is used in the non-snobby context. It differentiates between two styles; like it or not, if I start telling someone about "Maus" and use the term "Comic Book", many people will assume it's on the same level as "Archie" or "Donald Duck" or maybe "Spiderman". If I use the term "Graphic Novel" and they don't know what it mean, a quick explanation like "They're like comic books, but with mature and non-kid oriented topics" will get the idea across without any misleading terminology.

I think it's all about where the line is drawn, and I think part of what makes some people so sensitive about the term "Graphic Novel" is that the gray area is not recognized. Often the line is drawn in hard black and white, and superhero comics like X-Men, Avengers, Spiderman, etc all get lumped in on one side with Archie and Donald Duck and Casper The Friendly Ghost. Which is unfair, and just as misleading as calling everything "Comic Books". While not as consistently substantial and sophisticated as V For Vendetta or Sandman, the superhero stuff is generally far more substantial and sophisticated than Archie and Donald Duck and all that, so I think there is a gray area.

As was mentioned before, the issue of genre and format comes in here. The term "Comic Books" originally referred to both the format and the genre, since the Comic genre was the only one considered suitable for the Comic Book format. This is the root of the confusion. However, I think this is solved rather simply and easily by accepting "Graphic Novel" as the umbrella name for the FORMAT, while accepting "Comic Book" as an acceptable synonym of habit. Then we recognize that there are many genres in the form, including "Comics" (funny kid stuff), "Superhero" (spandex-clad dramas of varying degrees of sophistication), and some other term for the stuff that people are mistakenly calling "Graphic Novels" -- maybe mythological literature, or mythological graphic fiction (or Mythographic?), or something.

I still call the local store "the comic store". I don't care what term anyone else uses, I know what they're talking about either way. But I am often careful in deciding what terminology I'm using with others, depending on their familiarity with the format, because I do want to avoid giving the wrong idea. I don't think it's wrong for someone reading "Sandman" to want to avoid having their new acquaintance think they're reading "Donald Duck".

Overall, I think it's a muck-up and needs fixed with more accurate language on both sides, but I don't think people need to get as worked up about it as they seem to do. =)

If you're looking for something along the lines of the feel and substance and scale of Sandman... I'd recommend the Death books, The Books of Magic, the Lucifer books, The Dreaming, Hellblazer, Fables, Shade The Changing Man, and Promethea.

The Death books (The High Cost Of Living, The Time Of Your Life) are not only really good, they're very closely related to the Sandman series, and are from the same era. The third one (I can't remember the name) is good but not quite as good as the first two.

The Books Of Magic is one of my favorite comic / GN series overall, despite the fact that it's fairly uneven and wandering at times. The writing is great, the concept is great, it's funny and meaningful and wondrous and down-to-earth, and if had just been a bit more focused it would have been immeasurably great. It may seem a bit like a Harry Potter ripoff at first (boy wizard prodigy with an owl), but keep in mind, Tim Hunter came first! Unfortunately, this is not yet collected completely either, though 7 out of 10 books have been printed.

The Lucifer books are another one of my overall favorites. Intelligent, subtle, well-written, and very much in the style of Sandman, Mike Carey has done a wonder with this series. It is highly recommended and completely collected.

The Dreaming is another series very close in concept and style to The Sandman -- it is, after all, based on the Realm ruled by the Dream-King, and features his strange and varied subjects. There are two books published in trade, the second a bit better I think than the first. While the stories range widely in topic and theme, they are nearly all very well-written and illustrated, and are definitely worth reading if you liked The Sandman.

Hellblazer, while most certainly one of my favorite comic book series', is less like Sandman than most of the others mentioned here -- it and Sandman were Vertigo's flagship titles, and as such they represented different sides of what Vertigo was trying to do. Hellblazer is darker, leans more towards the horror mystery element, is more gritty and visceral.

Respectfully to those who suggested otherwise, however, I would most definitely NOT start with "Hard Times" or any of Azzarello's run -- first of all, it's roughly the 22nd book in the series, which is a long way in for a starting point. But beyond that, Azzarello's take on Hellblazer is not at all representative of the series as a whole. The art is frequently goofy and cartoonish, and Azzarello seems bent on saturating it with hip kinky dark wickedness, to an exaggerated extent. Finally, there are basically no demons in any of Azzarello's stories, despite dealings with demons being a main element of the Hellblazer concept -- all John does is get a nauseating tour through the worst of humanity. If you must start so late in the series, then I recommend starting with the first of Mike Carey's run, "The Red Sepulchre" (Carey is the one who wrote Lucifer). However, what I'd really recommend is starting with the start -- Jamie Delano's Book One, called "Original Sins", the story which launched the Hellblazer series. Delano's run, though marked by the gaudy coloration typical of the 80s, is one of the paragon runs of the title (the other being Garth Ennis), and the stories only improve as they go on.

Fables is a great ongoing series by Bill Willingham, somewhat similar in style and substance to Sandman, though perhaps more similar to The Dreaming. The first book is mostly setup, and while it is not at all bad, the second and third books are better, and more representative of the series in general. Collected in ongoing trades. Highly recommended!

Shade The Changing Man is one of my all-time favorite comics series, bar none, despite it's garish early coloring and general loopiness. Well, perhaps because of the loopiness. A madman from another planet/dimension who takes over the body of a serial killer and warps reality by force of will and by accident, and who strives to find balance between his poetic dreamer-nature and the strong and decisive man situations demand he make himself. Unfortunately only one trade has been published, collecting the first 8 or so issues, but perhaps they'll print more if there's more interest.

Promethea, by Alan Moore (writer of other fantastic books like V For Vendetta and Watchmen), is also somewhat similar to Watchmen in style and content. Very esoteric and mystical, even a little complex, and well worth reading.

For other titles that are very good but not so much like Sandman, I'd recommend V For Vendetta (one of the best graphic novels out there, all in one book) and Y The Last Man (also amazingly good, collected in ten books).

Actually, what I heard Snyder say in an interview was that he first looked into doing the project and decided that he agreed with the people who had come before him -- that it just couldn't be done the way it really should be done. But then after he had declined, he found out that they were going to make the movie no matter what -- I think he said they were going to give it to the same guy who did "Kindergarten Cop" or something like that -- and he knew that if they gave it to just anyone, it would be quickly ruined. So he took it, figuring someone who loved the source material would at least do better with it than someone who didn't care.

Overall I think I liked it quite a bit. If nothing else, just because they finally did it! Not as much as I liked the book, but that generally goes without saying. And it took me a while to decide what it was I felt about it. Though I tend to think of that as an intriguing plus. =)

Ultimately, it was a very long movie (almost three hours), which I don't mind but some do. It was frequently brutal and even gory, possibly more so than was really necessary... the sex scenes, while tasteful, were plentiful and often extended longer than you might expect, showing you more than you thought you'd see, sometimes feeling not inappropriate but a little gratuitous... the full frontal male nudity at various times was a little strange but presented casually, in the context of nudism or something like that I guess. The blue made it a bit weirder (you'll understand if you see it). And the pacing was at times a bit slow and steady, it often moved more like a glacier than the concerto I wanted it to be. And of course they changed more than I would ideally have liked them to.

But despite those iffy bits, it was overall an interesting, strange, and compelling film, and generall a decent adaptation as well from what I remember of the book -- and all of those are positives in my book. It looked at the nature of power and what it does to those who have it, touched on the idea of the American identity and how it has been shaped over the years, examined the morality of ends and means, and had a good number of really funny parts, all while gently satirizing the superhero genre (though far more gently than the book did).

Overall, I'd recommend seeing it -- unless you're especially squeamish about violence or sex scenes, perhaps. Now I'm off to finally read the books again, as I hadn't been letting myself read it for the last year while I was waiting for the movie, since I knew I'd enjoy the movie a LOT less if I had read the books recently.

But it would have to be a PS3 game based on the novelisation... =)

Strange, innit? Like when they for some reason made Constantine The Hellblazer Collection -- a graphic novel adaptation of Keanu Reeves' "Constantine", that terrible supposed adaptation of a Hellblazer storyline. A graphic novel adaptation of a movie adaptation of a graphic novel? Why not just reprint "Hellblazer Dangerous Habits" again and skip the crappy middle-man?

And to add insult to injury -- or more likely, to try and get some sales of this silly double-adaptation travesty -- the "Constantine" trade is one of only two places you can find Hellblazer #27 (by Neil Gaiman) aside from buying the issue for $20.

Matt_sbd wrote: "Mediums of the past are now considered art, mediums now will most likely be considered art later on in history, or until a new medium introduces itself and becomes more of an outrage than the current medium..."

Good point about the changing of the mediums...

Matt_sbd wrote: "Ed wrote: "I wonder what it would be like to permanently get rid of the tv????" I would love it. All my dad does is watch t.v. and alienates himself from the family. My girlfriend has a whole sl..."

Sounds unpleasant; sympathies to you. However, it's the same thing as we've been discussing -- it's not the medium that's at fault, it's the people not being strong enough to be in control.

It's like with drinking beer. When your dad does nothing but sit in the den drinking Pabst after Pabst, or when your girlfriend insists on getting fall-down drunk every time you hang out, then it's not the beer that's evil... it's the weakness, the addiction, etc.

I agree, though, it certainly shouldn't take over anyone's life -- nor should comics, or books. Nothing should, really.

Oh, come now... I generally agree with you that people watch too much TV and less would be better, but why is reading a book "more productive and fulfilling" than watching a really well-crafted visual story?

This anti-TV attitude is just the same old thing people have done with every new medium. When printed books started hitting the scene, soon there were people who were outraged about it, saying that books were turning the minds of young people into mush, that books were a curse on society.

And much more recently, when comic books became a phenomena, the same thing was said about them. They're a waste of time, why read them when you could be reading an actual book or doing just about anything else, you're wasting so much of your life sitting around reading comic books.

I have more than a thousand books in my library, and I've read nearly all of them, and am constantly increasing both numbers. Yet I still love Arrested Development, and Eli Stone, and Wonderfalls, and X-Files, and I have a collection of DVDs that is beginning to rival my collection of books.

We don't have cable, and just get the basic five or six channels, of which we mostly just watch PBS and maybe one or two of the network channels if there's a good show on, might catch the news or the weather too. When we tell people this, they look at us strange, they can't believe that we haven't had cable for more than ten years. We tell them how much time we used to waste just channel-surfing or watching whatever was on, how much noise we got rid of in our house.

But still, it's about moderation, not fanatical extremism. A little TV, carefully used, is not a bad thing, might even be a good thing -- you just have to avoid becoming enslaved to it (I'd imagine TIVO probably helps). Books and comic books, in moderation, can be a good thing rather than a negative -- if you avoid losing yourself in those other worlds, overspending, etc. Some might say that playing baseball or tag is a waste of time, that kids should be reading books and expanding their minds. Everything has its dangers and its benefits.

"Meden Agan."

Ack! Thought I answered this one already. The newish ones I've been reading lately are mainly "DMZ" and "Fables", both great... I started Terry Moore's "Echo", but haven't read the last few yet... I picked up the first 8 issues or so of "Northlanders", that was good... I really liked "Fell", a gritty detective serial, but there hasn't been a new issue out for months and months. =(

"Testament" was interesting and a little weird, but I missed a couple issues and stopped following, so I'll catch back up with the new TPB. I started with "Jack Of Fables", and it was good, but I wandered away after a bit. "Y The Last Man" isn't really new, but I feel it's worth mentioning, I loved it to the bitter end. Also, the recent Dark Towers miniseries' have been good, very atmospheric with great artwork.

I love Hellblazer, especially the early Delano/Ennis runs, but haven't really followed it in the last 70 or 80 issues, I'm focusing on completing my collection of issues 1-150.

Caleb wrote: "...Can anyone provide some [Western:] titles that might be worth checking out?"

I'm not all that into Westerns specifically, but the first things that come to mind are that recent set of graphic novels based on Stephen King's "Dark Tower" series, and the "Preacher" series by Garth Ennis. Neither are true Westerns, but of the two, the Dark Tower stuff is closer.

Well, though I'm another person who just uses the term "comics" -- I didn't really think about it a lot, honestly -- I have to disagree with you, Maré.

Sure, there's a snooty factor to using the term "graphic novel", but there IS a difference between types of comics in terms of substance, you can't pretend there isn't... Maus and V For Vendetta are totally different than X-Men and Teen Titans, which are in turn totally different than Scooby Doo and Archie.

In fact, I tend to think that the term "comics" stopped being relevant awhile ago -- they used it because the old "comics" were all comical, funny, trivial amusement aimed at children. Some of the superhero titles were real breakthroughs, very different from the old yuk-yuk books, and probably should have been called something else (if for no other reason than to avoid the jurisdiction of the Comics Code).

And in the same way, Maus is very different than Justice League, and deserves a separate terminology. The material is substantially different. Sure, there are some great writers in the spandex genre, who really have done wonders expanding it all, but still -- you can get Dostoyevsky to write Spider-Man, and it will still be Spider-Man.

Though I do agree that the term "graphic novel" isn't quite right as a blanket term; I generally only use it to refer to the TPB collections, and really there's no reason not to apply that to TPB collections of Superman as well as TPB collections of V For Vendetta. However, I think coming up with the term "graphic novel" is a reach in the right direction.

"The Books Of Magic"... "Fables"... "Sandman" and "The Invisibles", for older teens... "Death: The High Cost Of Living"... "Mythos" (also probably for the older teens)...

"Surrender gracefully the things of youth..."

When I was a kid, I was really into Daredevil comics, and Transformers comics, and Firestorm, and X-Men, and some others like that. I still have a bunch of them, and my son has enjoyed them, I'm glad I kept them. But they no longer really interest me, the superhero genre seems relatively facile and shallow overall. I moved on to comics with more substance, more literary value, though comics in general no longer hold such a high place in my life as they did when I was a kid.

I still enjoy them, though, and still keep a collection. I still pick up new issues of Fables and DMZ; and I keep a good sized collection of more substantial comics, mostly Vertigo, in long boxes on shelves. The Sandman books still captivate me when I re-read them every five or six years; V For Vendetta is still brilliant, a classic, and Watchmen is still as relevant and bitingly satirical as ever. Shade The Changing Man still seems as weirdly and disjointedly relevant as it used to, as do my Invisibles books. Early Hellblazer still thrills me, Ghostdancer still wins me over, Minx and Mythos and The Girl still intrigue me. 1602 still seems fun and clever. Strangers In Paradise is still quirky and funny and haunting and fun. And of course the Indie lines have good stuff coming out.

There's still interesting mythology, social commentary in comics out there, and even the spandex superhero genre that I have mostly left behind seems to be reaching for substance when it can -- the Civil Wars stuff seems to be an interesting commentary on the modern political split.

I think what it comes down to is a balance -- growing out of just accepting every brightly-colored action-fest spandex rag that comes your way, but not overcompensating by getting jaded and closed and unable to find any pleasure in stories that use imagery as well as words. =)

But if you ever do get so ultra-mature and jaded that you can't enjoy any comics anymore, then just sell your collection off cheap to those of us who still do. *grin*

Good question... here's the thing for me:

I'm on a budget, which means I'm lucky to have any significant amount of money to spend on comics in a given month. I've never been the sort to put ideals over practicality, though I still give ideals what I feel is appropriate weight.

So I do it this way: I have one or two monthly titles that I have pre-ordered for me at the local comic shop, and I always make sure I have the $3-6 extra per month to pay for those. If and when I have extra money for graphic novels and such to fill in my collections, then I'll check the local comic shop price first, then go to Amazon and look at the used books (if they're in Very Good or better condition, it's as good as new and the prices are way lower). And if the used Amazon price is significantly better -- typically it is, e.g. $22 new at the store compared to $8 online -- then I'll pay the lower price. Buying from independent sellers almost 100% of the time makes me feel better than if I were just pumping my money into Amazon's coffers.

So that's how I do it; I suppose that if I were wealthy I might just put all of my money into the local shop to show community support and all that, but that's not the current reality. I derive some comfort from knowing that my local shop sells plenty of books online as well.