quote:

---

Originally posted by mischief the dancing polarbear:
Circus just summed up my thesis. the type of cuts and interweaves that the Sandman has don't translate so well into book form. And I agree Neil is still learning about writing novels - and writing a novel is vastly, vastly different with writing short stories. Sandman was the culmination of years of comics writing. He hasn't yet (and may never) come up with a novel to beat Sandman, but he deserves some time to learn his new craft before he masters the medium...

********
Accept no substitutes...
I am a bear of little brain.

the poster aka Murphy
http://www.wwnorton.com/cover/032398.jpg

---

But why didn't he just stick to comics? And please don't give me some condencending answer about him being "too good" for them. Its like someone winning an Oscar for directing a film, saying "well, i'm really good at making movies, but what I really should do is become an author." I mean, its admirable, but he's telling the same stories he told in comics and telling them with less skill.

I think his old mentor Alan Moore needs to sit him down and have a nice long chat with him.

See you, space cowboy.

~~~~~~~~~
People tell me its a sin
to know and feel too much within.

I don't remember which interview(s) the answer was in, but after, what? 12 years? 15 years? of writing comics, Neil wanted to do something else, wanted to learn to tell stories in other ways, wanted the challenge of new forms. Some creators are that way, they want to develop as craftsmen in more than one medium.

(Didn't I read somewhere recently that Moore was also planning to stop producing comics, and develop his art and music more instead?)

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lord of Nothings:
But why didn't he just stick to comics? And please don't give me some condencending answer about him being "too good" for them. Its like someone winning an Oscar for directing a film, saying "well, i'm really good at making movies, but what I really should do is become an author." I mean, its admirable, but he's telling the same stories he told in comics and telling them with less skill.

I think his old mentor Alan Moore needs to sit him down and have a nice long chat with him.

---

Because it's possible to burn out on comics. It's possible to burn out on anything, but especially comics.

After creating a masterpiece like Sandman, why shouldn't he take a break from comics and learn something new? Why should he be pigeonholed into being a comics writer for the rest of his life?

He's an artist--and his interests as an artist are varied. Think of the best artists you've learned about. Did they force themselves to stick only to painting? No. Many of them branched out into sculpture and writing or other arts.

By limiting himself to comics, he'd be limiting his potential as an artist. By overspecializing in one field, he'd be closing doors to other areas that he finds exciting. And by closing those doors, he'd be forcing himself into a situation that becomes less fun, less challenging, and that might even make him resent his choice to become a writer in the first place.

I haven't read much Sandman (although I plan to) so I can't comment on much of what previous posters have said about the repetitiveness of his writing, but I did notice that the romantic subplots in [u]Neverwhere[/u] and [u]American Gods[/u] were quite similar: we have the devoted, long-time SO who betrays the hero at the beginning of the book (Jessica/Laura) and the quirky female lead who almost becomes a love interest towards the middle of the book (Door/Sam), and then at the end he gives up on the not quite love interest and his former SO tries to make ammends but he turns her down.

Also, not that I thought it really detracted from the story at all, but when I read American Gods I kind of got the idea of an extremely talented writer who thought he wasn't getting the respect he deserved because he specialized in whimsical modern fairy tales and got his start on comic books setting out to write a "Serious Novelâ„¢"; he was trying too hard. Once again, it was still a great book and I don't think that that really hurt it overall, I just like to analysy the authors who I read and that seemed kind of funny.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Sluagh:

Also, not that I thought it really detracted from the story at all, but when I read American Gods I kind of got the idea of an extremely talented writer who thought he wasn't getting the respect he deserved because he specialized in whimsical modern fairy tales and got his start on comic books setting out to write a "Serious Novelâ„¢"; he was trying too hard. Once again, it was still a great book and I don't think that that really hurt it overall, I just like to analysy the authors who I read and that seemed kind of funny.

---

Can you put your finger on what in AG made you feel that way? I didn't think it seemed any more "Serious" (or attempted-Serious) than his other stuff.

Ok lets go ahead and admit, no writer is perfect. All writers have their faults. Look at Ann Rice, all her books are same subjects. The same is with John Grisham, and Tom Clancey. SO yes Neil does repeat themes, but I also enjoy those themes very much. Any author who has writes is bound to sound repetive in one form or fation. Be it the relationships or the topic of the book. And yes I must admit Shadow's extended stay was like a little journey into hell. But the amount of mythos was fantastic to me, though I love mythos and I know not everyone knows as much about it as myslef and other people like me.
The way I look at it is like this. No, Neil's writing is not perfect, but then lets look at all the other books that have been writen by other authors that are complete total peices of crap. Does anyone think that any of Neil's works have been pieces of crap??

First of all, no, Neil is not a piece of crap, but you'll have to excuse me if I offend by applying that term to the other writers you listed. Neil is above them in both quality of writing and ideas, but maybe that explains my frustration. AG did play around with myth quite a bit, and in very interesting ways, (the sacred places, the twists on names, the dreams) and for someone like myself, an avowed mythology fanatic, it was great, until it all spiraled into this mess that reminds me of something clancy or rice or grisham could've written, calling it literature all the while. Point being that this is Neil-fucking-Gaiman, and the statements he made about belief and myth in Sandman are insightful, unique and worth examination, points that I assumed he would develop further (whether continuing in his previous direction or not) when he wrote AG. IT could've been amazing, it could've been so thought-provoking your mind would be wrapped around it for days after the reading, instead it became something less. Maybe Neil was afraid to challenge the audience, so he started writing like rice or clancy or grisham. It is fun to play allusive games with mythology, but that alone won't suffice, there should be an underlying energy to the work, an energy I got used to experiencing in Sandman, Signal to Noise and Mr. Punch. And the layers that saturate those works simply aren't present in AG; that's why I cry at night (well, not really.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lord of Nothings:
But why didn't he just stick to comics?

---

because christ, that'd be dull

quote:

---

And please don't give me some condencending answer about him being "too good" for them.

---

hang on there. remove the pole from your arse a second, Floyd.

I wrote my thesis on the sandman. Do you think that means I don't think comics are 'good enough' for Neil? Jeez. I only spent like a year studying and writing about them.

quote:

---

Its like someone winning an Oscar for directing a film, saying "well, i'm really good at making movies, but what I really should do is become an author." I mean, its admirable, but he's telling the same stories he told in comics and telling them with less skill.

---

Because some ideas are novels, some are screenplays, some are comics. He hasn't given up on them, you know. 1602, etc...

It takes time to develop skills in a medium. Personally I think that sticking to comics would have led him into something of a cul-de-sac for the while. the Sandman does overshadow his other work in the medium for the moment. In the long run he'll benefit from this, I reckon.

********
Accept no substitutes...
I am a bear of little brain.

the poster aka Murphy

quote:

---

Originally posted by mischief the dancing polarbear:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lord of Nothings:
But why didn't he just stick to comics?

---

because christ, that'd be dull

---

How so? The comic book medium is very very young, and despite the quality of Watchmen, Sandman, From Hell, The Invisibles, etc. it has yet to define its boundaries. Of course, since a lot of comics readers get attached to the aforementioned works (with good reason), they fail to really appreciate revolutionary works when they pop up. Case in point: for the past two years, Alan Moore and J.H. Williams have used at least one storytelling technique totally new to the medium each issue, and that's a very bare minimum. The pages in that book don't even act like comic book pages, at least as the average comic reader understands them. I can understand that certain ideas work better in certain media, but comics being dull? Sticking to comics being dull? Conversely, comics seem to me the most exciting of any medium simply because of the largely undefined limits of the medium itself. Alan Moore is the best comic writer alive (though Grant's gaining speed all the time), but he has yet to do for comics what Joyce did for the novel, or Shakespeare did for the play. In fact, I doubt that such boundary-defining works will appear at any point in the next 50-80 years. Aside from my opinion though, how are comics a medium in which a lifetime's worth of work could be considered dull?

it would be dull in that Neil likes to find new challenges and attempt them. I don't know Mr. Williams work, but I know Moore doesn't just stick to comics work either (though certainly not as much as Neil)as shown with his book, short stories, and spoken word CDs (I think he's up to 5) which I believe are based on live performances.

(Btw, I have trouble calling a media over a century old young. Young compared to books, sure, but compared to film, radio and television...?)

Trying new things is perfectly fine; if Neil wants to work with Dr. Dre I wouldn't bat an eye, but I wasn't arguing against trying new things, what I was arguing against was the supposition that Neil sticking with comics would be dull. Moore does other things, so does Morrison, but they still work on comics. Maybe what it comes down to is simply that I miss Neil writing comics. First they stop returning your calls, then they ignore you when they see you on the street, then you go through some rough times during which you'd really appreciate their support, but it's not there. Then one day, you find yourself swigging a 40 ounce King Cobra while cuddling up to a trashcan for warmth...but seriously here, my point was that comics operate on a complex linguistic understood on only the most basic level by the majority of people (whether the public at large, fans or creators), and on Sandman, Neil revealed a deeper understanding of the language of comics. That language is only now in the early stages of its development, hence the "young medium" (film on the other hand, has its boundaries, and I'm not really familiar enough with either radio or TV as media to comment.) What I find difficult to fathom is how one can find comics to be dull-I think it is fully possible to want to try new things without being bored with something else. Rather, it's simply a matter of time management. If you want to write a novel or stage some crazy synesthetic magical performance, time is required. If you are writing comics monthly, that is time you won't have. This is why Moore is going into semi-retirement in the fall-he loves comics, but wants time to do other things, things he would not have time to do with three monthly titles. I suspect it is much the same with Neil, and Morrison for his part wants to eventually make a film, a thematic sequel to The Invisibles. I'm sure that Morrison will also drop out of the comics radar for a while when he starts on that project, but in all three creators cases, I highly doubt it is because they feel that comics are boring. I think rather that now that they have sacrificed time to get fairly good at one medium, they want to try another; none of which, however, makes comics dull.

and I never said comics were 'dull'. Read my post. Again... I wrote my thesis on Sandman. I DO NOT THINK COMICS ARE DULL, and never said so.

I said it would be dull if Neil only stuck to comics. He wrote journalism, screenplays, radioplays and short stories before he did Sandman. Why, because you have produced a work of brilliance in one field should you limit yourself to that field in future? I don't agree you should.

It would be dull for those of us who rather appreciate Coraline, or Don't Panic, or Neverwhere, or Princess Mononoke. It would be dull for Neil himself. and lets not forget that a lot of Neil's writing in comics wasn't great.

********
Accept no substitutes...
I am a bear of little brain.

the poster aka Murphy

I think Hayo Miyazaki can still make great anime without some Brit offering his own interpretation of the translation....

See you, space cowboy.

~~~~~~~~~
"Embracing death together. Now that's a day I'll wait for."-- Inuyasha

http:://lon.blogspot.com-- Its a slightly less eloquent me

what's your point?

****************
That's all we were to those people -
a bright shining lie

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lord of Nothings:
But why didn't he just stick to comics? And please don't give me some condencending answer about him being "too good" for them.

---

It's not that he's 'too good' for comics, but face it, a comic book writer in today's age just cannot reach the same audience that a traditional author can, nor can a she/he gain the same kind of respect in literary and artistic circles. It'll be a long time before the two genres are treated equally, so why should a modern comic writer's career have to suffer in the meantime?

What's wrong with wanting to grow, both personally and professionally? He essentially finished what he set out to do in the world of comics, so now he's trying his hand at writing novels and shorts. From his meta-writing, I have to assume that he enjoys what he's doing now...

quote:

---

Its like someone winning an Oscar for directing a film, saying "well, i'm really good at making movies, but what I really should do is become an author."

---

No, it's not like that at all. The differences between film and books and between comics and books don't lend themselves toward that simplistic of a comparison.

omnia mutantur, nihil interit

quote:

---

Originally posted by Murphy:
what's your point?

---

That Neil is getting too much credit for Mononoke Hime. For instance, here:

quote:

---

It would be dull for those of us who rather appreciate Coraline, or Don't Panic, or Neverwhere, or Princess Mononoke.

---

Not that I don't think Neil did a great job with it but give him such credit is too much.

Allian-di

At the beginning there was only Genesis and me. I, of course, loved It and The Origin was, literally, the whole Universe. That caused me great grief, though, since I was Everything that Genesis was not, doomed to not be part of It, to be The Other, The Difference, The Opposite, The Adversary of what I loved most... I, being the Closest, was at the same time the Farthest.

Lucian Shadowbringer, No Fate

quote:

---

Originally posted by mischief the dancing polarbear:
and I never said comics were 'dull'. Read my post. Again... I wrote my thesis on Sandman. I DO NOT THINK COMICS ARE DULL, and never said so.

---

Yes and if you've read both of my posts, you can understand that the first one, in which I asked "how can a lifetime's work of comics be considered dull" was directed at you, while the second post was directed at GMZoe, who I felt had not grasped my point from the first post. As for your thesis, it's pretty cool that you did it on Sandman, any chance I could read it? If not, that's cool too, it's just that I can't seem to find much scholarly work on comics that actually has something to say about the artform as an artform, unique in itself, and that's something that's really missing from the field, in my opinion. Also, you mentioned that a lot of Neil's comics work wasn't great. I was just wondering what you didn't consider great. Aside from those spawn stories and the second death miniseries (haven't read last temptation) I really can't think of much comics work he did that I wouldn't consider great. Even his 8-page story in Batman black and white was cool as hell.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustapha Wormwood:

Yes and if you've read both of my posts, you can understand that the first one, in which I asked "how can a lifetime's work of comics be considered dull" was directed at you, while the second post was directed at GMZoe, who I felt had not grasped my point from the first post.

---

yeah, i get that, but your post did say in so many words that i thought comics were dull. and I was in a snotty mood.

quote:

---

As for your thesis, it's pretty cool that you did it on Sandman, any chance I could read it? If not, that's cool too, it's just that I can't seem to find much scholarly work on comics that actually has something to say about the artform as an artform, unique in itself, and that's something that's really missing from the field, in my opinion.

---

I don't have my thesis on an active computer at the moment. Otherwise you;d be welcome...

And I agree, that's why I did my thesis - and while doing my research I found a total dearth of secondary work, so I started applying more traditional analysis to apply to The sandman. And specifically how the storytelling is so well suited to comics. I concentrated on the ways in which the space between and within panels is used to communicate the backstory to such great effect. How the shifting landscapes, the multiple story-strands, the sheer subtlety and control of it.

As a lot of comics use background to make sly references to other things - prime example League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - which is entertaining and fun. The Sandman use it to re-define the story it told.

It's the best use of the medium in that mode I've ever seen.

quote:

---

Also, you mentioned that a lot of Neil's comics work wasn't great. I was just wondering what you didn't consider great. Aside from those spawn stories and the second death miniseries (haven't read last temptation) I really can't think of much comics work he did that I wouldn't consider great. Even his 8-page story in Batman black and white was cool as hell.

---

we differ, then! I'm using great to mean a piece of work that really stands out. I mean head and shoulders. Cool as hell isn't a synonym for great.

The Sandman actually changes, stretches, puches the genre. Bravura storytelling, a shifting, complex and intriguing world. a piece of mythology that suggests a life well beyond the story told. A fascination with storytelling modes that extend to every medium. It is uniquely suited to comics, and the sheer variety of experimentation, the ways he finds to get the story told. It takes my breath.

When you talk about Mr Punch, or Black Orchid, or the other works of Gaiman, it doesn't do these things.

Neither do Neverwhere, American Gods, I know!

That's what I mean by great!

Sometimes it requires someone slightly outside the medium to really shake it up. Alan Moore is the foremost specialist, technician in comics, and I appreciate your points on Moore/Williams comics. I don't think Neil could have produced the Sandman if he 'stuck to comics'.

That's my humble (hollow laugh - this post is very opinionated, I know) opinion.

umm. yeah.

Fun.



********
Accept no substitutes...
I am a bear of little brain.

the poster aka Murphy

For me, personally, anything gets dull if it's done for too long at a time. ANYTHING. I don't know Neil's personality, but I know that I need to leap from medium to medium with my own artwork or I get stale, bored, trite. Maybe I won't be as succuessful at the thing I jump into, maybe I will. And then I'll tire of that, and leap back to the old thing, or something totally different yet again.
I think a lot of artists/writers are like this.

I wanna live, and I wanna dance awhile...

I'm reminded of Kevin Smith... he does movies and comics pretty much interchangably.

'Cept he's generally better at movies, like Neil's better at comics.

But maybe i just feel betrayed... the comic industry needs all the good writers it can get. There's no shortage of medicore fantasy novelists, though.

See you, space cowboy.

~~~~~~~~~
"Embracing death together. Now that's a day I'll wait for."-- Inuyasha

http:://lon.blogspot.com-- Its a slightly less eloquent me