If you want to make a case for comics as literature, its easier to lend out the one volume 'Watchmen' then it is to lend out the multi-volume 'Sandman'

also, bloody smiley face is cooler then the key to Hell

they're both legends in thier own right.

Moore's a legend because he challenges convention. No, not only challenges it, but shatters it, and leaves the reader to pick up the pieces. (I.E. Watchmen)

Gaiman is a legend because he expands the definition of comics as a vaild form of literature through the creation of his own mythology (I.E. Sandman)

I can give the "Gaiman drifting" argument because of how he's taken to consulting on projects he once harped over (I.E. Books of Magic and the Neverwhere comic limited series)

But Moore is on the same side of that coin, having supposedly "given up" or "retired" about 3 or 4 times in his career.

Other people you could pit Neil against and have an argument:

Grant Morrison
Mike Allred
Chris Claremont
Garth Ennis
Warren Ellis

quote:

Originally posted by Thirith & His Enormous Tibia:
To begin with, I do think that there's more depth to many of Moore's works. Not to say that Gaiman is shallow, but he doesn't seem to have the same dense network of allusions on multiple levels that Moore has. On the other hand, for pure enjoyment, I'd pick one of my favourite Sandman collections over From Hell or Watchmen any time.

Well, Watchmen and From Hell and V for Vendetta were limited series with a single story arc, and where envisioned that way from the start. Comparing them to the 75 issues of Sandman is, I think, not productive. They are as different as a movie and a tv series.

That said, in terms of comics, I agree that I get more out of Moore. (Ack, sorry, it just happens that way sometimes)

OK, I love Neil's writing and I've really enjoyed several of his books, but I can't put Sandman up against any of those three Moore works, as much as I loved Sandman. Even with Miracleman I prefer the Moore issues.

I find myself going back and rereading Watchmen, or V for Vendetta, all the time, and have done so for years.

But then again, I go back to Neverwhere, Anansi Boys, and American Gods too. I think the novel is Neil's best medium. In comics, Moore is king.

I'd like to point out that Moore has also branched out from comics and not just with Voice of the Fire. In fact, I go for Moore over Gaiman because of this
and this
There's actually 2 others, and the really astonishing thing is that the music is written first, Moore then writes his words to fit specific timings. It's genius. Also, he does perform live.
But on comics/books alone I'd still go for Moore because of the tarot sequence in Promethea: I can't imagine any other writer pulling that off.
But of course I'm biased, I started reading Neil's blog because it was quicker with news about Moore than Moore's website and I have church of Glycon
as my facebook religion...
Besides, being a practising magician probably counts as 'branching out'?

quote:

Originally posted by Kreme:
Well, Watchmen and From Hell and V for Vendetta were limited series with a single story arc, and where envisioned that way from the start. Comparing them to the 75 issues of Sandman is, I think, not productive. They are as different as a movie and a tv series.

So? You can still compare the quality of writing. It's not like we're comparing song texts and 1200-page epics.

you see, is depth of allusion and density really a sign of quality? I'm never sure. For example, Joyce's work is just about as dense and allusive as it can get, but most people, actually, scratch that, most literature professors, let alone students, don't seem to get that much out of it, even with effort.

And by the same degree, i'm not sure about work like From Hell as 'quality' simply because it's impenetrable and allusive.

quote:

Originally posted by Murphy (is resolutely unimpressed):
you see, is depth of allusion and density really a sign of quality? I'm never sure. For example, Joyce's work is just about as dense and allusive as it can get, but most people, actually, scratch that, most literature professors, let alone students, don't seem to get that much out of it, even with effort.

And by the same degree, i'm not sure about work like From Hell as 'quality' simply because it's impenetrable and allusive.

I don't think that these things are automatically a sign of quality, but I've found Watchmen and From Hell more rewarding on re-reads. They feel richer to me. And I never felt that the latter was impenetrable.

When I re-read Sandman, it's like slipping into a hot bath. It's comfortable. With Moore, more often than not a second, third or fourth look doesn't make the books less disturbing.

I'd agree that Moore sometimes (often, lately?) sacrifices storytelling for showing off his erudition and cleverness. Much of Promethea is tiring because of this. But in his best works, I do think he tells a good story but does so much more at the same time. At his best, NG is primarily a storyteller. A very good one, but I don't think he has ambitions beyond that. Which is fair enough, but it's also why I tend to come back to Moore more often.

(And I understand why some people get addicted to Joyce. One of the big names in Joyce criticism in Switzerland never completed his English studies, yet he's a renowned expert in the field. And he makes a very good case for reading Joyce for enjoyment. He doesn't do it to write scholarly articles, but because he gets drunk on the riches that are there.)

quote:

But in his best works, I do think he tells a good story but does so much more at the same time. At his best, NG is primarily a storyteller.

I'd go along with this part, wholeheartedly. It's an excellent point (though he doesn't always write with such scope and ambition, titles like Top 10 which are pure fluff).

It's a counterpoint to the view of frequently expressed here, that I read Moore and i think 'he's so clever' and I read Gaiman and think 'he's so human'.

But I'd have to say i see a lot more depth and allusiveness in the Sandman than you appear to. As a treatise on storytelling i'd rank it at the very top level while also being extremely entertaining - yes it has elements of comfort and warmth, but i think your metaphorical bath is at least 30% blood.

Yes, he is primarily a storyteller, but i'd argue that the literary establishment/academia's sense of values of 'quality' are skewed, and that storytelling is one of the qualities that literature (in the modern english environment, at any rate) undervalues.

The quality of truth, or of exploring fundamentals (without wanting to sound to wanky), is where I believe great art generally suceeds, and cleverness without depth is just as banal as surface entertainment.

I think both the two reach beyond, but exploring the basis of storytelling as Gaiman does so effectively profound.

That said, as a monthly publication, it's got a lot of rough edges, while Moore's later work has tended to be highly polished and more brilliant in the strict sense.

At the risk of getting stones thrown at me by two of my favourite guys here (that's you, Murph, and you, Thirith, in case that wasn't immediately clear ), I didn't like the little bit of Moore that I read enough to make me go buy subsequent or other works. What I read was V for Vendetta and I honestly think that maybe it was the artwork that threw me off so badly (I really, really hate the artwork in that comic). But it just didn't rock my world at all. And certainly not like some of Neil Gaiman's works have done. Granted, I enjoy the written word better than the illustrated kind -- love Sandman, but if I hadn't read several of NG's novels before I tackled Sandman, I'm not sure I would have been able to get past the first section because I thought then and still think that those first 8-10 or so are not very good but are instead standard-issue coupon-collecting adventures. It wasn't until the cafe one that I thought, "Hmmm . . . this is getting interesting."

So, what should I read of Moore's that will help me understand why he is so very great? I enjoy reading things *about* him and I love how he looks (exactly like a 19th century Russian Orthodox priest) and I can understand that others think he is significant. I just want to experience it for myself, if possible . . .

I'm in the same boat as Murph.

Grace,

Watchmen and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen will probably be the best examples that are easy for you to access. LXG might suit you best. Personally, Miracleman is my favorite, but it's in legal hell and won't be reprinted any time soon.

Thanks, Matt. I think my son Nathan has LXG somewhere around here. I also have From Hell around here as well, but partly just because I like Eddie Campbell so much.

(Matt --I can't remember, at MythCon, did you get a chance to go to the papers that were about Sandman? One of them summed up my feelings personally -- basically, how much better it got as it went along.)

I went to all of the Gaiman talks at MythCon. That's why I was there.

Neil got more comfortable with his characters as he progressed. It was pretty unique work and the first 8 issues he was feeling out what he could get away with and not get the series cancelled. 24 Hours is pretty crazy for issue 5 of a new series.

I think because Moore's work is typically a limited series he can plan things out before he even starts and create a little more complex relationships or themes. Sandman was always a work in progress. I've yet to read Moore's work on Swamp Thing, but it's on my list to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Cable:
I went to all of the Gaiman talks at MythCon. That's why I was there.

You mean it wasn't to hang out with people more geeky than youself?? We MythSocers are the ubergeeks.

The Sandman papers were on Friday afternoon before Mr. Gaiman even got there, and not many people went, it seemed. But they were great -- especially the "Game of You -- Yes, You!" one.

Yup. I took the afternoon off of work and was there Friday.

So is anyone going to comment on Alan Moore's CDs here?

quote:

Originally posted by Murphy (is resolutely unbesmirched):
I'd go along with this part, wholeheartedly. It's an excellent point (though he doesn't always write with such scope and ambition, titles like Top 10 which are pure fluff).

[...]

But I'd have to say i see a lot more depth and allusiveness in the Sandman than you appear to. As a treatise on storytelling i'd rank it at the very top level while also being extremely entertaining - yes it has elements of comfort and warmth, but i think your metaphorical bath is at least 30% blood.


Yes, he is primarily a storyteller, but i'd argue that the literary establishment/academia's sense of values of 'quality' are skewed, and that storytelling is one of the qualities that literature (in the modern english environment, at any rate) undervalues.

You won't get any disagreement from me on that. On the whole, there's very few works that skimp on storytelling that I enjoy. It's usually storytelling that pulls me in first (although to me characterisation is part of storytelling, perhaps even more importantly than plot, because I will get into a simple plot if the characters are cool, but plot without compelling characters does nothing for me). I'd even go so far as to say that storytelling is sometimes even sneered upon by academics with their heads up their asses.

quote:

The quality of truth, or of exploring fundamentals (without wanting to sound to wanky), is where I believe great art generally suceeds, and cleverness without depth is just as banal as surface entertainment.

I think both the two reach beyond, but exploring the basis of storytelling as Gaiman does so effectively profound.

That said, as a monthly publication, it's got a lot of rough edges, while Moore's later work has tended to be highly polished and more brilliant in the strict sense.

I'd also agree with this. By the way, if we were just talking about Sandman and many of the Gaiman/McKean works, my assessment would be slightly different. Thing is, I haven't seen much work by Gaiman in the last couple of years that I thought much more than okay or competent. While Top 10 may be fluff, I very much prefer it over 1602, Harlequin Valentine or Melinda. As a matter of fact, the allegation of "clever without depth" fits those works more in my eyes than most or indeed any of Moore's work.

I like Moore, I appreciate his allusions and the research that goes into his work, but his style can be too didactic and the stories in his single-arc stuff (Unfortunately not being a regular comic-buyer I don't often see much else) seem there to prove a point more than anything.
I think Gaiman can retread ideas sometimes, but he can make a story that feels natural and real, and that affects me more than, say, the visual essay at the end of From Hell.