Preview for issue 9...

[Yaya]

Saw some Yootoobs interview - apparently Costa has 'up till issue 50' planned out.

Translation: "We have enough story to fill up to issue 20".

[snarl]

For the love of christ, lets hope IDW grow their collective brains back adn tell him to [composite word including 'f*ck'] the [composite word including 'f*ck'] off.

He's worse than AIDS.

[Kinf Og The World]

Dear all, when was the last time you bought a TF comic, not including LSOTW?

TFUK, um, the last one. The one with Morrissey Devastator on the front. I think the new ones out now. I'll have to get that. Magnets are cool.

IDW wise, LSO- Oh. I getcha. Spotlight Prowl, to check out Su's Mignola artwork. That was worth it. Story was a bit guff. Pre that, 'bout halfway through AHM broke my comics-combo.

[inflatable dalek]

The fact they're happy to boast of long term planning really makes me dispair. Even if you've liked everything they've done up till both their attempts at long term story arcs have gone out the window with the departure of first Furman and then McCarthy, resulting in made up on the spot conclusions. You think they'd accept by now they'll never see any lengthy stroy arc played to its intended conclusion and just focus on shorter self contained stuff.

[Best First]

The fact they're happy to boast of long term planning really makes me dispair. Even if you've liked everything they've done up till both their attempts at long term story arcs have gone out the window with the departure of first Furman and then McCarthy, resulting in made up on the spot conclusions. You think they'd accept by now they'll never see any lengthy stroy arc played to its intended conclusion and just focus on shorter self contained stuff.

or get writers who can build on and respect what has gone before without either a) being slaved to it or b) trampling all over it

like LSOTW blah blah etc etc

[snarl]

INT Mike Costa's house. He's hosting a dinner party. Several guests are seated round a table, they are happily chatting amongst themselves. MIKE puts a bowl of food down in the middle of the table and then takes a seat...

GUEST - Mike, this food really is awesome mate.

MIKE - Oh, I've made plenty - I'll put some of the leftovers in some Tupperware for you.

GUEST - Yeah, it's a shame all the comics you write are ****!

Enter a gnat. It throws some gnat stuff in Mikes eyes, dodges all the insect spray somehow, then picks up Mike's gun and stands over him, having downed him with a spider web...

Fade to black.

THE END

This writing lark is a piece of piss.

[bumblemusprime]

Gnat stuff! That was beautiful.

I have to share this. Granted, it won't take the discussion anywhere, but I still have to share it:

I second this. Literary genius is rarely recognized when it shows up.

If you think this, you've got to read more. Lots more.

Lolita is literary genius. 1984. The Library of Babel.

Last Stand of the Wreckers is a competant action comic that is in nowhere near as good as many of the 'great' comic works of the decade.

I have a Master's degree in English. I teach literature classes for a living.

With all the restrictions and caveats put on a licensed comic about toy robots, LSotW achieves quite a lot.

[snarl]

Boosh!

btw, is that THE Brian Mays, the one that was in Queen?

PS, I'm a bit surprised it's Matrix who likes books about sexing the kids, and not that epic ****up Tramp.

Who wrote that TF wank fest about Powergilde ******* some robo-slag.

WHISKEY!

[inflatable dalek]

That Confessions of a Robot That Turns Into A Plane Mosaic still had more plot than AHM though. It could be IDW's next new new new direction after this one fails. They could include a CD of light jazz with every issue.

[Brendocon]

I second this. Literary genius is rarely recognized when it shows up.

If you think this, you've got to read more. Lots more.

Lolita is literary genius. 1984. The Library of Babel.

How does listing three books refute the notion that literary genius is rarely recognised at the time?

[Best First]

I second this. Literary genius is rarely recognized when it shows up.

If you think this, you've got to read more. Lots more.

Lolita is literary genius. 1984. The Library of Babel.

How does listing three books refute the notion that literary genius is rarely recognised at the time?

You are wrong.

The Jungle Book.

Oliver Twist.

Physics for Dummies.

See? Aaaaah!

[bumblemusprime]

(proclaims eternal love for Best First and Snarl and starts religion based around their posts; BF's arguments about the Thor movie are declared to be apocryphal false prophecy)

[Metal Vendetta]

PS, I'm a bit surprised it's Matrix who likes books about sexing the kids, and not that epic ****up Tramp.

Who wrote that TF wank fest about Powergilde ******* some robo-slag.

I for one would like to see more TF comics that featured Ironhide's daughter taking it from a Minibot on the floor.

It has got to be better than the current output.

[Jack Cade]

How does listing three books refute the notion that literary genius is rarely recognised at the time?

I think he was reading between the lines and taking you to say that LSotW was literary genius. That's what he was refuting.

And I have to say, I'm rather sympathetic to that. LSotW is a rollicking tale, like the best of Alistair MacLean. But I don't think it's in the same league as 'Lolita'. And I'm not even a big Nabakov fan - it's just that I think sometimes there's a clearer-than-not line between great art and great entertainment.

[bumblemusprime]

How does listing three books refute the notion that literary genius is rarely recognised at the time?

I think he was reading between the lines and taking you to say that LSotW was literary genius. That's what he was refuting.

And I have to say, I'm rather sympathetic to that. LSotW is a rollicking tale, like the best of Alistair MacLean. But I don't think it's in the same league as 'Lolita'. And I'm not even a big Nabakov fan - it's just that I think sometimes there's a clearer-than-not line between great art and great entertainment.

Eh, see extensive posts on IDW about Shakespeare. He was the bloody Stephen King of his day. We put magic glasses that say "literature" on all the time.

Not that I think LSotW is quite up there with Othello for me. I just don't like ranking my literature and reinforcing the notion of "the canon."

[inflatable dalek]

Plus 1984 wasn't instantly a classic, it was the infamous Peter Cushing TV version (the scene of rats crawling on his face got so many complaints the second live performance was almost canned until it turned out the Queen had liked it!) a few years later that really put that book into the public consciousness.

[Legion]

PS, I'm a bit surprised it's Matrix who likes books about sexing the kids, and not that epic ****up Tramp.

Who wrote that TF wank fest about Powergilde ******* some robo-slag.

I for one would like to see more TF comics that featured Ironhide's daughter taking it from a Minibot on the floor.

It has got to be better than the current output.

worringly true

[Jack Cade]

Bumblemus - Shakespeare wasn't Stephen King. Don't get me wrong - I understand the spirit of your point, but the crucial difference is that Shakespeare was both popular entertainment *and* high art, and what I mean be 'high art' (and similarly, what is supposed to be represented by the canon) is work that reveals a much greater degree of depth when analysed.

There is a chance that similar depths can be uncovered in King but I'm not holding my breath.

Now, I know there is a heck of a lot of cynicism towards the idea of 'depth' in work - that it's just a bunch of pontificating intellectuals inventing things that aren't there. But such an attitude is miserly. Literature simply does not survive as many generations as Shakespeare unless every new generation is able to find new relevance in it, and the limitation with most pop lit is that everyone's picked it apart and chewed it over and absorbed it fully in the space of a few years.

[inflatable dalek]

Though he's gone off the boil lately and badly I still think it's fair to say King at his peak was both popularist and arguably one of America's greatest 20th century writers, maybe not in the same league as Shakespear (I can't personally stand anything except Othello though) but both achieved a similar type of success. I can certainly see The Shining and his other classic earlier books still being in print (or downloader directly into your brain) in 400 years.

Mind, his current quality level can be summed up by the fact his last very serious, very heavy book had the same plot as The Simpson's Movie.

[bumblemusprime]

Bumblemus - Shakespeare wasn't Stephen King. Don't get me wrong - I understand the spirit of your point, but the crucial difference is that Shakespeare was both popular entertainment *and* high art, and what I mean be 'high art' (and similarly, what is supposed to be represented by the canon) is work that reveals a much greater degree of depth when analysed.

There is a chance that similar depths can be uncovered in King but I'm not holding my breath.

Now, I know there is a heck of a lot of cynicism towards the idea of 'depth' in work - that it's just a bunch of pontificating intellectuals inventing things that aren't there. But such an attitude is miserly. Literature simply does not survive as many generations as Shakespeare unless every new generation is able to find new relevance in it, and the limitation with most pop lit is that everyone's picked it apart and chewed it over and absorbed it fully in the space of a few years.

But what's the depth? Where can you point to X number of works and say "look, that's depth" and then point to other works and say "nope, nothing there?" Any argument about what constitutes "literature" has no grounds for the dichotomy, Mister Cade. How do you define this elusive quality? It has to still be around in four hundred years? It has to have been taught by generations of white men as a way of reinforcing a racist Anglo-Saxon supremacy notion? (Beowulf)(But don't get me wrong, I ****ing love Beowulf; it's just that the adoption of Beowulf as "the first English work" in the 19th century was a political act meant to reinforce social Darwinism.)

It has to have dense, impenetrable language? Do we need a certain number of allusions per paragraph and a certain amount of angst?

No sir.

There is no "literature" and there is everything "literature." I can read Dante's Inferno and enjoy it. I can read Beloved and enjoy it. I can read Target: 2006 and enjoy it. I don't have to compare them, rank them, or puzzle out which particular kind of enjoyment is more worthwhile than the other.

[Jack Cade]

Where can you point to X number of works and say "look, that's depth" and then point to other works and say "nope, nothing there?"

I point to the number of intelligent, illuminating essays, articles and books written about, say, Seven Samurai and the paltry stack of piss-taking reviews amassed by Revenge of the Fallen. If something is 'deep' it attracts like human intelligence and passion. If something is more just good entertainment, we pay money to see it, but we don't devote countless hours to examining it.

[bumblemusprime]

See, I think there's as much to gain from analyzing trash as there is to gain from analyzing good stuff. If you're a writer, you'll get a sense of what not to do. If you're simply a careful reader, you'll get a better insight into human nature.

Granted, I doubt RotF could ever be more rewarding upon multiple viewings than a good, well-contexted Shakespeare adaptation like Oliver Parker's Othello.

See the IDW board for my extended thoughts on the subject. But dayamn, I sure burned that Matrix, didn't I? Sorry, Matrix.

[bumblemusprime]

Why did no one click this link? This was supposed to be a hilarious joke.

http://forum.idwpublishing.com/viewtopi ... 522#194522

[Brendocon]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Ah, bless em all. They trust you, dawg.

[inflatable dalek]

And now that trust is destroyed. They'll never respect you again.

[Best First]

Why did no one click this link? This was supposed to be a hilarious joke.

http://forum.idwpublishing.com/viewtopi ... 522#194522

damnit you made me post at IDW. You disrespectful tool.

[bumblemusprime]

You see my response. That goes double on this board. In fact, I think I'll [composite word including 'f*ck'] you sideways, just to be sure.

[bumblemusprime]

The sense of humor is rather weak over there.

[Jack Cade]

apparently Costa has 'up till issue 50' planned out.

So 10 issues' worth of material then.

[Jack Cade]

See, I think there's as much to gain from analyzing trash as there is to gain from analyzing good stuff.

We're doing a double dance here, but same point I said over there. Yes, you can analyse trash and find that a worthwhile experience, but you can analyse a lot more in better stuff and keep uncovering more and more booty for a lot longer.

So not 'as much to gain', no, alas. But 'something to gain' - sure. I'm fairly certain you could bleed Twilight dry of all that's worth investigating in it in - well, one or two weekend supplement articles!