|
Post by cmautner on Nov 11, 2023 1:12:08 GMT
Has anyone read the new Atlas Comics Library Vol 01: Adventures Into Terror? At 180 pages I'm curious what was chosen to be reprinted. I should have a review of the book up on TCJ sometime soon. It's the first eight issues of the comic, along with the occasional 2-page text piece and inside cover ads.
|
|
GHO
Full Member
(✿ò ⍙ ́O)
Posts: 196
|
Post by GHO on Nov 15, 2023 6:07:26 GMT
The DQ equivalent is an embarrassment, and epitomizes what that once interesting company has become as it slides into bland, self-regarding, non-relevance. It's a bunch of spoiled, privileged illustration majors, with their pinkie toe in comics, waxing sycophantically about the genius of this government-funded, agenda-driven, largely PC publishing house. There's no chance-taking, no intuition, no tumultuous ups or downs (artistically or financially)... even Dave Sim (a middling cartoonist who based his entire career on a dumb adolescent aesthetic premise) has a more interesting personal and career history than DQ. Other than their "original" group - Doucet, Matt, Brown, Seth (the last of whom I now despise) - and their licensed Japanese reprints and Gasoline Alley project - they're a calcified concern for NPR moms, churning out "comix" with all the verve and invention of greeting cards or airport novels. All you need to know about DQ is that they kowtowed to absolute nobody "Sarah Horrocks" (and her ten friends on Twitter) when she (?) got into a public row (something something about transphobia, etc.) with cartoonist Berliac, causing DQ to cancel his book. Anyone who is opposed to and threatened by freedom of the press is a weak-kneed enemy of art, and anyone who would ever put me in that situation, would find me at their door with a baseball bat. DQ caved like the swine they are. Chris and Peggy and Tom would probably gladly line up to lick Justin Trudeau's boots, despite his personal history of blackface and other delights. The Fanta book is, on the other hand, appropriately and accurately wild, contradictory, multi-faceted, never resolving, laugh out loud funny, occasionally terrifying. It certainly has the advantage of recording a more interesting time - the confluence of post-underground/dying mainstream/emerging alt comics/ - and of course the specific personalities involved are in every case more colorful than their tepid equivalents at DQ. Can you imaging Oliveros taking his staff out shooting in the woods? Can you imagine him sleeping with Doucet, as lucky bastard and notorious pussyhound Groth did (clearly stated as such in the Fanta book)? Can you even imagine Oliveros or Burns or Devlin doing something as mild as flipping the bird in a snapshot, like the famous photo of Kim Thompson? Why no, that would be... impolite, god forbid. I have issues with a lot of Fanta's editorial decisions of late, and have had some good and some bad personal interaction with their staff, but Fanta did it first, continues to publish more challenging work (despite their non-admission of Disney supplying them with increasingly censored Barks work, etc.) and these historical volumes only emphasize the differences. I can only suppose anyone who prefers DQ to Fanta, or prefers DQ:25 over We Told You So, is either a complete boor, or afraid of life, and needs to surround themselves with milquetoast affirmations that mommy and daddy never gave them. Sad! idk. I thought it was a pretty good book. lots of comics too.
|
|
|
Post by robindh on Nov 15, 2023 21:43:34 GMT
The DQ equivalent is an embarrassment, and epitomizes what that once interesting company has become as it slides into bland, self-regarding, non-relevance. It's a bunch of spoiled, privileged illustration majors, with their pinkie toe in comics, waxing sycophantically about the genius of this government-funded, agenda-driven, largely PC publishing house. There's no chance-taking, no intuition, no tumultuous ups or downs (artistically or financially)... even Dave Sim (a middling cartoonist who based his entire career on a dumb adolescent aesthetic premise) has a more interesting personal and career history than DQ. Other than their "original" group - Doucet, Matt, Brown, Seth (the last of whom I now despise) - and their licensed Japanese reprints and Gasoline Alley project - they're a calcified concern for NPR moms, churning out "comix" with all the verve and invention of greeting cards or airport novels. All you need to know about DQ is that they kowtowed to absolute nobody "Sarah Horrocks" (and her ten friends on Twitter) when she (?) got into a public row (something something about transphobia, etc.) with cartoonist Berliac, causing DQ to cancel his book. Anyone who is opposed to and threatened by freedom of the press is a weak-kneed enemy of art, and anyone who would ever put me in that situation, would find me at their door with a baseball bat. DQ caved like the swine they are. Chris and Peggy and Tom would probably gladly line up to lick Justin Trudeau's boots, despite his personal history of blackface and other delights. The Fanta book is, on the other hand, appropriately and accurately wild, contradictory, multi-faceted, never resolving, laugh out loud funny, occasionally terrifying. It certainly has the advantage of recording a more interesting time - the confluence of post-underground/dying mainstream/emerging alt comics/ - and of course the specific personalities involved are in every case more colorful than their tepid equivalents at DQ. Can you imaging Oliveros taking his staff out shooting in the woods? Can you imagine him sleeping with Doucet, as lucky bastard and notorious pussyhound Groth did (clearly stated as such in the Fanta book)? Can you even imagine Oliveros or Burns or Devlin doing something as mild as flipping the bird in a snapshot, like the famous photo of Kim Thompson? Why no, that would be... impolite, god forbid. I have issues with a lot of Fanta's editorial decisions of late, and have had some good and some bad personal interaction with their staff, but Fanta did it first, continues to publish more challenging work (despite their non-admission of Disney supplying them with increasingly censored Barks work, etc.) and these historical volumes only emphasize the differences. I can only suppose anyone who prefers DQ to Fanta, or prefers DQ:25 over We Told You So, is either a complete boor, or afraid of life, and needs to surround themselves with milquetoast affirmations that mommy and daddy never gave them. Sad! idk. I thought it was a pretty good book. lots of comics too. Yeah, worth it for the Mazzucchelli ("Rates of Exchange," an all-timer imo) alone
|
|
|
Post by pentimento on Nov 16, 2023 3:29:12 GMT
The DQ equivalent is an embarrassment, and epitomizes what that once interesting company has become as it slides into bland, self-regarding, non-relevance. It's a bunch of spoiled, privileged illustration majors, with their pinkie toe in comics, waxing sycophantically about the genius of this government-funded, agenda-driven, largely PC publishing house. There's no chance-taking, no intuition, no tumultuous ups or downs (artistically or financially)... even Dave Sim (a middling cartoonist who based his entire career on a dumb adolescent aesthetic premise) has a more interesting personal and career history than DQ. Other than their "original" group - Doucet, Matt, Brown, Seth (the last of whom I now despise) - and their licensed Japanese reprints and Gasoline Alley project - they're a calcified concern for NPR moms, churning out "comix" with all the verve and invention of greeting cards or airport novels. All you need to know about DQ is that they kowtowed to absolute nobody "Sarah Horrocks" (and her ten friends on Twitter) when she (?) got into a public row (something something about transphobia, etc.) with cartoonist Berliac, causing DQ to cancel his book. Anyone who is opposed to and threatened by freedom of the press is a weak-kneed enemy of art, and anyone who would ever put me in that situation, would find me at their door with a baseball bat. DQ caved like the swine they are. Chris and Peggy and Tom would probably gladly line up to lick Justin Trudeau's boots, despite his personal history of blackface and other delights. The Fanta book is, on the other hand, appropriately and accurately wild, contradictory, multi-faceted, never resolving, laugh out loud funny, occasionally terrifying. It certainly has the advantage of recording a more interesting time - the confluence of post-underground/dying mainstream/emerging alt comics/ - and of course the specific personalities involved are in every case more colorful than their tepid equivalents at DQ. Can you imaging Oliveros taking his staff out shooting in the woods? Can you imagine him sleeping with Doucet, as lucky bastard and notorious pussyhound Groth did (clearly stated as such in the Fanta book)? Can you even imagine Oliveros or Burns or Devlin doing something as mild as flipping the bird in a snapshot, like the famous photo of Kim Thompson? Why no, that would be... impolite, god forbid. I have issues with a lot of Fanta's editorial decisions of late, and have had some good and some bad personal interaction with their staff, but Fanta did it first, continues to publish more challenging work (despite their non-admission of Disney supplying them with increasingly censored Barks work, etc.) and these historical volumes only emphasize the differences. I can only suppose anyone who prefers DQ to Fanta, or prefers DQ:25 over We Told You So, is either a complete boor, or afraid of life, and needs to surround themselves with milquetoast affirmations that mommy and daddy never gave them. Sad! idk. I thought it was a pretty good book. lots of comics too. Well, you convinced me
|
|
|
Post by pentimento on Nov 16, 2023 3:34:34 GMT
As a comics publisher history, the DQ volume is, as I said above, a pedantic, pandering, sycophantic boor - a failure. The FBI volume is better in every way - warts and all. It's essentially the difference between fuck you USA madness and polite denim tuxedo Canadian officiousness. The choice is clear to any living intelligence.
The comics in the DQ volume don't really have a counterpart in the FBI book. They're filler, and second-rate filler and leftovers at that.
FUCK DRAWN & QUARTERLY. When we invade Canada, they're first on the chopping block.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
|
|
|
Post by pentimento on Nov 16, 2023 3:38:14 GMT
I should be clear: I've met and corresponded with and worked with about a dozen employees of FBI, and all but one of them were fucking dickhead cocksuckers (especially Jacob Covey and his wretched wife) but there's no denying that they are THE publisher (comics or otherwise) of the last 50 years. No question at all, period, end of discussion. D & Q is a mere afterthought. This board wouldn't even exist if not for Fanta and their books.
|
|
|
Post by adamszym on Nov 16, 2023 15:09:50 GMT
okay
|
|
|
Post by alaird on Nov 16, 2023 19:32:40 GMT
d&q is cool
|
|
|
Post by pentimento on Nov 17, 2023 1:29:24 GMT
No man, it is NOT "okay," wake up and smell the salts, brother pussy, snap that withered brain of yours to attention, holmes
|
|
|
Post by dominocorp on Nov 17, 2023 3:04:31 GMT
This board wouldn't even exist if not for Fanta and their books. I enjoy all of what pentimento writes, but this made me think of something: publishers don't control the narrative anymore. Fanta influenced the culture of this board (and much else to say the least), true. But what will influence a similar discussion in 20 years? I'd say the artists, without a 'curatorial' hand guiding the reaction. There's no way to follow Fanta and D and Q's line right now and have even a moderately good idea of what's happening in alternative/art/literary/whatever you call it comics. Often times, the feeling is 'why are the 'good' publishers not working with the brightest lights, in the way that I remember them doing when I first encountered them?' I think the bookstore market as the focus has led to a conservative swing for all of them, we thought Doucet next to Phillip Roth would solve things, but instead it meant Darryl Cunningham next to Malcolm Gladwell. So the Doucet of right now needs to figure things out on their own...which, for what underground/transgressive art should be, is a good thing and will lead to a stronger expression of comic art than could be hoped for just by looking to the 'curators.' 2012 felt like a big 'curator' time. Curated festivals, boutique shops, etc. What are the guys who 'get it' saying, who can program us to 'the right stuff'? Now, there's no such authority, instead it's artists influencing other artists and forming their own networks, and readers having to make qualitive judgements on their own, in private with the books themselves and their thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by mikesheawright on Nov 17, 2023 3:17:12 GMT
i haven't read either of these books but i'd be interested in more people engaging with what pentimento is saying rather than tossing off snide responses, those seem like lame social media reactions for other platforms. the cool thing about spaces like this board is we can get more into these kinds of details and get pissed about stuff and then talk about it without losing the conversation thread to a flowing feed of garbage. would be a shame to lose nuance here to the same Me vs. You nonsense that infects everywhere else imho.
|
|
|
Post by adamszym on Nov 17, 2023 4:42:22 GMT
i haven't read either of these books but i'd be interested in more people engaging with what pentimento is saying rather than tossing off snide responses, those seem like lame social media reactions for other platforms. the cool thing about spaces like this board is we can get more into these kinds of details and get pissed about stuff and then talk about it without losing the conversation thread to a flowing feed of garbage. would be a shame to lose nuance here to the same Me vs. You nonsense that infects everywhere else imho. I get what you’re saying and am not trying to be combative with you, but respectfully I would be happy to take him seriously if he chilled out and talked like someone who wanted to be taken seriously. You say you don’t want to lose the “conversation thread to a flowing feed of garbage” or to “lose nuance” while talking about a guy who rants about who Gary Groth used to fuck and calls him a “pussyhound.” Whatever intelligence there is in Penti’s posts (and there certainly seems to be some!) is completely suffocated by all the weird baggage he brings along with him to every single post. As of now Penti’s posts are entertaining in their way but certainly don’t inspire me to engage with any of the ideas buried under all the set dressing.
|
|
|
Post by mikesheawright on Nov 17, 2023 12:38:45 GMT
i haven't read either of these books but i'd be interested in more people engaging with what pentimento is saying rather than tossing off snide responses, those seem like lame social media reactions for other platforms. the cool thing about spaces like this board is we can get more into these kinds of details and get pissed about stuff and then talk about it without losing the conversation thread to a flowing feed of garbage. would be a shame to lose nuance here to the same Me vs. You nonsense that infects everywhere else imho. I get what you’re saying and am not trying to be combative with you, but respectfully I would be happy to take him seriously if he chilled out and talked like someone who wanted to be taken seriously. You say you don’t want to lose the “conversation thread to a flowing feed of garbage” or to “lose nuance” while talking about a guy who rants about who Gary Groth used to fuck and calls him a “pussyhound.” Whatever intelligence there is in Penti’s posts (and there certainly seems to be some!) is completely suffocated by all the weird baggage he brings along with him to every single post. As of now Penti’s posts are entertaining in their way but certainly don’t inspire me to engage with any of the ideas buried under all the set dressing. fair points for sure! i guess i just meant that i think it's okay to be pissed off about stuff and by poking it without engaging with it it just escalates the anger? but yeah of course engagement goes both ways def.
|
|
|
Post by jporcellino on Nov 17, 2023 21:11:22 GMT
This board wouldn't even exist if not for Fanta and their books. I enjoy all of what pentimento writes, but this made me think of something: publishers don't control the narrative anymore. Fanta influenced the culture of this board (and much else to say the least), true. But what will influence a similar discussion in 20 years? I'd say the artists, without a 'curatorial' hand guiding the reaction. There's no way to follow Fanta and D and Q's line right now and have even a moderately good idea of what's happening in alternative/art/literary/whatever you call it comics. Often times, the feeling is 'why are the 'good' publishers not working with the brightest lights, in the way that I remember them doing when I first encountered them?' I think the bookstore market as the focus has led to a conservative swing for all of them, we thought Doucet next to Phillip Roth would solve things, but instead it meant Darryl Cunningham next to Malcolm Gladwell. So the Doucet of right now needs to figure things out on their own...which, for what underground/transgressive art should be, is a good thing and will lead to a stronger expression of comic art than could be hoped for just by looking to the 'curators.' 2012 felt like a big 'curator' time. Curated festivals, boutique shops, etc. What are the guys who 'get it' saying, who can program us to 'the right stuff'? Now, there's no such authority, instead it's artists influencing other artists and forming their own networks, and readers having to make qualitive judgements on their own, in private with the books themselves and their thoughts. Amen. We're back to where things were in 1996, where all (read: most) of the best stuff was underground -- in self-published, photocopied [ie riso-ed/home-printed nowadays etc] editions being passed through the mail, or [nowadays] sold direct at shows. There's too much stuff for the publishers to handle, and the great stuff is so far ahead of the curve that it's not on the publishers' radar until it's time to collect the zines in book form, if then. Additionally, artists have fully realized the creative and financial benefits of self-publishing, and serial publication. I do think, as Austin says, chasing the bookstore market is one of the reasons for the publishers getting conservative. That and the requirements of mainstream distribution (a certain number of titles, published annually, regularly, etc, with spines, etc). In a way, that leaves the "minor leagues" to the people who know it best... the artists themselves and the hardcore readers. All in all, not a bad way to do things. I say it all the time: longtime cartoonists passed through the "Graphic Novel Revolution," saw what worked and what didn't, and have continued to adapt based on their findings/experiences, in order to not only survive, but make the art they want to make, the way they want to make it. And they've provided a model for younger cartoonists to explore/follow/adapt to their own needs. It's a dang Golden Age!
|
|
|
Post by jporcellino on Nov 18, 2023 2:26:43 GMT
I say it all the time: longtime cartoonists passed through the "Graphic Novel Revolution," saw what worked and what didn't, and have continued to adapt based on their findings/experiences, in order to not only survive, but make the art they want to make, the way they want to make it. And they've provided a model for younger cartoonists to explore/follow/adapt to their own needs. It's a dang Golden Age! Quoting myself (oh well) to clarify: I'm sooper jazzed to see older cartoonists like Kevin H., Sammy H., Marc Bell, Anders Nilsen, and younger cartoonists like Simon H., Alex Graham, Noah Van Sciver, etc putting out amazing self-published comics, with great production values and reasonable prices, either in the run-up to or alongside their more traditionally published work. That's become the sustainable way to do it. The juice is still underground.
|
|