Mr Seb ([info]azureskies) wrote,
@ 2007-11-30 13:07:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:all in color for a dime

Comics snobbery below
Dear Internet : just because you don't understand The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Black Dossier, it doesn't mean it isn't actually any good.

Seriously, I can't believe how negative some of the reaction has been (well, maybe I shouldn't be surprised at your average online comics reviewer being unable to "get" the book, but still). I've finally been able to get my grubby mitts on my copy this morning, and read about half of it on the train - and it's fantastic. It's not as strong a story as the other two volumes, but it's not supposed to be. The world it fashions for itself - a brilliant spin on 1984 - is superb, the level and sheer number of literary references is actually too much to take in upon one read, it will devote pages to a telling of the life story of Virginia Woolf's Orlando in one breath and throw in references to The Fast Show and Carry on Cabbie the next... it is, quite simply, brilliant, and while it may not heap any further weight on the argument that Alan Moore is this country's greatest living writer, it certainly doesn't detract from it.

Yet here are a few choice selections from some online reviewers :

"The question raised by all this, though, is whether it was more fun for Moore to write all this than it is for us to read it."

"And I think that's probably got more to do with the fact that this book just seems so darned unnecessary. Yeah, the production qualities are nice, but cripes, the plot's just pointless, which I should have half suspected going into it anyway. The original LXG was darkly funny and a fresh twist at the time. This one? Well, it's dark, anyway." (Yes, they actually say 'LXG'. Quite a few times throughout the review, in fact)

"The comic portion was good enough, although I felt at times there was way too much dialog going on with references that took me awhile to grasp that this was a much different 1958 than anyone was familiar with."

"I did not like this book. There was not enough comic to it... I’m past the point where it’s fun to read comics that feel like homework. The lengthy text sections, mimicking the styles of other, well-known writers, I skipped entirely, because they were overwhelming... I also, and I cringe at the potential response to this but I’m going to say it anyway, outgrew this kind of fanfiction years ago... Stop being so clever, Mr. Moore, and write stories with real plots with your own characters."

Jesus Christ. A sad indictment of the state of online comics reviewing.



(Post a new comment)


[info]channelzero
2007-11-30 03:56 pm UTC (link)
At least someone got it right.

http://www.denofgeek.com/comics/6896/alan_moores_black_dossier_review.html

OH YEAH! IT WAS ME!

Seriously, anyone using the term "LXG" should be shot, and I'm glad I finally got a reference to the League of Extreme Gentlemen into a wider public forum through my review. Let's hope it catches on!

(Reply to this)


[info]voter_colonel
2007-11-30 06:27 pm UTC (link)
Surely the purpose of a comic work such as this is to entertain the readers. If the majority of readers are not entertained by it then it does not fulfil its purpose for them, even though it fulfils its purpose for you. Additionally, whether or not something like this is any good is a completely subjective viewpoint, therefore you are as wrong to say it's brilliant as they are to say it's pants. And vice versa. My brother thinks Glengarry Glen Ross is a fantastic film, I think its two hours of dross. We just have to agree to disagree. Occasionally I will be pedantic on whether something is any good or not but only if I can prove it through rational reasoning or logic.
However using the term LXG is bloody stupid. I'm with you on that one.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]channelzero
2007-11-30 09:38 pm UTC (link)
The thing is... it's possible to be objective about a piece of work with regards to its quality, even if you're ultimately not entertained by it. I hate Moulin Rouge, for instance, but I can recognise that it's not a bad film - it's just not my kind of good film. Quality cannot be decided solely on consensus, surely?

In any case, saying things like "too much dialogue I didn't understand" and "I outgrew this kind of fanfiction years ago" say nothing about the work and everything about the reviewers. Black Dossier is laced with technical genius from start to finish. Putting down Moore's comics is like listening to Mozart once and then declaring it crap - it's either because you don't understand what makes a composer good, or because you shouldn't be listening to classical music in the first place.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]voter_colonel
2007-12-01 11:52 pm UTC (link)
I agree that the comment about outgrowing fan fiction is silly and demonstrates nothing but the prejudice of the reviewer - but the comment about not understanding the dialogue is valid. If you read something and don't understand it, you can bet you're not the only one. If a big chunk of the target audience (and don't forget, the people writing reviews are people probably used to reading many comics) cannot follow what is happening on the page, that is bordering on objective rather than subjective criticism and thus carries more weight.
Personally I don't like Mozart, but that is because he has a Lennon/McCartney style tendency to write lots of rubbish among all the fantastic pieces. However I can appreciate the best things he did are among the best things anyone ever did. Even though I prefer Beethoven.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]azureskies
2007-12-02 10:57 am UTC (link)
If a big chunk of the target audience (and don't forget, the people writing reviews are people probably used to reading many comics) cannot follow what is happening on the page, that is bordering on objective rather than subjective criticism and thus carries more weight.

Yes, but... well, how to put this... anyone who won't understand Black Dossier really isn't among its target audience. I know that sounds snobby, and it probably is, but really, it's that kind of book. It's a deeply dense, at times difficult, groundbreakingly-structured piece of highly literary sequential art. It's not just another comic of the sort most online comics bloggers are likely to be used to.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

took me awhile to grasp that this was a much different 1958 than anyone was familiar with
[info]barrysarll
2007-12-01 12:32 pm UTC (link)
This one in particular needs to be crushed to death with copies of the earlier volumes, in the hope that maybe that way they'll get the point at last.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…