if that dog *was* to meow (like, say, by including long text sections that the reviewer is too lazy to be bothered with) then you can still bitchily remind it that, for a dog, it's a pretty bad cat, and that "The Great Alan Moore" should live up to the reputation you SAY he has as a cat impersonator.
Hee. That reference works a little better, but I was referring to this strip, which is pretty much exactly what the reviewer is doing. I mean, the book has been in development for years and Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neill made NO SECRET that the book was going to be a multi-media project and made reference in various interviews to the Shakespeare play, 3-D section, Beat novel, etc.
If the worst that you can say about a comic writer is that they're writing a sourcebook in comic form that isn't ENOUGH like a traditional comic and that it should be more like a traditional comic so you can condemn it for being predictable,
Ha-ha! YES! That had me laughing so hard.
I think that the reviewer's own frustrations as a failed artist who did fanfic in her youth and is now condemmed to pick nits in a more notable artist's work. "It can't be art", she maintains angrily "I used to do this too - and I'm *SHIT*!"
Hah!
The thing is, there's a market in the publishing world out there for fanfic. Nobody's buying my comicslash, obviously. But some of the big literary fiction books out there: Wicked, the Thursday Next novels, the quadjillion Pride and Prejudice sequels out there, A book recently came out telling the backstory of Rhett Butler in Gone With the Wind, etc. Some of them, like Grendel and Wide Sargasso Sea have become classics in their own right, and are sometimes taught alongside Beowulf and Jane Eyre as opposite ways of looking at the story. Sort of like, oh ... seeing James Bond as a self-interested rapist might be seen as another way of looking at a story. Now, do I think all of these are good? No. But I think the genre's established enough to look at a work on its own terms.
Re: Exactly
Hee. That reference works a little better, but I was referring to this strip, which is pretty much exactly what the reviewer is doing. I mean, the book has been in development for years and Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neill made NO SECRET that the book was going to be a multi-media project and made reference in various interviews to the Shakespeare play, 3-D section, Beat novel, etc.
If the worst that you can say about a comic writer is that they're writing a sourcebook in comic form that isn't ENOUGH like a traditional comic and that it should be more like a traditional comic so you can condemn it for being predictable,
Ha-ha! YES! That had me laughing so hard.
I think that the reviewer's own frustrations as a failed artist who did fanfic in her youth and is now condemmed to pick nits in a more notable artist's work. "It can't be art", she maintains angrily "I used to do this too - and I'm *SHIT*!"
Hah!
The thing is, there's a market in the publishing world out there for fanfic. Nobody's buying my comicslash, obviously. But some of the big literary fiction books out there: Wicked, the Thursday Next novels, the quadjillion Pride and Prejudice sequels out there, A book recently came out telling the backstory of Rhett Butler in Gone With the Wind, etc. Some of them, like Grendel and Wide Sargasso Sea have become classics in their own right, and are sometimes taught alongside Beowulf and Jane Eyre as opposite ways of looking at the story. Sort of like, oh ... seeing James Bond as a self-interested rapist might be seen as another way of looking at a story. Now, do I think all of these are good? No. But I think the genre's established enough to look at a work on its own terms.