Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [cerebus] What do I read after Cerebus?

Expand Messages
  • Dominick Grace
    This is certainly true in terms of scope. No other long-running series offers the same depth and complexity of narrative--at least, not in English. And even
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 14 7:22 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      This is certainly true in terms of scope. No other long-running series offers the same depth and complexity of narrative--at least, not in English. And even among the alternative/independents, Sim was to a considerable extent unique--not much in common with most of the other names that came to prominence at more or less the same time--Bagge, Clowes, Seth, etc. (Not that I woulnd't recommend their work--Clowes's especially) (There also isn't a lot that's comparable tp TMNT, at  acomparable level of quality, either.)
       
      However, if you're relatively new to comics and tend to lean in the indie direction, there are lots of possibilities.
       
      For long-term complex narrative, a lot of folk would recommend the  Hernandez Brothers' various Love and Rockets books. I'm not a huge fan myself, but they are in some respects similar to Sim in that they (or some of them do anyway) track the life stories of several characters over decades.
       
      If you want to see some stuff that was influenced by Sim, you might want to check out Martin Wagner's Hepcats or James Owens's Starchild.
       
      Or if you want to check out folk that Sim mentored/published, there's Valentino's Normalman (originally published by A/V), Messner-Loeb's Journey (recently collected in two phone books; early issues published by AV), or Jeff Smith's Bone (though they had a falling out, Smith was influenced early on by Sim's self-publishing model, and Bone is a fun, thick fantasy not a lot like Cerebus but with at least some common ground).
       
      I'd recommend everything by Chester Brown, but especially Ed the Happy Clown. Be advised, however, that it includes some pretty dark and disturbing content. Most of his stuff has been collected in several GNs, but some hasn't. If you find you like the GNs, you can probably find his unreprinted comics pretty cheap (I recently picked up an almost complete run of Yummy Fur--even though I already had a complete run--for a buck an issue).
       
      Spiegelman, of course, notably Maus. Well, mainly Maus; nothing else I've read by him measures up to that.
       
      Robert Crumb, of course. Most of his stuff is in print as part of the Fantagraphics-published complete Crumb. Maybe start with stuff form the late 1960s or early to mid 1970s.
       
      Charles Burns, notably Black Hole.
       
      Chris Ware's Jimmy Corrigan.
       
      Neil Gaiman's run of Sandman, collected in I forget how many GNs, but it's all available. Doesn't NEED to be read in order, but it helps to do so, so start with Preludes and Nocturnes (I think that's what the first collection is called). If you like that, you might want to check out some of Gaiman's other stuff, too--but NOT The Eternals or 1602, unless you have a yen to try some mainstream superhero stuff. (Except for his Whatever Happened to Batman? story, though, these are probably the weakest things he's done.)
       
      Moore and Campbell's From Hell, Moore and Gibbons's Watchmen, Moore and Lloyd's V for Vendetta. The latter two are located more or less in the superhero world but deal with it in radically deconstructive terms.
       
      You might want to check out some of the stuff that influenced Sim (e.g. the Thomas/Smith Conan, which has been reprinted recently by ... Dark Horse, I think? but with really crappy new computer colours), as long as you don't set your expectations too high (esp. given how crappy the recent editions look), or some of Wrightson's old horror work, if you can find it. Sim was also somewhat influenced by the Warren line (one of his earliest stories was published--art by someone else--in Eerie of Creepy, forget which), and there are big archives of those (Eerie, Creepy, and Vampirella) available at the moment. However, that stuff mostly doesn't stand up too well, so I wouldn't recommend starting there.
       
      If you like the anthropomorhic aspect of Cerebus, you can't go far wrong with Carl Barks, and Fantagraphics has been publishing some nice, reasonably-priced collections of his Donald Duck and Uncle Scrooge comics. Originally written for kids but nevertheless among the best comics ever produced and easily enjoyable by adults not put off by the whole funny animal thing.
       
      Gosh, there's no shortage of great comics out there, really. I could go on ad nauseam, but I'll cut it off here, as this list offers dozens of possiiblities already!
       
      Dom
       
      On 02/14/13, Michael Norwitz <michael@...> wrote:

      Not much compares to Cerebus, unfortunately.

      I recommend Eddie Campbell's Bacchus, for one.


      On Feb 13, 2013, at 9:13 AM, 2nihon wrote:

       

      I'm sure this has probably been asked before, but searching on 'after Cerebus' returns too many results.

      I'm about halfway through Cerebus (issue 129) and would like some suggestions of other comics to read once I'm done. I don't know anything about regular mainline Marvel/DC comics--if there are good ones, I don't know where to start. I enjoyed the original Eastman/Laird TMNT comics (the first few graphic novels), so I guess my taste leans more towards indie comics. What would you suggest?


       
    • John L
      Anything by Alan Moore, but especially The Watchmen, Promethea and From Hell. You can t go wrong with those. John L
      Message 2 of 11 , Feb 14 7:30 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Anything by Alan Moore, but especially The Watchmen, Promethea and From Hell. You can't go wrong with those.

        John L

        On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:13 PM, 2nihon <2nihon@...> wrote:
        I'm sure this has probably been asked before, but searching on 'after Cerebus' returns too many results.

        I'm about halfway through Cerebus (issue 129) and would like some suggestions of other comics to read once I'm done. I don't know anything about regular mainline Marvel/DC comics--if there are good ones, I don't know where to start. I enjoyed the original Eastman/Laird TMNT comics (the first few graphic novels), so I guess my taste leans more towards indie comics. What would you suggest?



        ------------------------------------

        <A HREF="http://comicsvillage.com/column.aspx?ArticleID=499">The House That Mark Built</A>Yahoo! Groups Links

        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cerebus/

        <*> Your email settings:
            Individual Email | Traditional

        <*> To change settings online go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cerebus/join
            (Yahoo! ID required)

        <*> To change settings via email:
            cerebus-digest@yahoogroups.com
            cerebus-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            cerebus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


      • LarryTheIllini
        ... Definitely agreed on the Sandman recommendation. But I d recommend 1602 even for someone who doesn t read a lot of superhero stuff. Of course, it
        Message 3 of 11 , Feb 16 7:05 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Dominick Grace <dgrace2@...> wrote:
          >
          > Neil Gaiman's run of Sandman, collected in I forget how many GNs,
          > but it's all available.
          > ...
          > If you like that, you might want to check out some of Gaiman's
          > other stuff, too--but NOT The Eternals or 1602, unless you have
          > a yen to try some mainstream superhero stuff.

          Definitely agreed on the "Sandman" recommendation. But I'd recommend "1602" even for someone who doesn't read a lot of superhero stuff. Of course, it helps if one knows the Marvel analogues to the characters, but the setting is fascinating, and the story explores ideas that are interesting regardless of how one feels about superhero comics. I'm not going to go into spoilers here, but the scene where someone expounds on a theory of what kind of universe they really live in...that always blows my mind. And that character's gratitude for being locked away in a dungeon, giving him time to think without distraction strikes me as a very Dave Sim-like attitude.

          - Larry Hart
        • Dominick Grace
          ... Hey, Larry! I know you re an admirer of 1602, but the only good thing I can say about it is that it s better than Gaiman s Eternals and Whatever Happened
          Message 4 of 11 , Feb 16 7:45 PM
          • 0 Attachment
             
             
            On 02/16/13, LarryTheIllini <larrytheillini@...> wrote:


            --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Dominick Grace <dgrace2@...> wrote:
            >
            > Neil Gaiman's run of Sandman, collected in I forget how many GNs,
            > but it's all available.
            > ...
            > If you like that, you might want to check out some of Gaiman's
            > other stuff, too--but NOT The Eternals or 1602, unless you have
            > a yen to try some mainstream superhero stuff.

            Definitely agreed on the "Sandman" recommendation.  But I'd recommend "1602" even for someone who doesn't read a lot of superhero stuff.  Of course, it helps if one knows the Marvel analogues to the characters, but the setting is fascinating, and the story explores ideas that are interesting regardless of how one feels about superhero comics.  I'm not going to go into spoilers here, but the scene where someone expounds on a theory of what kind of universe they really live in...that always blows my mind.  And that character's gratitude for being locked away in a dungeon, giving him time to think without distraction strikes me as a very Dave Sim-like attitude.
            Hey, Larry! I know you're an admirer of 1602, but the only good thing I can say about it is that it's better than Gaiman's Eternals and Whatever Happened to Batman stories ... which isn't saying much. Most of what is interesting about Gaiman got subsumed--to my tastes, anyway--in a cookie-cutter Marvel-style plot. I can't imagine recommending it to a comics neophyte. I'd say it more than helps to know the MU characters; indeed, I'd say that f you don't already know who these characters are in the "Real" (whatever that means) Marvel Universe, they'll hold just about no interest whatsoever, I suspect. Much of what sense this book makes depends very heavily on readers already knowing the MU. My take might be informed in part by the fact that i hardly read any superhero comics at all any more, and hadn't for some time before reading 1602, and I discovered to my surprise/horror that it's a lot harder to go back to drinking the Kool-Aid (tm) than I thought it would be; leave the superhero world behind for a while, and you just can't easily go back home again. That said, there were a few nice moments, and that dungeon one is among them.

            Dom
          • LarryTheIllini
            ... I know, I think we ve had similar arguments before on the topic. ... And I m in agreement with you about those two. ... I can see your point, and you may
            Message 5 of 11 , Feb 18 8:43 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Dominick Grace <dgrace2@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hey, Larry! I know you're an admirer of 1602, ...

              I know, I think we've had similar arguments before on the topic.

              > but the only good thing I can say about it is that it's better
              > than Gaiman's Eternals and Whatever Happened to Batman stories ...
              > which isn't saying much.

              And I'm in agreement with you about those two.

              > Most of what is interesting about Gaiman got subsumed--to my
              > tastes, anyway--in a cookie-cutter Marvel-style plot. I can't
              > imagine recommending it to a comics neophyte.

              I can see your point, and you may very well be right.

              However, I also see the opposite point, that the story, the setting, and the ideas in 1602 are powerful enough to help a reader care about the characters even if he doesn't know their "history". Much as I didn't know the Charlton characters being parodied when I first read "Watchmen", but it didn't stop me from enjoying the book.

              Ultimately, it's going to depend on the tastes of the newbie in question.

              > That said, there were a few nice moments, and that dungeon one
              > is among them.
              >

              Glad we have some common ground, anyway. ;)

              - Larry Hart
            • Dominick Grace
              ... True, to be sure. However, for me, there is something of a difference between the Watchmen and the 1602 situation. I don t think in the former case that
              Message 6 of 11 , Feb 18 9:08 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                 


                --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Dominick Grace <dgrace2@...> wrote:
                >
                >  Hey, Larry! I know you're an admirer of 1602, ...

                I know, I think we've had similar arguments before on the topic.

                > but the only good thing I can say about it is that it's better
                > than Gaiman's Eternals and Whatever Happened to Batman stories ...
                > which isn't saying much.

                And I'm in agreement with you about those two.

                > Most of what is interesting about Gaiman got subsumed--to my
                > tastes, anyway--in a cookie-cutter Marvel-style plot. I can't
                > imagine recommending it to a comics neophyte.

                I can see your point, and you may very well be right.

                However, I also see the opposite point, that the story, the setting, and the ideas in 1602 are powerful enough to help a reader care about the characters even if he doesn't know their "history".  Much as I didn't know the Charlton characters being parodied when I first read "Watchmen", but it didn't stop me from enjoying the book.

                Ultimately, it's going to depend on the tastes of the newbie in question.
                True, to be sure. However, for me, there is something of a difference between the Watchmen and the 1602 situation. I don't think in the former case that knowing the Charlton origins of the characters really matters that much (if at all), as they are pretty thoroughly realized as characters in their own right; Rorschach isn't really simply the Question with a different mask. Indeed, to this day, I couldn't tell you what all the correlations to Charlton are. Sure, Rosrchach/Question, Dr Manhatten/Captain Atom, Nite Owl/Blue Beetle ... but ... The Comedian? Not sure who he is adapted from, or Ozymandias, or Sally Jupiter, etc.  By contrast, I'd say that in 1602, the correspondences are so exact that you really can't/don't get a sense of these characters without the association to the "real" MU analogue. I'm guessing there, admittedly, since I can't experience the story from the perspective of someone who doesn't know the connections, but I'd certainly be interested in seeing/hearing what someone with little or no knowledge of the MU would get from it. They might well still enjoy it, but I think ... well, let's put it this way: I think it would be far more likely that one would be able to read Watchmen with little or no knowledge of the Charlton characters (or perhaps even superhero comics in general, though that'd be a harder one, I think) than it would be to read 1602 with little or no knowledge of the MU characters, though as you say, individual tastes or experiences could vary widely on that one. I find it personally instructive that I've never really felt any need to track down the full array of Charlton analogues for Watchmen, as Moore seems to me to have managed to create new characters from old, whereas with his LoEG stuff, I can never get beyond the equations between Moore's versions of the characters and the originals he's ... I'll say appropriated, though in most instances it feels more like "desecrated" to me (that and he no longer seems interested in story so much as in meta-story)--and in reading 1602, I found my response to be more like how I responded to LoEG than Watchmen--that is, once I got the "this is Spider-Man, this is Nick Fury" etc, analogue, I just didn't find much else there to make it interesting. When it was first published, I didn't even bother buying anything after issue one, and only have it now because I found the GN on a bargain table years later. That's of course an entirely subjective response and ought not to impact on anyone else's ability to enjoy the book, but it was a significant factor for why the book didn't do much for me.
                 
                Dom
                 
              • longshanks
                ... The Comedian is Peacemaker. ... Ozymandias is Peter Cannon, Thunderbolt. ... Silk Spectre is Nightshade. But, you re quite right. We don t need to know
                Message 7 of 11 , Feb 18 12:20 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dominick Grace wrote:
                  Rorschach isn't really simply the Question with a different mask. Indeed, to this day, I couldn't tell you what all the correlations to Charlton are. Sure, Rosrchach/Question, Dr Manhatten/Captain Atom, Nite Owl/Blue Beetle ... but ... The Comedian? Not sure who he is adapted from,

                  The Comedian is Peacemaker.
                  or Ozymandias,

                  Ozymandias is Peter Cannon, Thunderbolt.
                  or Sally Jupiter,

                  Silk Spectre is Nightshade.

                  But, you're quite right.  We don't need to know any of that to understand and enjoy "Watchmen".

                  Ed Wilson
                  -- 
                  -- Reality is not enough; we need nonsense, too. Drifting into a world 
                  of fantasy is not an escape from reality but a significant education 
                  about the nature of life. And reality is not an escape from nonsense.
                  Our education goes on everywhere. - Edmund Miller
                  -- For the best in misanthropic rantings, visit Cottsweb:
                  http://briancotts.tripod.com/
                  -- Stories and essays in prose, scripts, video, comics and audio; it's
                  Fishclock: http://fishclock.ca/
                  -- Gayleen Froese, Writing and Music: http://www.gayleenfroese.com/
                  
                  
                • ctowner1
                  ... I kind of agree - w/o the superhero love, I think 1602 would lose a lot of its value. Overall, I thought it was a decent story, but not great. And can you
                  Message 8 of 11 , Feb 20 7:23 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Dominick Grace <dgrace2@...> wrote:


                     
                     
                    On 02/16/13, LarryTheIllini <larrytheillini@...> wrote:


                    --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Dominick Grace <dgrace2@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Neil Gaiman's run of Sandman, collected in I forget how many GNs,
                    > but it's all available.
                    > ...
                    > If you like that, you might want to check out some of Gaiman's
                    > other stuff, too--but NOT The Eternals or 1602, unless you have
                    > a yen to try some mainstream superhero stuff.

                    Definitely agreed on the "Sandman" recommendation.  But I'd recommend "1602" even for someone who doesn't read a lot of superhero stuff.  Of course, it helps if one knows the Marvel analogues to the characters, but the setting is fascinating, and the story explores ideas that are interesting regardless of how one feels about superhero comics.  I'm not going to go into spoilers here, but the scene where someone expounds on a theory of what kind of universe they really live in...that always blows my mind.  And that character's gratitude for being locked away in a dungeon, giving him time to think without distraction strikes me as a very Dave Sim-like attitude.
                    Hey, Larry! I know you're an admirer of 1602, but the only good thing I can say about it is that it's better than Gaiman's Eternals and Whatever Happened to Batman stories ... which isn't saying much. Most of what is interesting about Gaiman got subsumed--to my tastes, anyway--in a cookie-cutter Marvel-style plot. I can't imagine recommending it to a comics neophyte. I'd say it more than helps to know the MU characters; indeed, I'd say that f you don't already know who these characters are in the "Real" (whatever that means) Marvel Universe, they'll hold just about no interest whatsoever, I suspect. Much of what sense this book makes depends very heavily on readers already knowing the MU. My take might be informed in part by the fact that i hardly read any superhero comics at all any more, and hadn't for some time before reading 1602, and I discovered to my surprise/horror that it's a lot harder to go back to drinking the Kool-Aid (tm) than I thought it would be; leave the superhero world behind for a while, and you just can't easily go back home again. That said, there were a few nice moments, and that dungeon one is among them.

                    Dom>>

                    I kind of agree - w/o the superhero love, I think 1602 would lose a lot of its value.  Overall, I thought it was a decent story, but not great.

                    And can you beleive it's been 10 years since it came out? Here:

                    http://www.amazon.com/Marvel-1602-10th-Anniversary-Edition/dp/0785153683

                    e
                    L nny
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.