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

Re: OK, help me out with Tangent(s)

Expand Messages
  • raycornwall
    ... The thing that kills me about his beliefs is that 1. his beliefs on marriage aren t that out of the mainstream. Go listen to Lewis Black rant about
    Message 1 of 7 , Jul 11, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "Jonas" <kaoru_is_here@...> wrote:
      >
      > It's been many years since I read "Tangent", but I'm currently working myself through the first "Collected Letters" volume. Which isn't exactly the same, but since he articulates his views (and not just on feminism) there as well, I think I can drop some thoughts on it.
      >
      > The thing is that he perceives reality through a very own Dave Sim-filter that has a certain bias and parameters to work with. I always thought that it was a bit of a cliche to say „Everything that he doesn't like or disproves he puts a 'feminism' stamp on it.", but now that I'm almost through with this book I have to agree that it's exactly what he does. If he doesn't like a word, then some feminist made it up. If there's political view (of any kind) he doesn't share he brands it automatically as feministic. It's as if he's playing a bizarre version of the Kevin Bacon game. No matter what it is, he can trace it all back to feminism. Assume he doesn't like milk in his coffee, and he'll come up with some far-fetched story about the coffee industry trying to appeal to women, just because he used to know one woman (or two) who prefered to drink it that way. Say what you like, but it's not that far off from people who see the number 23 everwhere, no matter where they look. And that's not the only thing he's got in common with them: He just can't stop talking about that topic. Because he's obsessed. Somewhere in this book was a letter in which he complains about being bullied by everyone to talk about it and explain himself when he would just prefer to spend his mind on over things. However it's actually him just won't shut up on it. Just notice how quickly to jumps back to feminism when other things are discussed. He just can't let it slide, even for once, because he's completely consumed by it.
      >
      > So... well... maybe he doesn't see himself as a misogynist or whatever the word of the day is. But that's pretty much only because he has built his very own reality with very own rules and definitions. If he doesn't seem himself as a misogynist then it's only because his definition of one is completely different to everyone else's, including the Oxford dictionary. But since he never really stated what to him this label means (Well, at least *I* never saw him stating it or it always just passed me by.), it's a bit difficult to see him behind all these rants as something else, or even singing that petition of his. If you're always busy to say why you're not a feminist, why not state even once why you're not a misogynist? Especially when you think that everyone is wrongly accusing you as one?
      >
      > Well, that are more or less my thoughts on that topic...
      >
      The thing that kills me about his beliefs is that
      1. his beliefs on marriage aren't that out of the mainstream. Go listen to Lewis Black rant about Valentine's Day on his new album. It's all there, but Lewis Black gets laughs and Dave can't get enough readers for Glamorpuss. He's become THAT guy.

      2. The beliefs don't hurt the comic- in fact, Cerebus gets better and better the farther into the hole he goes. I'm into Latter Days Book One, and it's mind-boggling brilliant. The Three Stooges as the Three Wise Men? Forcing Cerebus to say something...truthful? pure? Word of Cerebusy?...is amazing. Cerebus continues the hero's arc towards the end of his life. It wasn't what I was expecting. I still expected him to finish his life as a drunkard. But it doesn't look like it's going to happen that way (no spoilers, please).

      And "If Five Bar Gate Is My Destiny"? BRILLIANT. Amazing stuff. And after years of 12-24 part graphic novels. he pumps out 2 one-shots that just are roll-on-the-ground funny. Gerhard turns out what might be his best bit in the long shot of the altar/temple in that two-page shot. These guys are coooking on fire at this point...

      ...and Dave's lost the audience because of the backmatter.

      How did Dave do all the Bible pages, anyway, without a typesetter? Did he pass that off to Gehrard? Did he do it himself? Is that ever explained?
    • Eddie
      There was an issue of TCJ (258? there were two issues of TCJ where he wrote letters/responses around the same time. It might have been discussed on the list)
      Message 2 of 7 , Jul 19, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        There was an issue of TCJ (258? there were two issues of TCJ where he wrote letters/responses around the same time. It might have been discussed on the list) where in response to someone about Tangent he mentioned that his statement that "All women are Feminists" was a plant/untruth.

        --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "raycornwall" <ray@...> wrote:
        >
        > I'm a long-time Cerebus reader- started and got caught up right after Melmoth (which I still swear to this day is a masterpiece), bought every issue and phonebook, but fell off the read right around Form & Void. I had all the issues, but just kept saying to myself, "I'll do a big full read of all 300 issues someday!" Well, someday is now, and in fact, I just finished Form and Void, about to go into Latter Days.
        >
        > I also promised myself that when done, I'd determine whether or not to sign the peititon. I figured that if I read all 300 issues and the backmatter (yes, I'm reading the back pages too- Aardvark Comment, ads, Single Pages, everything), I'd be as qualified as anyone about signing the doc.
        >
        > I got through 186 again- less nasty than I remembered. Most of Dave's venom was really aimed at the institute of marriage and feminism. Not my opinions, and I think he completely discounts any reasons why men get married other than sex, but hey, not inherently misogynistic. There's a comment in one of the post-186 issues in which he takes a cheap shot at the number of male graphic novelists vs. female graphic novelists, but not enough to tip the scale.
        >
        > Got through Guys, Rick's Story, and Going Home. I had no problem with the Jeff Smith fight bit- if Jeff never said to his face about giving him a "fat lip" and then pronounced to the world that he did, well, I'd be tempted to say the same thing. Lots of knocks on feminism, but again, knocks on feminism aren't inherently misogynistic.
        >
        > Then comes Tangent.
        >
        > Hoo boy.
        >
        > "...a.) women want to be raped by rich, muscular, handsome doctors b.) women are completely self-absorbed and, thus, see themselves in everything around them"
        >
        > "A woman is going to do whatever makes her cheerful at the moment and that, in my experience, is the extent of her perception of ethics."
        >
        > And it goes on and on. The intellectual arguments against feminism (again, not my beliefs or rational conclusions, but okay) suddenly become belief-based rants against women. The complete break happens when he goes, "For feminists, for wives, for women, for Emotion-based beings...". Since in the piece he earlier declares "Women are Emotion-based beings", I have a hard time seeing any point in arguing that Dave no longer sees women and feminists as two different creatures.
        >
        > The rest of the piece continues in this spiral- no longer trying to argue points of reason, he's spouting things he believes while trying to argue that women are emotion-based while men are, what, reason-based creatures? Every problem under the sun becomes a problem created by feminists and homosexualists, with no blame assigned to men.
        >
        > And there are over 500 people who have signed a petition stating Dave (who is a major influence on my life, and who has been unfairly pillored for a lot of things that I don't think are fair, and has been the subject of numerous hatchet jobs by fan pubs) isn't a misogynist.
        >
        > And I'm left thinking, "Dave probably isn't a misogynist. But he just might be bugfucking gobsmacked nuts." And I hate to say that, because I know he struggled with mental illness issues earlier in life, and I don't want to pick on him. But what other conclusion is left?
        >
        > The nicest thing I can say about Tangent is that it happened right when Diana and Carol quit on him, and maybe it's an emotional post from a guy who normally doesn't do emotional posts. And yet, Tangent was at least already started when Carol left (that's why she quit).
        >
        > I really hate that this is my first post to the group. I really wanted it to be after I finished The Big Read. I'm still in shock over the Cerebus/Jaka breakup- I knew it was coming, the relationship had gone so wrong, and yet the breakup still hurt, which meant Dave did it right.
        >
        > But, seriously, how do you get through Tangent and not, y'know, go "WHAT?"
        >
        > Hoping this generates more light than heat.
        >
      • Eddie
        It is #258. Actually his whole multi-page letter in there is worth reading, and deals with a lot of the things discussed here. Would make a nice inclusion if
        Message 3 of 7 , Jul 19, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          It is #258. Actually his whole multi-page letter in there is worth reading, and deals with a lot of the things discussed here. Would make a nice inclusion if someone was to do a "Dave Sim Conversations: Sequel" (hint hint)

          --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "Jonas" <kaoru_is_here@...> wrote:
          >
          > It's been many years since I read "Tangent", but I'm currently working myself through the first "Collected Letters" volume. Which isn't exactly the same, but since he articulates his views (and not just on feminism) there as well, I think I can drop some thoughts on it.
          >
          > The thing is that he perceives reality through a very own Dave Sim-filter that has a certain bias and parameters to work with. I always thought that it was a bit of a cliche to say „Everything that he doesn't like or disproves he puts a 'feminism' stamp on it.", but now that I'm almost through with this book I have to agree that it's exactly what he does. If he doesn't like a word, then some feminist made it up. If there's political view (of any kind) he doesn't share he brands it automatically as feministic. It's as if he's playing a bizarre version of the Kevin Bacon game. No matter what it is, he can trace it all back to feminism. Assume he doesn't like milk in his coffee, and he'll come up with some far-fetched story about the coffee industry trying to appeal to women, just because he used to know one woman (or two) who prefered to drink it that way. Say what you like, but it's not that far off from people who see the number 23 everwhere, no matter where they look. And that's not the only thing he's got in common with them: He just can't stop talking about that topic. Because he's obsessed. Somewhere in this book was a letter in which he complains about being bullied by everyone to talk about it and explain himself when he would just prefer to spend his mind on over things. However it's actually him just won't shut up on it. Just notice how quickly to jumps back to feminism when other things are discussed. He just can't let it slide, even for once, because he's completely consumed by it.
          >
          > So... well... maybe he doesn't see himself as a misogynist or whatever the word of the day is. But that's pretty much only because he has built his very own reality with very own rules and definitions. If he doesn't seem himself as a misogynist then it's only because his definition of one is completely different to everyone else's, including the Oxford dictionary. But since he never really stated what to him this label means (Well, at least *I* never saw him stating it or it always just passed me by.), it's a bit difficult to see him behind all these rants as something else, or even singing that petition of his. If you're always busy to say why you're not a feminist, why not state even once why you're not a misogynist? Especially when you think that everyone is wrongly accusing you as one?
          >
          > Well, that are more or less my thoughts on that topic...
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.