Cerebus is a comic that seems to often come up when you ask about the worst comic ever. We didn’t have anyone write about it…but I thought I’d have an open thread, and people can have at it if they wish (or not, of course!)
__________
Click here for the Anniversary Index of Hate.
yes
Well, what the hey, I’ll kick it off. I read the first volume of Cerebus and loved it; read the second and was bored irritated; never bothered to go on. So, at least for me, there’s definitely at least part of Cerebus I quite enjoy, so it wouldn’t make a worst list for me … though maybe it could if I forced myself through the entire thing.
I also like the art in Cerebus quite a bit, I have to say.
Even for people who hated the last third, or would hate the whole thing for the gender politics (or religion) towards the end, I can’t see how one could ignore the great work earlier in the series. Cerebus can be wildly uneven, but even at it’s worst it was ambitious and formally inventive.
Noah, you never even made it to the good parts!
Depends which story. At least some of his work is worthwhile. Noah, what do you think of His First Fifth?
That’s what people tell me. I really enjoyed the satire and silliness…the first volume is not unlike the Tick or Flaming Carrot (and that’s high praise from me.) But the second volume…I think some of the problems with the female characters actually started to sneak in, and put me off.
Maybe I’ll make it further through at some point….
OK. Whew. I was worried Noah hadn’t read it. I think most people would really like the story I linked to.
That current comments thread over at TCJ is more fun than just about any comic being made today. Based on the existence of Cerebus alone, Sim is a gift that keeps on giving. I think we have to factor that into the book’s evaluation. I mean, you can’t really separate Sim from his comic. And people arguing over Sim is more interesting than the last half of Cerebus (well, I gave up somewhere when text began to dominate the pages).
Anyway, the first issue I ever read was the one where Cerebus goes to a convention. I thought that was really funny in middle school. Loved Wolveroach, Lord Julius and Pope Cerebus throwing a screaming baby over rooftops, too. Not sure about all that now (well, killing babies is still funny to me).
No.
I just finished “Guys” (the start of the last, “bad,” third.)
“Guys” has some really ugly depictions of women — or, if you squint and look sideways, really spot-on depictions of how really misogynist men think of women.
But it also has Bear’s absolutely fantastic lecture to Cerebus about why Cerebus, well, sucks as a person and as a friend.
It’s hard not to see this as Sim running himself down — but that only makes it ring more true.
Stuff like that keeps me coming back. Flawed, offensive, boring in places, inconsistent, overlong — you could fairly hit Cerebus with a lot of sticks. But worst comic ever? Not even close.
cerebus is asinine, sloppy, tone-deaf, ugly and burdensome to read from beginning through its unraveling to the very end. sucks.
Nah, it’s great.
It doesn’t seem sloppy to me. The art is crisp and composed (waaaaaaaaay moreso than mainstream comics). Not sure what tone-deaf means here….again, I don’t find the art ugly at all, and I whipped through the first volume at least, so that wasn’t burdensome at all.
Is there something about the anthropomorphism that gets you in particular?
i find the cartooning stiff and unpleasant, a clumsy bridge between tooniness and naturalism. Cerebus himself can be quite cute (though the sonic-the-hedgehog double egg-yolk eyeballs strike me in particular as a dated and unsuccessful artifact) but the humans are unpleasant to behold. that’s my individual aesthetic opinion. it’s not wrong to enjoy the (clearly skilled) draftsmanship. but it’s not right for me.
I have a very hard time believing that anyone can look at Cerebus and not at the minimum recognize the massive amount of raw cartooning skill Sim has at his disposal, even in the latter days. And that skill is exercised not to make slick commercial pablum, but to express an incredibly idiosyncratic worldview — granted, an abhorrent worldview, but also a fascinatingly bonkers one. Unless politics/philosophical viewpoint is your sticking point on the quality of a work of art (and it definitely isn’t for me) then I can’t see any way to calling Cerebus even close to the worst comic ever.
Maybe some people might if they felt betrayed by it (a la your piece on Matt Wagner, Jason?) I had assumed that that was where a lot of the animosity came from…that is, form the way he switched gears later in the run….
you’re onto something there Noah. All that skill and intelligence and ambitious, creative formal complexity… all for this??
the art is good (i didn’t really imply that it was bad, i just don’t like it) but i don’t think good art on its face can always be counted as points against the work’s overall badness. Remember VM’s great Alex Ross post?
Cerebus is complex, but jarring, incoherently so. it has an ambitious message… that is a bad message.
Noah made a good point in Kinkutty’s MAUS piece earlier about the validity of feeling alienated by a work, and Cerebus is pretty alienating to me. It could be that the discussion and controversy surrounding the work adds value to it, but my position is still one of dismissal.
i can’t take away how anyone else engages with the book, whether they are impressed by the art, the technical ambition, the scale, or whether they find it funny or fascinating or worthwhile in its outrageousness. but i don’t share any of that.
this very website https://hoodedutilitarian.com/2011/08/the-top-115/
ranked it as the 16th best comic of all time. Not to mention all the other best of lists that it tops
Well, a lot of the comics on that list were declared worst comic ever in this hatefest! Maus, Watchmen, the Charles Addams cartoons, V for Vendetta, Tezuka, Kirby, Sandman, goodbye chunky rice…probably I’m missing something, but there’s no shortage of overlap, obviously.
oops sorry. ok. nevermind then:) Carry on.
That is some good company lol Wish my comic would be on that list https://www.comic-rocket.com/explore/captain-zap/
one can always hope:)
That feeling of betrayal is almost certainly the primary reason people hate Cerebus so much; I think if you come into it expecting that it turns crazy at some point, you’re not as disappointed by what seems like a sudden turn to loathsomeness. And really, it gets pretty nuts here and there well before the infamous issue #186.
Noah, I would recommend giving it another try, although, yes, it does get slow and kind of boring in parts. High Society (the second volume) gets a bit tiresome, from what I remember, in the scenes covering how the various districts voted in the election. The next story, Church and State, is even longer, but it goes into some weird places, has lots of funny stuff, and, yes, one staggeringly offensive scene that was kind of a precursor to Sim’s later anti-feminism, even though it seems to condemn the character for perpetrating it. There’s also some cool formal ideas, like a sequence that mirrors a character’s spatial disorientation by forcing readers to turn the book itself sideways and upside-down. And if you like the Flaming Carrot, he even makes an appearance, believe it or not. I would also be really interested in reading your take on the follow-up volume, Jaka’s Story, which is surprisingly kind of feminist in its treatment of the title character, who comes off as well-developed and probably gets the most positive portrayal of any character in the series, no matter what Sim claims in his later explanations of what he thinks the story is really about (it’s kind of a fascinating divide between creator and creation, one of the best examples I’ve ever seen of a creator’s intent being completely divorced from the actual contents of the story). That sort of contradiction is only part of why people call Sim insane, but the diagnosis is almost an essential requirement to enjoying the story; it’s like there are different fragments of personality dictating different portions of his output, and while some of him is a hateful misogynist, other parts of him leak through and argue with that notion in the work itself. It’s fascinating to watch.
I guess that’s part of the thing with Cerebus: it’s idiosyncratic and unique, and you just have to accept that it’s going to include some strange stuff lurking around in the corners of Sim’s head, like references to goings-on in the wider comics industry through the character of the Roach (he goes through a Secret Sacred Wars version for a while, before exploding into a bunch of Image-style 90s heroes, then eventually becoming a riff on Neil Gaiman’s Sandman), or the somewhat random inclusion of various figures like Mick Jagger and Kieth Richards, Oscar Wilde, Yosemite Sam, Margaret Thatcher, the Three Stooges, etc., etc. Eventually, this cascade of “stuff building up in Sim’s head” takes over the comic, at which point one can probably take or leave the rest of the thing, but for a solid half of the 300 issues, the balance between the ongoing story and characters and the Sim-ian strangeness is kept to a tolerable, even pleasant level, but in that last third, everything goes out the window, with long, long sections of story dedicated to exploring the works of Fitzgerald and Hemingway, a line-by-line analysis/commentary on Genesis, and an eventual attempt to create a version of the Christian creation story that reflects Sim’s bizarre views.
Anyway, no, it’s not the worst comic ever, since even the bad stuff is incredibly unique and compelling in its portrait of its creator, if not its ideas. And while said ideas are pretty loathsome, do they actually influence anybody? Is Sim championed by the online community of dumbass “men’s rights activists”? Has he ever actually convinced anybody that women are soul-sucking voids that restrict the male creative light? He’s managed to cut off most all personal contacts and isolated himself in the remote Canadian wilderness where he’s content to practice his own one-man religion, and while he occasionally makes gestures at reconciling himself with the rest of humanity, he quickly cuts his own nose off to spite his face, as one can see going on this very moment in his “negotiations” with Fantagraphics to publish his back catalogue, which will almost certainly never happen. He’s more of a pathetic object of scorn than somebody wielding dangerous ideas, which makes those ideas easier to ignore in favor of the actual good parts of his art.
“Maybe some people might if they felt betrayed by it (a la your piece on Matt Wagner, Jason?)”
Touche.
I didn’t mean it as a takedown! I think it’s interesting that so many people wrote about things that they had once liked. There’s a lot of love in hate….
I’ll read it one of these days…
Cerebus is akin to BC and Lil’ Abner – cartoons which continued after their creators became bitter or crazy. Sim himself follows the sad tradition of cartoonists whose talent belies their increasingly unworkable flaws.
If Cerebus wasn’t a title with a presumed (and apparently legally required) unified arc, people wouldn’t be inclined to reconcile his pre- and post-meltdown stuff (or, worse, attempt to rationalize the latter). They’d just debate at what point one should write him off.
Because Cerebus is presented as a total package the pretentious misogyny and religious nuttery of the latter work weighs upon his entire output. What makes me hate Cerebus is so many people play along with that, which ends up reflecting that creepy fanboy equivocation about misogyny.
At best latter Cerebus struggles between a what remains of Sim’s rationality and talent and his all consuming sexist/religious/pretentious meltdown. Those hints of what once doesn’t mitigate anything – for me, it makes it worse.
I’d argue it goes off the rails with Astoria’s rape. It was poorly executed, not justified by the storytelling and, more importantly, Sim’s inability to handle the negative response seems to be a key point which fueled his titanic persecution complex. In reality I’m sure it was more complex, but from the outside it seems kind of like he kept stewing over that moment until he came up with the crazy ass female void creation myth in the moon sequence. For me, that is where Sim lost it, letting loose his first unfunny weird ass preaching which eventually sunk the whole project.
That could well be the point when Sim went off the rails, but it took the series a while to catch up, I think. The sequence itself is pretty horrifying, and it’s kind of a reinforcement that he’s a despicable character for the rest of the series, brought up later as a justification of the prophecy that he’ll die alone, unmourned, and unloved.
It’s also a great example of that divide between creator and creation I was talking about; I read an interview with Sim (which took place after the series finished) in which he sort of defended the rape (not the depiction, but the act itself), saying it was all just him playing around with religion, and if a pope can declare himself married, who can call what he does with his wife sinful? That was an eye-opening moment, a demonstration of how far around the bend he had gone, that he would look at the downright villainous behavior of his character and retroactively justify it, contradicting the work itself. I think the moment itself is way too early to be the point where the series “turns bad”, but it’s certainly a troubling moment, one of many, many more to come.
Dave Sim does not believe men are superior to women. And there you have it. Scroll down to post #20
http://www.bleedingcool.com/forums/comic-book-forum/61795-dave-sim-goes-website-tour-q-2.html#post424704
Saw this http://momentofcerebus.blogspot.com/2012/09/audrey-hepburn.html
and was reminded about a conversation I was having with Dave. Found the old fax and typed out a portion of it. Hopefully Dave won’t mind: I like girlie and sentimental. REAL girlie and sentimental. It’s one of my life’s guilty pleasures rewards to find out everything is on youtube. Rosalind Russell “Rose’s Turn” from GYPSY. Natalie Wood doing “Little Lamb” from GYPSY. Debbie Reynolds singing “Tammy’s in Love” from Tammy and the Bachelor.
Wow. That’s immersion in actual estrogen. Audrey Hepburn “Moon River” from Breakfast at Tiffany’s” ‘I could Have Danced All Night” from My Fair Lay (with Hepburn’s ORIGINAL vocal track — not the one they dubbed in!). It’s nice to know that it’s there on youtube when i need to believe that femininity USED to exist and flourish. “Beyond the Sea” production number with Kate Bosworth as Sandra Dee. I just keep going back to the same ones over and over.
And:
http://terminaldrift.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/a-moment-of-cerebus-question/#comment-258 Where he says that the “Dave Sim” character in the book is not Dave Sim the guy. All all of us are masks and personas and portrayals. Our understanding of “self” and everything else is extremely limited.
Yeah…that quote does not really make the case for his non-misogyny in quite the way you seem to be saying, alas.
the emphasis is on “believe” the answer is “i dunno”
Yeah, I don’t take Sim’s long-winded invocations of YooWhoo’s words in the Bible and/or Koran as meaningful of anything, and fudging the issue by talking about athletic ability and the Olympics, then trotting out his weirdo fears about low birth rates that could be resolved if all women would stay home popping out babies doesn’t exactly answer the question in any way that will put his critics’ complaints to rest. He can complain bitterly about being called a misogynist because I’m sure he thinks, “Hey, I don’t HATE women! I like them, even, in theory!” and he can dither and prevaricate about whether women are “technically” inferior in one aspect or another, but when his stated beliefs are that women are soul-sucking emotional voids that seek to stifle the male creative light, he demonstrates that yes, he’s a misogynist who thinks women are inferior. His “Nobody wants to be a woman” essay, among lots other crazy shit he’s written, just proves the point, and unless he recants at some point (an unthinkable concept), it’s a justified perception that he and his fans are just going to have to live with.
He’s a great artist, and I think is work is worth reading despite its faults, but to deny his core beliefs because he wants to argue the terminology is just silly.
The discussion of his interest in “girly” stuff is interesting, and while it might seemingly disprove his misogyny since it’s not very macho, it’s actually kind of indicative of his regressive beliefs, focusing on an old-fashioned view of femininity. “See girls, if you would just look and sound pretty and worry solely about feminine stuff like love and music and prettiness, I wouldn’t have a problem with you!”
Every woman who calls men and pigs don’t hate men either. And when he says he was fighting fire with fire and it’s a piece of art -not politically correct art…also, your example is more about being anti relationships and if you know anything about relationships it is that it takes compromise and if you are like some people who just don’t want to compromise then relationships can be viewed in a very creative manner. If you want a comic for polite society black and white alternative comics are probably not the best place to go.
as for him being old fashioned it hasn’t stopped him from championing female comicbook artists
Oliver, he’s clearly crazy. He calls for women to leave the workplace and go back to the kitchen and cites completely made up statistics to back it up, fictional babble about birth rates, and when called out on his statistics being made up he can’t acknowledge it.
There’s clearly something not right in his brain that causes data and evidence related to women to misfire- he has this construct of women that has no relation to actual women, his version of women are a sort of fantasy creature that exists only in his mind.
I’d say it’s fair to call that train wreck “misogyny” but I don’t think there’s any benefit to debating what terminology you give his lunatic views on women.
well, listening to people who call him crazy they often rant and sound pretty crazy themselves.
As Dave says: everybody seems crazy once you get to know them. But hey since when has the label crazy ever hurt an artist -most people think artists are crazy.
I seem to be in the extreme minority, but I think the final third of Cerebus was about a million times better than the first third. From a formal perspective, the Guys and Rick’s Story sequences of Cerebus’s internal arguments and Rick’s perception of others as angels and demons were pretty amazing. I also liked the Later Days depictions of Woody Allen in the styles of Crumb, Feiffer, Spiegelman, etc. (although the Woody Allen jokes Sim came up with were all extremely awful). And I thought The Last Day did a good job of putting forward Sim’s right-wing viewpoint, with the sequences of tattooed pedophiles and animal/human hybrids expressing his horror at liberalism and secularism. In contrast, I thought the first 25 issues amounted to an incredibly unfunny and nerdy Conan parody and High Society was almost as bad.
Oliver,
I like Cerebus too. So I am a sympathetic audience here.
What is the reading of, say, Sim’s depiction of the Bear/Ziggy relationship that takes it to be something other than a misogynist’s nightmare of how women ruin men?
As I said, I think it’s fine to say “Sim is a misogynist” or “that sequence is misogynistic” and still like Cerebus and admire Dave Sim. But I don’t think you can get around what it is.
admittedly I’ll have to reread it, but hey because it’s art, right? Men and woman can fight and call each other all kinds of things -there is a thing called war of the sexes and it’s ok and as it should be -and it’s ok to make that your theme of a comicbook. I mean do we want the hallmark version that is bland even steven?
There’s lots of ways to talk about relationship tension without presenting women as soul-sucking voids. Try Jane Austen. Or George Bernard Shaw. Or Anna Karenina. Or X-Men. Or the Hernandez Brothers, if that’s how you roll. Or, you know, tons and tons and tons of things.
I think Oliver is demonstrating another reason one could hate Cerebus despite its various charms….and also perhaps demonstrating that while Sim’s misogyny is extreme, it’s hardly the misogyny that makes him pathological. Misogyny is pretty easy to come by, in our society and certainly in comics. The fact that Dave Sim’s talent leads a not insignificant number of fans to double down on their insistence that, basically, no level of contempt for women can qualify as misogyny, and/or that an artist should not be responsible for his statements, or even for his work, by virtue of being an artist — that’s a pretty noxious legacy, it seems like.
Unless I misread your response, you’re saying that Sim should be allowed to make misogynist art if that’s what he wants to do.
I agree with that. Heck, I bet everyone here agrees with that. But what Dave Sim should NOT be allowed to do is to make misogynist art and then claim that, because it is art, it cannot be misogynist, or claim that everyone who sees misogyny is misreading him — but fail to make a persuasive case to that effect.
One of the big ironies is that the women Sim draws are drawn far less misogynistically than women in most super hero comics. There’s cheesecake with Red Sophia, of course…but even that’s pretty fun/innocent stuff. And Jaka and Astoria are usually handled very respectfully.
(In the art.)
Really? That’s not what I’m saying anymore than a standup comic making a joke about women ruining men’s lives…or a women making jokes about how dumb men are.
I don’t really want to derail the thread into an endless argument about whether Sim is misogynist or not, if we can avoid it. Oliver, you’ve made your case; I’m pretty sure nobody else finds it even remotely persuasive…maybe we can agree to disagree and move on.
In that vein…John, as I’ve noted in other contexts, I think it’s sometimes the case that (as subdee says in her post) truly ideologically misogynist creators can actually be less misogynist in some ways than folks who are just casually misogynist. DH Lawrence is the general example. When you’re really ideologically driven, you care about and think about women in a way that can be unusual in people just churning out genre dreck without thinking about it.
Matt maybe gets at that too in pointing out that Sim has a good hold on how misogyny works, so that he can often seem to be almost critiquing it. Rudyard Kipling was like that with imperialism; he supported it, but he understood how it functioned in a thoroughgoing way that enabled, or even sometimes seemed to call for, a critique.
I don’t know if it’s the worst comic ever.
I know that I… well, ‘hate’ is a very strong word, perhaps too strong, but I definitely dislike it.
And the fact that in some ways it is objectively good makes me dislike it much more than I would otherwise.
Because it being good is what keeps it afloat. It being good keeps this… person with his despicable views actually be somewhat respected.
In a way I can comprehend that. Intellectually I can. Yes, this guy has some… unfortunate views, but, you see Cerebus is good.
Only, you see, I’m not objective. I’m a woman. And what I see when I stop trying to be intellectually detached is a man who doesn’t think I am human and a culture, surrounding the medium I love, where common consensus is, as it has been said right here among other places, that this man can still be respected. can still be admired.
Because fucking Cerebus is so fucking good.
Yeah…it’s kind of the argument I was making about Thomas Nast, or that Alex made about Spirou et Fantasia. At some point, or at least from some perspectives, great talent in the service of evil ends up making the evil worse, not better.
Oliver. Oliver…. Oliver… jesus, man.
Jaelinque,
He doesn’t say you aren’t human.
Noah,
in service of evil?
Come on reign it in.
I think misogyny and racism are evil if anything is. You’re welcome to disagree of course.
popping back in to reassert that the “good” sections ofCerebus aren’t that good in the first place.
Maybe in an attempt to derail the discourse away from Sim’s obvious, documented, much-expounded upon misogyny, may i put forward that his jabs at parody are weird and lame as hell and the cameos are pretentious and unearned?
How did racism get thrown in? And misogyny is evil, but it’s also evil calling someone that if they aren’t. I’m not making a case -as i can’t answer to what Dave thinks and doesn’t think -and I’m not a scholar as to all things Dave. But hey i also don’t claim to know what people are thinking based on a comicbook -or knowing what other people find persuasive or not based on a few posts:)You know just saying kick it down a few notches -look if you want to hate hate the 50% of the voting population who is republican. I’m with you on that
Racism was mentioned in the other posts I mentioned. And if you want to think I’m evil, that’s perfectly fine. I won’t mind.
Michael…I quite liked the parody in the first volume. I’m admittedly a sucker for superhero parodies, though.
Noah,
Yeah, that’s where my mind when I read these comments of yours.
And one more thing: the mainstream superhero comics are kinda horrible in their depiction of women, and yet even those make me feel more welcome ‘to the club’ then Fantagraphics guys trying to talk Dave Sim into working with them.
Olver,
Oh. I’m sorry, Instead of ‘not human’, read ‘a chauvinistic emotional-based Void unable to provide for herself who is also a part of a feminist-homosexual axis, who couldn’t have possibly wanted to be born as such’.
Better?
Pretty sure he didn’t say that either -and if it helps Dave agrees about superhero comics being sexist, so you agree on something
Oliver,
Have you read ‘Tangents’?
‘Cause I’m kinda quoting here.
see I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t say women can’t provide for themselves -if anything he seems to think women are powerful…but hey it is called “tangents” -I mean the name says it right there, and he has said he was just fighting fire with fire.
Jaelinque, please understand that I’m just saying it’s POSSIBLE to like Cerebus and admire Dave Sim without ignoring that he’s a misogynist. It’s certainly not obligatory.
I like it, and I admire the art and some of the writing (not the man — a distinction I ought to have drawn). No one else has to and I certainly understand the decision “this is infuriating to me and not worth engaging.” That’s a choice I make all the time with regard to other works.
So you didn’t.
Okay.
John,
Oh, don’t worry, I get that.
I even understand that. I think I myself am that way about some of the works that are, say, racist.
However this… doesn’t make it feel any better, you know?
Cerebus 4EVA!
I agree with a lot of what Matt has written here, and some of what Jack says. I wouldn’t say the final third was 1 million times better than the first two; that last third — even leaving the ideology aside — is way patchier than the first two thirds IMO. But there’s a lot of really good stuff in there that’s as strong as anything earlier in the series; it’s by no means the morass of awfulness that people think.
It’s worth noting that Sim’s nuttiness extends well beyond his views on women. (Oliver’s “defence” against which reminds me of Chevy Chase’s line in Community when he’s accused of sexual harrassment: why would I harrass someone who turns me on?) e.g. that time in the letters page where he interpreted the US’ military successes in Afghanistan as clear evidence that God was on their side, or when he mused about the causal connection between his portrayal of Thatcher and her political downfall IRL, or his frequent Strindbergian interpretations of “signs” in his life, or that entire fucking Yoohoo exegesis, or the recent slow-motion train wreck of “negotiations” with Fantagraphics, or his boxing challenge to Jeff Smith…
But let’s not forget the fabulous Gerhard while we pile on Sim!
that was pretty low -just trying to appeal to people’s better half. As you say it’s pile on -mobs are never a pretty thing.
Jaelinque…it sounds like you’ve actually read at least fairly large chunks of Cerebus? Is that right? If so, why? Was it a kind of know-your-enemy thing? Or did you start before the nuttiness began and then kept going for a bit afterwards?
I have to say I found the first volume of Cerebus pretty un-funny. I could see that it was supposed to be funny…but it very infrequently actually elicited a chuckle. I never tried to go any further (though I admit I’m more tempted by philosophical insanity than by the lame jokes).
Charles, on your recommendation, I tried to read that TCJ thread. Maybe I missed the good part, but mostly it seemed really depressing industry infighting. I just don’t have a whole lot of stomach for that stuff.
I mean…just to be clear, I can see why other folks might be into it…and of course it’s probably historically important, since you’ve got a lot of people who were there talking about industry history. It’s just not for me.
> Is Cerebus the Worst Comic Ever?
No, someone on Metafilter linked to Clean Fun Starring Shoogafoots Jones, and I have to concede that it’s worse:
http://doctor-k100.blogspot.se/2010/09/worst-comic-book-of-all-time.html
That is a horrible, horrible comic. And the fact that somebody in comments actually got mad at him for pointing it out (how dare he insult the greatest generation!) is nauseating.
But…as I’ve said, I think there’s a case to be made that it’s utter formal and historical worthlessness actually make it…not better exactly, but perhaps not as much worst as some other things. For instance, this Thomas Nast cartoon is certainly as racist, probably more directly politicized…and almost certainly more effectual, since Nast is a major cartoonist and an important historical figure. Clean Fun is a (completely vile) historical oddity; Nast is still a familiar name. You could see that redounding to Nast’s credit, perhaps…but it wouldn’t have to necessarily.
Sorry, Noah, maybe skip some of the posts that are just about trying to talk Sim off the ledge, or what’s the best format to publish Cerebus in (about as exciting a topic as the definition of graphic novel) and just read anything by that Michael fellow and Sim himself.
As for how to enjoy Sim’s crazy views, since they are part of his art, think of him as Canada’s version of Yukio Mishima, only not as committed.
One of the greatest ever.
Charles…yeah, I don’t really enjoy reading Sim ranting. I just find it dispiriting and tedious, mostly. But obviously mileage differs in this as in all things….
Noah,
Yeah, I did read quite a lot of Cerebus.
Believe it or not, I had no idea about Sim’s views and the whole controversy surrounding the comic when I started.
And I started after ‘the nuttines began’, maybe even after the thing ended. As I’ve already mentioned, I’m Russian (not just ethnically but in a living-in-Moscow way too), and as such was kind of sheltered when it came to the history and controversies of the medium/
That’s the thing with the ‘older’ generation of Russian comic fans – those in their mid-twenties to mid-thirties – save for occasional Disney comic or, say, Elfquest, we didn’t grow up with the medium and in the beginning, ten or so years ago, our engagement with the medium was very… chaotic. I saw Cerebus mentioned one of the must-read lists complied for those, who wanted to gain semi-broad (though obviously superficial) understanding of the medium, and it looked interesting, so…
The craft was impressive, the plot fairly engaging even though many of the jokes fell flat due to the lack of necessary cultural context (for me it had been just the same as it later was with Mad: ‘it must be funny for those who get it, right?’).
At the same time I began doing my ‘research’ about this thing I was reading and… well… yeah.
I grinded a bit further, then read some more chunks here and there, paying the most attention to the whole ‘light and void’ thing (‘know your enemy’ indeed), but the little enjoyment I was having was gone and soon so was the desire to continue, much less finish the damn thing. Granted, this was before I started reading comics in a more… critical way, before analysis started meaning as much if not more than pure enjoyment to me.
That makes sense. Again, I wouldn’t be surprised if the antipathy to Cerebus was linked to that dynamic of starting out with at least some level of enjoyment…and then….
The fall of Cerebus as a work of art is tragic on a Biblical scale. But nope.jpg, it is far from the worst. Evidence: http://www.mrsatanism.com/comics/quadrogang.htm
jaelinque, is there a creative comics scene in Russia? Perhaps you could write about it? (Hint, hint, Noah).
Personally, I find it necessary to differentiate what Sim says from what Cerebus (the comic, not the character, well that too) says. Throughout the series there’s a general skepticism about the stories we tell each other and ourselves. They all tend to break down throughout the series, and many of them are imbedded in this multiple levels of (possibly/probably) unreliable narrators, many of whom are not displayed in much of a positive light.
Part of what makes the series so fascinating (outside of the sheer formal inventiveness in re so many levels of comic art (lettering, pacing, layout, etc.)) is the ambiguity, the sheer undecidability of most of what goes on. If you look at the 2 “ascensions” around the 1/3 and 2/3 marks, they are at first posited as the “truth” and then later it is found that is not the case. Even the ending is ambiguous (and following the pattern, hard to consider definitive of anything except the ending of the story). Jaka’s Story is based around one character telling the life story of another character, apparently only through knowledge gained via a third character. A lot of the religious content in the end comes from clearly disturbed characters (Rick for instance, as I recall… was he hit in the head and started hallucinating? something like that), you can’t possible take the Three Stooges characters’ actions seriously (even if just based on the fact that the characters are the Three Stooges), and you definitely can’t take Cerebus’ “exegesis” too seriously, since he is never shown as being particular intelligent or insightful (often quite to the opposite).
And now I’m making it sound so Lyotardian postmodern…
Since people are stepping in to reassert things, I’ll do so for the idea that Sim is all that evil. As loathsome as his views are, I really don’t think he’s influenced that many people toward misogyny; even his defenders, like Oliver, take it as a hyperbolic “battle of the sexes” sort of thing rather than going along with his awfulness. If he’s swayed anybody at all to his views, it’s probably, what, half a dozen people? I suppose that’s kind of evil, but it’s on a pretty small scale.
Actually, if we’re proposing candidates for “worst comic evar” in terms of influence, how about Jack Chick’s work? That’s pretty arguably evil, in that there are a whole lot of people who go along with his homophobia and intolerance.
Responding to other comments, I’m in agreement with Eric about the first volume not being that funny, aside from the Groucho Marx stuff (although the later Groucho material is even better, especially when Chico comes along; there’s also at least one issue that isn’t included in the collections that contains some really enjoyable Marx scenes). But Noah, if you like superhero parody, stick around; you’ll get Moon Roach and Wolveroach and Punisheroach and Secret Sacred Wars Roach, and so on.
And Derik, I don’t have anything to add to your comment, but it’s pure gold, and it describes a lot of what I love about the comic, including why it’s a fascinating differentiation from Sim’s didacticism (is that a word?) elsewhere.
“that time in the letters page where he interpreted the US’ military successes in Afghanistan as clear evidence that God was on their side,”
I guess that means God has since then changed his mind.
“But Noah, if you like superhero parody, stick around; you’ll get Moon Roach and Wolveroach and Punisheroach and Secret Sacred Wars Roach, and so on.”
Uhhh…. I imagine most people find those parodies overdone and hopelessly insular. Too “inside comics.” Need I remind people that Sim likes Alex Ross?
Thanks, Matthew, glad you liked it. I’ve been reading the “Cerebus the Barbarian Messiah” essay collection, so Cerebus has been on my mind regardless of these various comment threads.
Well, I like Ambush Bug…so insularity isn’t necessarily a problem….
Every thread about Cerebus reinforces why I hate the comic so much. Every time the comic comes up, you get a not-insubstantial number of readers cropping up to offer some type of defense, qualified or otherwise, of the last half of the book – and of Sim’s views themselves – by downplaying the extent of Sim’s misogyny. We’re not talking about casual sexism here, which, god knows, is rampant enough in the world of comics – we’re talking about a guy who wrote manifestos about how women should be denied the vote and essentially reduced to property, about how women are intellectually and emotionally subhuman, about how their only real function, when you get down to it, is to reproduce and raise the next generation of men, and that Western civilization has been corrupted by movements to treat women like human beings.
I don’t buy the argument – which is frequently made, in various forms – that Sim’s views, while repugnant, are more or less harmless because they’re so marginal. We’ve seen, over the last several years, a stunningly vicious attack on women’s rights here in the U.S., up to and including access to basic birth control. Rape remains both epidemic and overwhelmingly underreported, and when rape cases do go to trial, the standard tactic is to put the victim’s sexual history on trial instead. We live in a violently sexist and misogynistic society, where hostility towards women and towards the notion of women’s equality is the norm. Dave Sim is not nearly as anomalous here as his work’s defenders would like to think.
If Sim had decided to take out his paranoid frustrations on Jews instead of women – writing long diatribes about the Jewish void that corrupts and destroys the creative Aryan light, for instance – would those essays be so easy to shrug off? If he’d written about how the irrational, emotional Black void was destroying the creative, intellectual White light, would we still be putting Cerebus on top ten lists? If not, why not? And if not, why is it so much easier to shrug off his hatred of women?
That insularity is definitely an aspect of the series, not just in that it references superheroes, but that it’s often referring to specific aspects of the comics industry at the time it was published. For instance, there was sort of a back-and-forth between Sim and Chris Claremont, who created an X-Men villain named Sym (or S’ym, or something like that) in response to the Wolverine parodies in Cerebus. It’s not necessary to know all the details, but it’s part of the series that’s kind of inescapable throughout, all the way up to the later stories in which a Todd MacFarlane stand-in joins the cast and Cerebus disguises himself as a version of Spawn (he also appeared in a Sim-written issue of Spawn, I believe). Feature or bug? U-decide!
Actually, there’s a real cultural insularity, to the point that I’m fascinated by what a reader like Jaelinque who isn’t mired in Western culture makes of the series. Aside from the superhero/comics stuff (which also includes appearances from the likes of Eddie Campbell and Julie Doucet and references to Garth Ennis’ Preacher), there’s Groucho Marx, Mick Jagger, Kieth Richards, George Harrison, Margaret Thatcher, Oscar Wilde, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Woody Allen, the Three Stooges, Marty Feldman, Kofi Annan, and various fictional characters. This stuff is mostly ancillary to the main plot, so maybe it can all be written off as “funny for those who get it, but ignorable”. I dunno, it’s pretty curious, and just one aspect of the uniqueness of the work.
Christopher, I don’t think you’re wrong in the main…but I think you downplay the extent to which racism remains a live issue in the US as well. Just in comics, explicit racism is a central part of many very highly regarded comics, including Little Nemo and The Spirit. And, for that matter, Sim’s views of Muslims are pretty noxious and racialized. I don’t think it’s true that substituting race for gender would make his work less acceptable (you’re overly optimistic, in other words.)
You make a good point, Charles. Maybe it’s because of my “enlightened” views that I don’t find Sim dangerous. You bring up a ton of actual, real-world attacks on women’s rights, stuff that I find enraging and disgusting, but as hateful as Sim’s views are, they seem to me to be off in fantasyland, something nobody but him could take seriously. But who knows, maybe they don’t convert people to his anti-woman religion, but they do move the needle ever so slightly in the direction of controlling women’s bodies and denying their rights, so they shouldn’t be so easily discounted. It’s a troubling thing to consider, and a definite reason why you can’t just write off those aspects of the work and try to focus solely on the “good stuff”.
Luckily, being a right-thinking person, I can claim to contradict myself and contain multitudes. I love Cerebus and I hate it, at the same time! I’m complicated!
Christopher,
He has actually retracted the statement about voting. He also realizes that nothing is 100% and that not everybody fits the mold, real or imagined, of “men being men and women and women”. He also says all men are killers. On the flip side: he believes in men going to war to protect women, to take a bullit for them so to speak. He believes in men being the last to leave a sinking ship or burning building again to protect women. He believes in old fashioned chivalry. He likes estrogen filled chick flicks. lol.
As for “war of the sexes” and things get heated -don’t feign outrage. “War of the sexes is what makes the world go around afterall:) Women say stuff about men all the time, that they are smarter, call them pigs and much worse and hey it’s ok. (Sure some people lie and say they get mad about that, too, to be fair -but really they don’t:). And the argument about replacing such things with race cuts both ways -noone is suggesting women who call men pigs are racist…and with good reason as they are apples and oranges. Races are the same, genders are yin and yang.
Oliver, if you think that you are defending Dave Sim, you are sorely mistaken. Every time you post, you provide evidence for his detractors, both in your description of his views and in your description of your own.
As I said, I don’t dislike Cerebus. But if anyone is going to convince me to hate it on this thread, it would be you.
Derik,
“Personally, I find it necessary to differentiate what Sim says from what Cerebus (the comic, not the character, well that too) says.”
Yeah, but then you might also want to read Colleen Doran’s personal recollection of stuff concerning Reads.
You’re wound up pretty tight there Noah. Look i’m as liberal as they come -I was born in san Francisco in 1968 and was Mr Mom and it was an awesome thing. Kid is now at an excellent College. I just think people go off on these crusades and should maybe just zen out a little:) Temper the extremes a little.
But yeah i think Derik sums it up best. At any point you don’t really know what is what in the comic, as it’s such a mind %^&$ from beginning to an end…for the longest time people thought he was joking….people still are…. it certainly has an Andy Kaufmann thing going for it, always switching gears…anyway, it’s a work of fiction of fictional characters saying fictional stuff in a fictional world -I think the work transcends the artist as great art should and usually says more about the reader than what is actually in the comic. By people overreacting and projecting they are probably hurting the cause more than anything.
I’m curious why you think it’s important for everyone else to temper their extremes, but not Sim?
Also…it seems like Sim made an effort to put his own, nonfictional thoughts into the work (that’s what Reads is about, isn’t it?)
Also…liberal men are often quite sexist. I think in general women should (and have every right to be) quite skeptical of men who declare themselves to be unimpeachably feminist.
interesting bringing up chick tracts: for one thing i don’t think measurable social impact has been a metric by which we’ve been judging these comics that we hate. but another thing i’ve noticed that explicitly goal-oriented pornography (EROS smut, doujinshi, tijuana bibles, hentai, etc.) seems implicitly exempt for examination (maybe not Manara).
and i consider chick tracts a form of pornography. their purpose to me is less evangelical than masturbatory, where each one of the Chick hivemind’s spiritual enemies are lined up one by one and taunted with hell. The money shot is always Chick’s promise of salvation waggling in their faces. “oh, if only i could have knoooowwn” they moan in the ecstasy of torment. total fundamentalist Christian porn.
has anyone ever been converted by one of those, anyway?
I know people pay lip service to a lot of things, but I’m actually action.
As for Reads and who is Dave in the comic? It’s that kind of a #$%% comic, or can be read as such. There’s this link which might have gotten overlooked
http://terminaldrift.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/a-moment-of-cerebus-question/#comment-258 Basically where he says that the “Dave Sim” character in the book is not Dave Sim the guy. All all of us are masks and personas and portrayals. Our understanding of “self” and everything else is extremely limited
also where were the “webcomics?” below recognition? category error?
Effect isn’t necessarily ruled out…and Shaenon mentioned Ctrl_Alt_Dlt….
Noah – I certainly didn’t mean to downplay the extent to which our society is racist (from the de facto segregation of schools and neighborhoods to the role of the prison state in serving as a gulag for black and brown men). I guess I was – perhaps, as you said, overly optimistically – assuming that there would be more of a stigma attached to overt and militant racism in comics than there is to overt and militant misogyny, or at least a greater reluctance to apologize for that sort of content. But I’m probably being naive here, since that’s exactly what happens any time Eisner, McCay, Crumb, etc. come up.
And yeah, I didn’t mean to let Sim off on his Islamophobia, either (which underlies his bizarre obsession with the purity of Western civilization, falling birth rates (of white people), etc.).
Christopher M. wrote: “Every thread about Cerebus reinforces why I hate the comic so much. Every time the comic comes up, you get a not-insubstantial number of readers cropping up to offer some type of defense, qualified or otherwise, of the last half of the book – and of Sim’s views themselves – by downplaying the extent of Sim’s misogyny.”
As I mentioned, I haven’t yet read “Cerebus,” so what follows isn’t some blind fanboyish defense of someone whose art and writing I’ve grown fond of over the years.
If you look at creative types throughout history, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of noteworthy artists whose personal and/or political beliefs, or their personal failings, can easily be criticized.
Picasso was a militant communist for nearly three decades and happily accepted Bizarroly-named “peace prize” from the Soviets named after Stalin — a brutal dictator whose regime killed far more people than the Third Reich. He was also, according to more than a few art historians, a misogynist.
Then there’s Norman Mailer. His militant politics were similar to Picasso’s, but he was arguably even MORE of a hard core misogynist.
In the case of Edgar Allan Poe, there are those now who argue that, based on his sole novel, “Pym,” he was a racist. He was also an alcoholic, and there are those who argue, based on his writings and the fact that he married his 13-year-old cousin, that he was a misogynist.
Woody Allen is also a creator often pegged as a misogynist.
Jackson Pollock, like Poe, was an alcoholic, and also arguably a misogynist.
I could go on and on, but you get the point.
So what to do?
Should we judge a creator by their personal beliefs, political beliefs and human failings?
I dunno.
I understand the impetus behind such views. After all, I used to like Danny Glover’s acting, but it’s harder to enjoy it now that I know he’s such a fruitcake.
But such judgement is, in reality, probably quite unfair.
Perhaps Ditko’s philosophy on that particular subject, “My work speaks for itself,” is the best way to go.
Christopher, I might have missed something, but Islamophobia? He reads the Koran. His religion is some kinda of hybrid of islam, christianity and judaism. And falling birth rate of white people -never heard that one before and pretty sure something like that would have come up.
I think people who need things to be black and white are naturally going to have problems with an artist and who’s work seems hellbent on defying definition.
But Sim’s work is itself quite blatantly and ideologically misogynist.
Obviously the life isn’t the work. But the life often has something to do with the work, and understanding the life often helps to understand the work.
I don’t think there’s any one rule. But, with Ditko, for example, surely his philosophy is going to be an important part of the understanding of his comics for many readings…and for many useful readings, I’d think. And one’s take on his philosophy is going to affect enjoyment of the comic in many cases. That’s not invalid; it’s taking account of what we know about him and his work and how the two are related. I don’t really see why that’s a problem.
R. Maheras- it’s harder to seperate a writer’s personal failings with the art they create in the case of Cerebus, since Sim explicitly made his views a part of the text of the books.
Also think the unreliable narrator equivocation is too cute. It lets an author off the hook by default and flatters the reader who “gets it.”
I’m reading through Colleen Doran’s recollections of Dave and it might be likely that Sim is mentally ill? Has this been a part of anyone’s analysis so far?
I don’t mean that to imply “he’s crazy, so we should dismiss him” but to bring up a new level of assessment of his actions and an understanding of some of the choices he made putting the book together. The dramatic shift in tone, the switch from comics to text, the grandiosity, the injection of his personal life,,,
Noah,
well it’s always a problem when people claim to think they know somebody:)
birth rate:
from here.
ok maybe I need to reread it, but i don’t see anything there about “obsession with the purity of Western civilization, falling birth rates (of white people), etc”
Michael, many people have suggested that Sim may be mentally ill. He violently rejects that notion himself, however.
Noah — Is all of Sim’s work misogynistic, or just some of it? I defer to my comments about Mailer, Allen and even Picasso above –all of whom have been accused of having misogyny bleeding into their work.
Noah,
“But Sim’s work is itself quite blatantly and ideologically misogynist.”
Yes it is. I think what some readers want to do by separating Sim the man from the work is to distance the ideology from the work, that it isn’t as bad to appreciate, say, a misogynist depiction if the author himself doesn’t really agree with what’s being expressed by the work. I don’t think it much matters if a misogynist character is expressing its creator’s views. I also generally dislike the notion that the story has to expressly disavow abhorrent views. Personally, I’d rather read a story about racist skinheads that simply lets them speak their racist views than sets up some drama where they’re punished for having such views. I don’t need an author to tell me that racism is wrong. I can make up my own mind about that. For that reason, I can appreciate a misogynist work from an actual misogynist in the same way if the author weren’t an actual misogynist, provided the work isn’t simply an ideological rant. It might’ve sometimes devolved into that, but Cerebus was a complex enough work that it can’t be dismissed as cheap propaganda the way Chick tracts can.
Come on, Oliver, you don’t even have to read between the lines.
“Then there’s Norman Mailer. His militant politics were similar to Picasso’s,”
Mailer was never a communist. Unless being against America’s murderous foreign policy makes on a communist. And in later years he considered his beliefs a hybrid of conservative and liberal thinking.
R. Maheras: There’s often a need to separate art from artist, but that’s tough to do with Sim, since Cerebus, as it went on, became more and more about him, and his odious views became an integral part of the whole. That intent to separate might be what leads people to talk about the “good stuff” and try to downplay or ignore the misogyny, but that’s ultimately impossible to do, for better or worse.
Michael: I touched on the mental illness aspect above, but as you mention, the distinction between dismissing him as crazy and noting his actual, diagnosable mental illness needs to be made. It’s an aspect of his work and personality that people have discussed, and it’s all speculation, of course, but the general consensus is that he is verifiably mentally ill. It adds a little bit of sympathy to him regarding his hateful ideas (and it might be why people like me can sort of dismiss his views, although one should never discount the possibility of crazy people gaining legitimate followers), since they seem to come from the less lucid parts of his brain. It does definitely complicate the issue, and as somebody with a great deal of sympathy toward mental illness issues, it might be part of why I’m so interested in his work. Did I mention I’m conflicted about Sim?
“provided the work isn’t simply an ideological rant.”
Haven’t read much of Sim’s later work, but the reaction from many people seems to indicate that it’s just that. So which is it?
Well, I quit before the 2nd half, so can’t answer that. The first half has a wide-range of characters with differing views that make the book far more than a rant.
Like with the topical comic book references, the problem with misogyny in Cerebus depends on how much of the foreground it takes up. Misogyny in Mailer and Picasso’s work don’t take up much if any of the foreground.
Charles, 99% of the controversy with Sim has been because of the 2nd half. So I guess you and I are disqualified. I haven’t bothered to read the issues of his that I have.
Katha Pollitt’s takedown of Mailer’s misogyny is pretty thorough.
Charles you have to be careful with reading between the lines as you put it. If you squint it will look exactly so:) It actually sound like he’s talking about people staying home with the kids -something i did and something more dads should do if you ask me. And again, note he champions many female cartoonists. He’s very pro jewish, islamic -aside from him practicing both he also wrote the pro jewish book “judenhass”.
Matthew — Guess I’ll have to pick up some of his “phone books” off of eBay and start reading. I really hate the format of them though.
Point well taken with Katha Pollitt. But one could read large swaths of Mailer without coming across much that’s objectionable. Well, aside from his bombastic paragraphs, but that’s another story.
“Personally, I find it necessary to differentiate what Sim says from what Cerebus (the comic, not the character, well that too) says.”
If Sim has been “playing a character” then that’s one hell of a performance act.
I have not read Cerebus and so can’t give an opinion about it, but honestly, I am not inclined to pay money to buy any of it to read, since even flipping through the tcj threads about it, where almost everyone is kissing the author’s ass, I see said author giving forth with opinions about whether or not women should work instead of staying home to raise children as if it something that should be decided by anyone other than the women concerned and that would be enough to put me off, but then I also see him drooling about Chester Brown’s old girlfriend, calling her “incandescent” or some such….barf.
James, from what I’ve read is the exact opposite he wants more women to want to stay home not force them. And he’s not against men doing so either -though he doesn’t believe it will ever be a significant number doing so…which might be sad truth.
Oliver, James’ point is, either way, what business is it of his?
Well, all people have opinions on what’s best for society, surely, even if not every issue directly affects them.
Charles wrote: “Well, all people have opinions on what’s best for society, surely, even if not every issue directly affects them.”
Very true.
I think in the case of artists and other creators whose income relies on the paying public in one form or another, it’s ovious that sometimes giving opinions about hot-button issues can alienate chunks of one’s audience. Sometimes BIG chunks.
If one can live with the loss of revenue, then spout away.
Otherwise, one should use a pen name; or find a means of support that isn’t tied to one’s creative efforts (marry a rich widow, work a day job, or live a hermit’s life in a shack in the mountains).
Oh boy. (Buried deep, deep in that TCJ thread)
” But, I think that pointing out that 50% of the world’s population is responsible for 100% of the world’s births and that that fact represents a structural flaw to feminism is just pointing out a structural flaw to a political movement. “
After reading comments like that from him, I can’t help but picture a little boy with his rattler buried deep inside there somewhere….
This quote is funny from one of his essays “Being a firm believer that statistics can be manipulated to support any argument, I tend to avoid them”.
Also I note that in all of the discussion of the collaborative work Cerebus, only one name is mentioned—and the poor sod who as far as I can see has to do most of the work is left in the dust and has to suffer when the mouth in charge goes off half-cocked.
Poor Gerhard. Has there been any information about his “split” with Sim? I heard that Sim decided to buy out all of Gerhard’s ownership of Cerebus, but I don’t know if that was due to any acrimonious souring of their relationship or because they just decided to part ways.
Sim actually just answered a question about that as part of his digital tour: http://terminaldrift.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/a-moment-of-cerebus-question/#comment-266
AB,
It… exists, albeit in a weird way. Even though there are plenty of aspiring creators it’s more of a ‘fandom’ thing. There is more to tell, but this thread doesn’t feel like the right place to do t.
Matthew,
Re: (not) being mired in Western culture
For me personally it’s not as much of a thing as it might seem to be: the West (and especially US and, less so, England) have been very good at selling/feeding their cultural product to the world, and I came of age after the Iron Curtain fell. Time that has passed since the early parts of the comic were written seems much more of a cause for the lack of understanding certain things. Although, of course, these things are hard to separate: do I not give a damn about Groucho Marx because of where I was born or when I was born?
Overall, yes, Cerebus, as much as I’ve read of it is an exercise in learning to stop worrying and love googling, but in that regard it doesn’t feel that much different from, say, ‘Sandman’.
How different did this make my understanding of the comic (aside from the forced detachment needed to ‘catch’ things that required looking up) I, obviously, can not tell. It definitely killed the jokes though.
And one thought Regarding the good old ‘lots of important and magnificent creators held prejudiced views, being misogynist, racist, homophobic, etc., and yet we keep them in our cultural pantheon’.
It’s a stray thought, and it might be unfair, but I can’t help myself: those, by whose consensus the output of said problematic authors has such a great value, that they deserve to be revered despite their bigotry, curiously usually tend to belong to groups, which aren’t the target of such bigotry. Just sayin’
Which returns us to Dave Sim and the comics’ fans (and ‘fans’) demographics.
Comic Art in Russia.
This looks like an interesting one. Although, a cursory glance already reveals a certain outlook that has most likely (though, of course, not certainly) resulted in… gentle omissions of certain aspects of the situation as it was and as it is now.
I think most of suffer from liberal guilt maybe to a fault:)
“those, by whose consensus the output of said problematic authors has such a great value, that they deserve to be revered despite their bigotry, curiously usually tend to belong to groups, which aren’t the target of such bigotry.”
The same could be said of Christians, Muslims, etc. who can’t appreciate art that criticizes their beliefs. Personally, I’ve enjoyed works that express some questionable views, if not outright hatred, for white males and my beliefs. But a lot of people can’t get past that, while having no problem getting past it when the questionable views are targeted at others only. On the other hand, sometimes having distance from the subject at hand allows insights and a appreciation not as readily available when you’re too close.
anyone who doesn’t grasp that Dave Sim is anything but an intense, screaming, wide-eyed misogynist is completely and totally off base. i’m not stated that as opinion; it’s there in his very writing, both comic book, “essay”, and response to letters or whatever you want to call it. his biggest defender on here, whose name i’m not going to type but you know who i’m talking about, seems to type as though he’s leaving out every other word. i gave up up reading any of his comments somewhere about 1/2 way down the page. also, anyone he doubts whether Sim is a lunatic need only watch about 3 or 4 minutes of his “Cerebus TV” webshow thing. at one point he puts on a sideways hat and hangs a necklace from his ear and starts talking in “rap slang” (i’m guessing?) it may be meant to be a character or something, but he never seems to mention any context as to why he’s doing it. also, um, he challenged Jeff Smith to a fist-fight, or boxing match, or something. the hell???
THAT SAID: the topic of this thread was whether Cerebus was the worst comic ever written. i’d have to say no. i’ve read all of it, admittedly skimming some of the more whackadoo parts and text garbage, and there are parts that do stick out as fairly enjoyable. however, misogynist rants aside, some dudes drinking and talking in a bar are not the stuff of comics legend.
white men don’t get to set the standard of objective distance from which marginalized peoples should be able to appreciate art.
…and presumably, “marginalized peoples” don’t set the “standard of objective distance” either. Which means no one does, and there is no such “standard” and pursuing it is a fool’s errand, and maybe we should stop worrying that someone, somewhere might like something that offends us.
I know — a terrifying thought.
:drops the fucking mic:
I don’t know, John…it seems like if you shut off the possibility of being offended, you shut off the possibility of having any other reaction to. If art can make you happy or sad or excited or engaged, it can make you angry too. I don’t think anyone is interested in censorship here, but I don’t see why it’s wrong for someone to say, “this is noxious crap.”
White guys have been in control of the canon for a long time, and while that’s changing a little, it remains the case that marginal folks have to make many more excuses for validated art which treats them as less than human than white guys do. It seems to me that it’s worth thinking about that a bit.
There are 2 kinds of “offended” here: (1) there’s the perceived violation of one’s standards of discourse, aesthetics, decorum, morality, etc., which then is taken to be a complete shutdown of any further possible fruitful interaction with the offending material, and then (2) there’s the bothered by something in the offending material. You’re not going to get through life without coming across art that commits 2, but 1, like the obscenity exception to free speech, should be resisted as a legitimate reaction. It leads to manichaeism or, perhaps, Stanley Fish. I don’t like either of those options.
I mean, I don’t support censorship. But I think the reaction, “this is total immoral shit, and I’m not going to interact with it, and further I am going to use my right of free speech to explain why nobody else should choose to interact with it either” — obviously that’s extreme, but I don’t see why it’s at all illegitimate.
In fact, if you do think it’s illegitimate, I think you end up declaring your own rule illegitimate automatically, right? You’re saying it’s illegitimate for someone to use speech to declare speech illegitimate; that’s a pretty straightforward logical contradiction.
The issue with obscenity laws isn’t that they’re illegitimate criticism. It’s that they’re criticism enforced by police power.
I don’t think it’s “illegitimate” to be offended by a work of art.
I think it’s a fool’s errand to set oneself up to police the enjoyment of others of a work of art because it offends you, personally.
In a pluralistic society other people will come to their own aesthetic and moral conclusions. Some of them will not be identical to your own. That does not make them “illegitimate.” They may be wrong — but, then again, you also may be wrong. When another person of intelligence and good will disagrees with your aesthetic or moral view it is chauvinism to assume that they are mistaken and exclude the possibility that you are mistaken instead.
As this is something that WILL happen from time to time, I ask that people develop a slightly thicker skin about this kind of disagreement. “Huh. I’m offended by X, but my friend Y who I respect enjoys it” is something we all need to acclimate ourselves to. Our choices are “I shouldn’t be offended by X,” “I shouldn’t respect Y,” and “Maybe it’s okay that Y and I disagree about X.”
I think each answer is right some of the time.
With regard to Cerebus, I don’t blame anyone who dislikes it or is offended by it. I wouldn’t give it to a child, for example. But I do blame people who say things amounting to “I dislike it, and anyone who doesn’t share my opinion is therefore an idiot or a crypto-misogynist.” (No one on this thread has said that, exactly, but it’s been implied.) Like, if I like the way Dave Sim renders barrels outside a bar, that means I agree with him that women are emotional voids? What’s the argument behind that, exactly?
——————–
Noah Berlatsky says:
Christopher… I think you downplay the extent to which racism remains a live issue in the US as well. Just in comics, explicit racism is a central part of many very highly regarded comics, including Little Nemo and The Spirit…
——————–
Yes. Because some antiquarian comics, highly regarded in the “pocket universe” of comics and virtually unknown elsewhere (that abysmal Frank Miller movie likely the only thing most Americans know of “The Spirit”), featured blubber-lipped blacks, that proves that “racism remains a live issue in the US.”
Sheesh! Of course racism, like sexism, remains virulently active here, but could you possibly pick more absurd examples to help make the case?
Re “Cerebus,” I’ve found the book utterly unappealing, even if clearly often brilliant. Why, just the way Sim used lettering to replicate speech-patterns such as his Margaret Thatcher stand-in, is outstanding ( http://momentofcerebus.blogspot.com/p/hardtalk-interview.html ); there was one issue in his F. Scott Fitzgerald story-arc I bought just for an amazingly hallucinatory sequence.
His views on women are atrocious, idiotic, regressive, quite possibly “mental.” Yet, Sim clearly has (or had; there’s been quite a decline in inventiveness and imagination)) talent to burn.
Thus, “Cerebus” is clearly not the “worst comic ever.” Unless we’re grading on ideological acceptability…
On a lighter note: Cerebus Valentines! http://coilhouse.net/2010/02/cerebus-valentines-for-that-special-void-in-your-life/
“I think it’s a fool’s errand to set oneself up to police the enjoyment of others of a work of art because it offends you, personally.”
In what way is strident criticism of a work “policing the enjoyment of others”? Seriously now, your argument is falling somewhere between strawman construction and grasping at straws at this point. By criticizing the bigotry in Cerebus, I’m committing some unconscionable and intolerable attack on those who appreciate the ability of Gerhard (not Sim, incidentally) to draw fine background details, but no similar sin has been committed by Sim himself by being a bigot in the first place?
One of the most just-plain-irritating things about Dave Sim is the way he will voice the most hateful, bigoted, and reactionary views as often and as frequently as he likes, and then simultaneously turn around and play the wounded martyr when others call him on it. You can’t claim to be a free speech martyr when your principle complaint is that others are using their freedom of speech to criticize you (and you certainly can’t make that claim when you extend that complaint to add “and they’re also not buying my books!”). And the most irritating thing about Sim’s defenders is the way they frequently take up this argument themselves: “Oh, yes, his views are ‘problematic’ and lamentable, but look at those awful people who would serve as thought police by criticizing them!”
As Noah has patiently pointed out repeatedly in this thread, no one here has called for banning Cerebus. What we’ve done is criticize it. Has a work you’ve enjoyed never encountered criticism before? You can engage with that criticism or not, but don’t try to demonize the act of criticism because you don’t happen to feel like doing either.
And to switch gears/pile on, I’ll say that there are plenty of non-misogyny-related reasons to dislike Cerebus: its overreliance on dated and obscure comics industry jokes, none of which are nearly as clever as Sim seems to think they are; its increasing dependence on reference to characters from other, superior works which make the comic feel thin by comparison, and to historical figures whose appearances frequently feel random at best and pretentious at worst; the extensive digressions into speculative biography that crop up more and more through the second half of the comic, interrupting the main narrative for long stretches at a time and seemingly indicating that Sim himself was growing bored and wanting to do something else; and of course the lengthy and unreadable text pieces that began piling up until the average issue of Cerebus began to look like one of the notebooks from the serial killer in Seven. Even the use of lettering, so lauded by everyone who writes anything about Cerebus, stops being innovative and starts becoming *really damn annoying* somewhere around the last third or so, when we get characters who only speak in FunnyFonts, and long sections in which everything anyone says has to appear in wildly exaggerated text. It becomes the equivalent of writing whole paragraphs in all-caps, or that awful period in graphic design when people thought it would be awesome to cram like fifty different fonts on a given page.
The best one can say about Cerebus – even ignoring all its political and ideological content, which I’d argue actually does a disservice to the work itself, which is strenuously trying to make a political and ideological argument – is that it is an enormous mess with some very good artwork. It’s much less of a mess at the start, but it’s still very much a mess. To put oneself through the chore of reading the entire thing requires an almost masochistic devotion to completism.
““I dislike it, and anyone who doesn’t share my opinion is therefore an idiot or a crypto-misogynist.” (No one on this thread has said that, exactly, but it’s been implied.)”
It’s been more strongly implied that people who don’t like Cerebus because of the misogyny are hysterical scolds who aren’t fit to live in a pluralistic society. Physician heal thyself, and all that.
I’m not sure how you could possibly get any of that from anything I’ve written, Christopher.
My posts above were a specific response to Michael, who wrote:
“white men don’t get to set the standard of objective distance from which marginalized peoples should be able to appreciate art.”
I simply don’t think there IS a “standard of objective distance,” or rather, I don’t think such a standard is knowable. I think it is a matter of individual judgment. And let’s unpack exactly what I am saying when I say that: I am not saying that Cerebus is not a misogynist work (I’ve said repeatedly that it is, and I am right when I say that). I’m not saying it is a work of aesthetic merit (I think it is, but I may be wrong.)
I’m only saying that the line-drawing exercise of when a work is so offensive that the offensive content swallows the aesthetic merit is going to be a matter on which reasonable people disagree, so condemning the PEOPLE who disagree with you is misguided (not “illegitimate.”) That’s not me asking people not to criticize the work, it’s not me adopting Sim’s martyr complex, it’s not me indulging in any of the logical fallacies you accuse me of.
Noah, please read my response to Jaelinque above. Haven’t I specifically said the opposite of what you’re attributing to me?
I reread it.
I don’t think you crossed any lines or anything like that. But I don’t think anybody’s said that liking it makes you a crypto-misogynist either.
Milton in his Areopagetica, his sustained and brilliant demand for free speech, predicated his argument on the assumption that Catholics should be censored. I think that’s telling…and almost inevitable in a lot of ways. Free speech is always built on the argument that certain kinds of “intolerant” speech shouldn’t be tolerated. Again, I don’t think you’re calling for censorship or anything like that. But I think when you insist that *other* folks are condemning the people not the art, but *you* are not doing that — I think it’s really dicey. I mean, you’re the one saying folks (not the art, but folks) need to get a thicker skin, right?
Art and the people who appreciate the art are just hard to separate from each other, which is why discussions of art are often so fraught. As I said before, I think it’s reasonable to point out that the canon is tilted the way the canon is tilted, and that misogyny is something that women are expected to put to one side as a matter of course in these matters. The point there is that *society is misogynist* and that *comics culture in particular is misogynist*. It’s true that that is an uncomfortable thing to think about for folks like you and me who are implicated in those communities. But I don’t think it’s precisely a personal attack. It’s certainly challenging your enjoyment of the work, but again, I don’t see why it’s “policing” it (no one’s arresting you.)
I’m still not sure I’m being clear…just to briefly try again….
Jaelinque and Michael are pointing out that the assumption that you should like a work despite, or to the side of, misogyny, is a position that is tied to social power structures. You see that argument as (at least mildly) aggressive, and suggest that everyone has to have a thicker skin in a pluralistic society. In saying that, you’re ignoring the fact that the original point was that *women and minorities are always the ones asked to have a thicker skin.* In other words, the insistence that everyone suck it up is actually an insistence that certain groups continue to suck it up as they always have. You don’t see your argument as aggressive — but Jaelinque and Michael very much do.
The point is that arguments that are aggressive in the direction of marginalized groups aren’t generally seen as aggressive; they’re just seen as rational/balanced/explaining what everyone has to do. Arguments that are aggressive in the direction of less marginalized groups, however, are seen as violating tenets of civilized discourse.
Noah,
It might well be possible that something is awful on every level and in every aspect, but I was thinking about works like Cerebus, where there are arguably some redeeming qualities if one doesn’t shut down based on the misogyny. Rather than the “taking offense” that you defend, there’s also the kind that does shut off having any other reaction to the work in question (so it isn’t just another reaction to some work). I guess I wasn’t clear about that. It seemed to me that you were defending the “shutting down” type by limiting being offended to a sort of emotional reaction (e.g., this thing makes me angry). I also had in mind Jaelinque’s statement about how a selective disinterest is possibly easier for white men. If that’s so, that we can still enjoy a work that expresses hatred of us, because of history, I’d say that’s a good ability to have, not to be dismissed because it came from less oppression. I don’t see it as legitimate to dismiss the work of Public Enemy because of their support for the Nation of Islam. That dismissal is too simplistic. I hope that makes more sense.
It makes sense. I don’t think you’re right that men or others with privilege are less likely to dismiss something that attacks them. On the contrary, women appreciate misogynist culture all the time; there’s not a whole other lot of culture to appreciate, after all. I think folks who are privileged tend to actually be hypersensitive about attacks on them. Tolerance is something that the majority need to learn from the marginalized, not vice versa (at least from what I can tell.)
Noah,
“the canon is tilted the way the canon is tilted, and that misogyny is something that women are expected to put to one side as a matter of course in these matters”
This is exactly what I meant, thank you.
Charles,
A good ability to have?
Quite possible. I wouldn’t have known: me not having it isn’t generally seen as an option.
I remember studying Tolstoy in school. Reading “War and Peace” and, especially, “Anna Karenina” I remember that slight feeling of unease, that something was wrong, and having neither textbooks nor my teachers being able to explain what is wrong with one of our greatest writers. Then I read “The Kreutzer Sonata” and it clicked. Oh. The guy had issues with women. Only nobody thought it an issue worthy of through discussion. Of mentioning this thing about our dearest genius. We, everyone of us, but especially the girls were expected to read and enjoy and analyze the politics and the philosophy, and write essays and revere, and this little thing with the guy being a misogynist and it definitely showing in his works wasn’t important. This wasn’t expected to colour or view of his work in any way. That’s a great author. He hates you? Maybe, but why should that matter in our evaluation? It’s not like this is all that different from the default.
I used my personal history with Tolstoy (both because that is the name you’d recognize and because I *have* a personal history with him), but that’s how most of the culture is: ‘This is a genius author! He created classics which you are to learn to form your taste and which you’re expected to use as a yardstick for all things good in the respected medium and beyond it! He also kinda hated women, but whatever, it’s not like it should be important, this is the cultural norm anyway’. And we shut up and deal, only until we don’t, and then we get the true meaning of tolerance explained to us.
Okay, this might have gotten way too personal. Sorry, I guess. It’s just that… here I feel like being the only one being… well, not really offended, but aggrieved on my own behalf, and that somehow makes me feel like I’m doing something wrong.
Jaelinque — just know that the mere comparison to Tolstoy is EXACTLY what would make Sim happiest of all things in the world.
Noah– I hear what you’re saying and I’m thinking about it. I’ll respond at more length later. It may be that my answer is exactly to agree with your critique but to say “Yes, that’s just the way it is — too bad.” But I’d prefer that I had a better answer…so I’m thinking about it.
————————
Noah Berlatsky says:
…Art and the people who appreciate the art are just hard to separate from each other…
————————–
And one could add, the way people appreciate a work of art also varies significantly. Film students would certainly appreciate Griffith’s “The Birth of a Nation,” Eisenstein’s “October,” Reifenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will” in a different fashion than the intended audiences. (Why, “Birth of a Nation” is “also credited as one of the events that inspired the formation of the “second era” Ku Klux Klan…[it] was used as a recruiting tool for the KKK” [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation ]; eat your heart out, Dave Sim!)
For that matter, modern comics aficionados certainly would see the racial stereotyping in “Little Nemo, “Gasoline Alley,” “The Spirit,” and countless other oldies of the art form as grotesque, yet understand it only reflects the attitudes and mores of the era. Or, consider the bemusedly detached fashion with which the comicscenti enjoy Chick tracts.
Why, there are African-Americans who collect racist-caricature decorative paraphernalia, even antique slave chains. The outrage if it were a white person — no matter how liberal in every way — if they did so! Yet it’s taken for granted that blacks’ “appreciation” of these “collectibles” is the proper kind…
Likewise, it’s possible to read “Cerebus” for whatever bits of aesthetic worth it may have, while finding Sim’s preachifying — once he Saw the Light — as atrociously noxious, detestable.
————————-
The point there is that *society is misogynist* and that *comics culture in particular is misogynist*. It’s true that that is an uncomfortable thing to think about for folks like you and me who are implicated in those communities. But I don’t think it’s precisely a personal attack. It’s certainly challenging your enjoyment of the work, but again, I don’t see why it’s “policing” it (no one’s arresting you.)
————————–
Oh, it’s not ““policing” if “no one’s arresting you.” Cute. As if there weren’t countless other forms of “policing” that didn’t involve clapping someone in handcuffs: verbal attacks and threats, condemnation, loudly-broadcast warnings that the offender’s attitude is vile, immoral, a Threat to the Community. “And what about the children?”
So when some sportscasters have said racially idiotic stuff, outrage resulted, and they lost their jobs, it’s not ““policing” if “no one’s arresting you”?
In the “V for Vile” article, a work that is said to be “brazenly misogynist, horrifically violent” — and guilty of countless other crimes against PC-ness — supposedly “sadly, had some influence, particularly on the radical left.”
And, if you enjoy a work that is attacked as “brazenly misogynist, horrifically violent,” there’s not supposed to be any opprobrium involved?
—————————
op·pro·bri·um
1: something that brings disgrace
2 a: public disgrace or ill fame that follows from conduct considered grossly wrong or vicious
b : contempt, reproach
——————————
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opprobrium
————————–
Noah Berlatsky says:
I mean, I don’t support censorship.
————————–
That certainly sets the alarm-bells ringing!
—————————
But I think the reaction, “this is total immoral shit, and I’m not going to interact with it, and further I am going to use my right of free speech to explain why nobody else should choose to interact with it either” — obviously that’s extreme, but I don’t see why it’s at all illegitimate.
—————————-
It may not be “illegitimate,” but it sure is dictatorial. When moral condemnation is involved, therefore those who “choose to interact with…total immoral shit” are thus considered to either approve of the supposed immorality, or, amorally, not be bothered by it.
—————————–
The issue with obscenity laws isn’t that they’re illegitimate criticism. It’s that they’re criticism enforced by police power.
——————————
Oh, so if the cops aren’t involved, then it’s fine that radical feminists frequently had lesbian B/D and S/M publications banned from feminist bookstores, and countless other book-bannings?
“Oh, so if the cops aren’t involved, then it’s fine that radical feminists frequently had lesbian B/D and S/M publications banned from feminist bookstores, and countless other book-bannings?”
Fair enough; I don’t think that was a good thing either. But no one’s banning anyone or censoring anyone here that I can see.
John…are you sure Sim likes Tolstoy? Tolstoy was a pacifist…I doubt that Sim like that much….
Noah,
“I don’t think you’re right that men or others with privilege are less likely to dismiss something that attacks them.”
I was expanding on Jaelinque’s speculation. But surely it’s not uncommon to hear that disinterest is a privilege of those less oppressed. I don’t disagree with you, though, Christians are as good an example as any.
Jaelinque,
I’ve only read one essay by Tolstoy, so can’t comment on his potential misogyny (or do you mean sexism? around here, people don’t make a distinction). But granting it, your reaction seems perfectly legitimate to me. One’s appreciation of some work shouldn’t occlude all its uglier aspects. it’s just a shame that you can’t approach it the way I would exploitation movies, where the nastiness becomes enjoyable because it doesn’t really have the power of truly offending me. Or right-wing country music, where I see it as an expression of a perspective that I don’t share, but appreciate that it’s something other than my own.
Additionally, contrary to Noah, I think a well-rendered take that I’m fundamentally opposed to (say, an author’s sexist, but richly rendered life of a woman) is a good thing, since it does give one access into the way others think and believe. There is, of course, the danger of making noxious views more tempting, but I’d rather have the challenge than the myopia brought on by only reading safe works and only acknowledging crudely expressed oppositional art. That makes one’s thinking stronger. I guess that would be my short defense of why selective disinterest, where you can see more than just the offensive aspect, is a good ability to have. But you should never deny that the offense is part of the questionable work — I agree with you there.
This discussion has migrated out of the sphere of my interest in participating (I still enjoy reading it though, so don’t take that as a condemnation or anything), but I wanted to pipe in and say that I really appreciated Jaelinque’s description of feeling alienated when discussing Tolstoy, as if his shortcomings are meant to just be accepted. That’s not only an insightful comment, it’s eye-opening for those of us who are inclined to make that sort of “well, that’s the way things were then, you’ve just gotta ignore it” excuse, a reminder that it might be easy for us to accept it when we’re not directly targeted, but it’s much more problematic for those who feel excluded by it. I think this site, and Noah especially, is really good at refusing to ignore the more problematic aspects of a work, like the racism in The Spirit, and I appreciate that people call out that stuff when I’m inclined to bypass it. It makes for a more complicated, sometimes emotional approach to a work, and that’s a good thing.
Briefly searching around, it looks like a fairly common interpretation that Tolstoy was a misogynist. Here’s a dissertation (.pdf) that argues otherwise.
Charles, I don’t think that it’s impossible to enjoy some aspects and/or reject others. I like DH Lawrence, I like Rudyard Kipling…I kind of like Cerebus. My point is just that it’s not illegitimate to have works where one’s reaction is, “this is so offensive it ruins any other enjoyment I might have.”
I also think that siting exploitation films is a bit deceptive. Surely the violence there is not something you get past, but something you actually enjoy in and of itself. That’s the case for me, anyway, and I think for most people who enjoy them.
Simone De Beauvoir spends a nice big chuck of The Second Sex talking about the Tolstoy marriage and how unhappy the Mrs. was.
I don’t mean to imply that I think Sim likes Tolstoy as an author or thinker — I was only using “Tolstoy” as a stand-in for the idea of the Big Russian Novel, the monumental work of universally-acknowledged merit (or as close as you can practically get to that) with a large cast of characters, touching on dozens of themes and philosophical concepts.
I think it’s pretty clear that Sim thinks he’s achieved something like that with Cerebus — a comic book equivalent to War and Peace or The Brothers Karamazov only without the acclaim. Which, if you believe Colleen Doran’s comments linked above (and I do), gnaws at him, and which he has used to give himself permission for his conspiracy theories and martyr complex (that’s me making that conclusion, not Doran.)
This has been a surprisingly enjoyable and intellignet thread on Cerebus! As one of the hosts of the A Moment of Cerebus at http://terminaldrift.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/a-moment-of-cerebus-question/ I was happy to see genuinely interested and interesting comments and opinions here. For my part I am like many, I read Cerebus startinig in 1980 and kept with it till the very end. I didnt like the last third and much of it was WAY out of my comfort zone, but my interest in a talented creator’s vision was more important that if I personally liked every issue. I cannot stand reading most ongoing books for anything like 2 years, let alone 2 decades. Cerebus may not be the best, but is on the list. And I dont think anyone looking objectively can see it for anything less than a masterpiece of the medium, Sim’s personal issues notwithstanding.
By the way, completely aside from the merits of Cerebus, the story of Dave Sim — a gifted and eccentric person meeting success and then spectacularly imploding — is fascinating in itself, and Cerebus can be read as a documentary of that process.
Thanks Taylor — A Moment of Cerebus is a great resource.
Charles,
That’s… an interesting paper you’ve linked to. However it lacing analysis on several important points like Tolstoy’s views on motherhood and it is importance for women (and, hey, contraception, which is evil, as seen in Anna Karenina and Kreutzer Sonata), Kreutzer Sonata (and skimming the summary of that one is enough to understand, why it is important), the marital relationship between Kitty and Levin, women of “War and Peace” (and the contrast between Hélène Kuragina – in many ways the proto-Anna, and Natasha Rostova – the barely-intelligent but highly ‘instinctive’ character that Tolstoy himself considered his female ideal, and to any Russian who has been through middle school discussing Tolstoy’s women without mentioning her is… incomprehensible),Tolstoy’s personal life and all those serf girls and women (most of the historians agree that him establishing the school for serf kids in his manor was mostly for the benefit of his own bastard children), etc., makes the points of this paper highly questionable. Still, very interesting.
Regarding the ability to approach things from a point of view that ‘this is an opinion from a different perspective that doesn’t affect my life all that much’… I can do it as, say, an atheist (although it’s getting kinda uncomfortable to be one in Russia), but not as a woman.
I honestly don’t hate Dave Sim. I don’t even hate Tolstoy. In many ways their works are good, are tremendous achievements. I’m far from being ready to demand their complete condemnation – the general importance of both the author and the work’s ethical stance in the work’s evaluation is a thing I am still struggling with. It’s just tiresome to be an afterthought to be skirted around.
(I apologize for any possible mistakes – English is one more thing I’m still struggling with)
——————
Noah Berlatsky says:
…Tolerance is something that the majority need to learn from the marginalized, not vice versa (at least from what I can tell.)
——————–
Yes, because the marginalized are so tolerant toward others; are so careful, if they get in power, not to persecute and discriminate against others.
Why, whenever an oppressive regime is overthrown, ethnic harmony is the result!
———————
Charles Reece says:
…I’ve only read one essay by Tolstoy, so can’t comment on his potential misogyny (or do you mean sexism? around here, people don’t make a distinction).
———————–
Indeed they seldom do. But, must keep the flames of outrage leaping high!
(Jaelinque’s assessment of Tolstoy I’ll take at face value until researching further.)
Actual hatred of women isn’t common enough for the righteous; by expanding the range and viciousness of their opposition — the way Fundie Christians see themselves as beleaguered by the mighty forces of Satan; right-wingers view themselves as persecuted and enslaved by a savagely far-leftist mass media and those wildly radical Democrats — they keep up the ideological fervor.
For instance, in a critique in the Sept. 10 “New Yorker” of feminist Naomi Wolf’s “Vagina: A New Biography” (where Wolf argues — I kid you not — that the vagina is the center of Woman’s being [with friends like these…who needs enemies?]), Ariel Levy tells of how various prominent feminists slammed “stroke books” as expressions of slavering hatred of women, “the quintessential expression of women’s oppression.”
Robin Morgan: “Pornography is the theory, and rape the practice.”
“…as Steinem put it…erotica is as different from pornography ‘as love is from rape, as dignity is from humiliation, as partnership is from slavery, as pleasure is from pain.’ ”
Thus, males who could have sympathized with the goals of the Women’s Movement and who, “not getting any,” resorted to porn, found themselves characterized as savage, virtually rapists, frothing woman-haters.
Never mind that, as I’ve argued earlier, by absurdly portraying some clueless or period-typical prejudice (i.e., old-time cartoonists portraying blacks with blubber lips) as “vicious racism,” the “currency is devalued.” How, then, do you characterize a lynching by the Klan? “Even more vicious racism”?
And when American Indian activists raise a loudly outraged fuss about some cartoon Indian being the mascot of a beloved football team, surely a lot of people think, “Is that the worst they have to complain about?”
Plus, this constant screaming of “misogyny” and such can lead to”compassion fatigue,” as people felt when bombarded with photos of swollen-bellied African famine victims, or the current offender, the hare-lipped kids of the Smile Train charity.
“(I apologize for any possible mistakes – English is one more thing I’m still struggling with)”
Your English is just fine. I understood everything, and am sure so did everyone else.
Sim definitely read Tolstoy—at least War and Peace, which he praised in the pages of Cerebus, though I suspect it was largely due to the book’s page count (does he ever miss a chance to mention that magic number, 6000?).
I disagree, and all the same I’m really not at all concerned whether or not anyone else likes the story of Cerebus. Sure, the story has its ups and downs.. and occasionally Cerebus tends to go over the deep end. My stance is this: Such is life. ..and the story of Cerebus *is* the story of this Aardvark’s life, it’s not an attempt to placate the ego of the masses ..if you want that, go read some Marvel (but don’t complain to me when you see your cherished continuity go out the window in favor of the latest movie screenplay catered to appeal to the “general audience” whom the executives assume wouldn’t be interested in the actual origins or storyarcs that made Marvel famous).
“and the story of Cerebus *is* the story of this Aardvark’s life,”
Uh…Cerebus isn’t a real character. The story is fiction.
If you want folks to read your comments, you might want to reconsider your opening gambit. Accusing folks of rhetorical overkill, immediately followed by comparing them to Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, is not a way to get anyone to take you seriously.
Aw, shit, Noah, I never gave the intelligent response I promised.
Uh. Sorry?
I’m not sure why this has opened up again all of a sudden, but I feel like the recent responses were both uncivil and unhelpful. So I deleted and I’m closing the thread. Thanks for all those who commented; it was an interesting discussion.
Pingback: More women | Comics Madness