Exclusive Terry Moore Column

[Oh!]

If you are a fan of Terry Moore?s comic book series Strangers in Paradise (which is not an altogether strange assumption, considering this is a messageboard dedicated to that book), here is something you might find of interest.

Last month, Terry agreed to write an exclusive column of opinion for my website. The website may be in Dutch, but the interviews and guest columns are in English and as such, they are also there for the enjoyment of those not able to read Dutch. Since I am not one to keep the good stuff for myself, I wish to use this opportunity to direct you to Terry?s column on my site.

The URL is www.weeklydose.com and you will be able to quickly navigate to said column by clicking on the Terry Moore banner at the bottom on the opening page. In my humble opinion, it is a funny column that also raises a few interesting questions about modern comic books. I hope you will check it out and enjoy it as much as I did.

Terry, if you happen to come across this message, allow me once again to express my gratitude for writing this column. Trust me, it is very cool to have such a big name on your website!

Olav Beemer
?Man of Letters?

------------------
Life's disappointments are harder to take when you don't know any swear words.
calvinandhobbes | billwatterson

[Mibbitmaker]

Very EEnterestink!...I hate superheroes. They hold the medium hostage(as the general public sees 'em, though to the rest of us stuff like SIP or Cerebus or Bone are readily available), and drown out indy/alternative while making i/a "depend" on them for survival. Yet, some of Terry's observations, generally, might hamper the better fantasy titles a bit. Of course, there SHOULD be some credibility to fantasy, but some things can be just by magic or the like. Of course, some(not me) might ask similar questions of religion itself(I chalk it up to alegory, myself). Also, it's just me, but didn't care much for the imagery of the consequenses of superwomen punching brick walls, etc.,true as it may be(Still got some gruesome imagery left, eh, Ter'?) Sure, write that stuff more credibly, but, in a milder version of the situation, I wouldn't mind giving these women some benefit of the doubt! Anyway, internal logic can still carry a fantasy-based story. But, less superheroes regardless is the way for comicbooks to get due respect.

[This message has been edited by Mibbitmaker (edited June 16, 2001).]

[Oh!]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="comic sans ms, jester, Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mibbitmaker:
But, less superheroes regardless is the way for comicbooks to get due respect.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. You wouldn't believe how many people still think that a comic book, by its very definition, is about super heroes. Sigh.

------------------
Life's disappointments are harder to take when you don't know any swear words.
calvinandhobbes | billwatterson

[Darth Fett]

Ah yes, but where would we be with out those 4 color marvels?

Interesting column Terry wrote. I'm glad it wasn't vitriolic like something Warren Ellis would write.

In the same line as Terry's article, if you don't believe in The Force, why did you like that dumb ol' Star Wars movie?

Suspension of disbelief is required for all fantastic tales, be they S/F, fantasy, or super-heroes. If there is a simple easy rationalization, the mechanisim is not important. Y'see, I worked in a comic store for 3 years, so I have heard them all.
So, why doesn't Fairchild pulp her hand when she hits a brick wall, but also keps her silky skin to soft?
Well, a micrometer force field that grants her invulnerability would do it. Or maybe her cells have structures that go rigid under great force or stress, and relax under normal situations(like the theorhetical 'memory metals' scientists are working on...)
Wonder Woman? Her powers are magical, so nuff said.

See how easy it it? That's just off the top of my head. The rationalizations are simple, so mechanical explanations aren't necessary. I remember when Steve Perry explained space travel in the Matador series-'The only guy who understood the math of how it worked is long dead. We don't know how it works, but it does, so we just keep building them'. Short, simple, and avoids the problem all together. Suspension of disbelif, basically saying 'In this world, this is how things work.' It's also the only way accept a story involing magic.

There are alot of indy creators and fans who are angry at the continued exsistance and dominance of super-heroes. Well, it's plain silly. Super heroes do not hold the industry hostage-without them, there would be no industry. Period. No comic racks, no comic stores, just the odd collection of political cartoons at Borders. Blaming super heroes is just a ready excuse why any indy title fails to catch on. Kinda like when the crappy garage band blames the evil corporate record companies for not giving them a break. It drives me crazy when successful indy creator condemns super heros&lt;coughcoughwarrenelliscoughcough&gt;
because they are the shinning example that it can be done. There is room for non-superhero and non-traditional super-hero books. Warren Ellis, Terry Moore, Jeff Smith, Scott McCloud, and many others are proof of that. So instead of screaming to bring the whole 'evil machine' down, just keep buying and creating the kind of books you'd like to see. Some will fail, but the best will always find an audience, and as this continues, superheroes will have to scoot over to make way. Superheroes are a very good entry into Sequnetial Art. From there, many will move on to bigger and better, if it's there. So indy creators should stop mullygrumbling and give them altenatives. I know you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. But you can't blame the water when he doesn't. Blame the horse-the readers.

&lt;stops, realies he's ranted on FOREVER&gt;
Opps. Sorry there. This is a hot issue in the industry, and I have my own thoughts on it. I'm not saying Tery is wrong- I'm saying it's irrelavant. There are many ways to look at the super hero, and he is merely presenting one of them. Take a look at Alan Moore's ABC books, and Joe Straczynski's Rising Stars-you will see 2 more. None are actually superior to each other, but Alan and Joe get bonus points for originality and showing us a new paradigm. Hopefully Terry can do something similar if he ever gets a chance. And the fact that he was talkling with DC about that chance proves that the Evil Big 2 aren't trying to keep anyone down. Just ask Brian Bendis and David Mack.

Darth

[Oh!]

Good points, Darth. I basically agree with your thoughts on suspension of disbelief. It is a necesssity for all tales fantasy. From Star Trek to super hero comics.

The point in Terry's column, though (as I see it), is that most people ignorant of what comics can be still see them as silly stories for kids. Not all comics need suspension of disbelief. Comics can be slice of life and they can be just as profound and moving as any other artistic expression.

------------------
Life's disappointments are harder to take when you don't know any swear words.
calvinandhobbes | billwatterson

[Darth Fett]

True. But it's not because of the way superheroes are portrayed. It's because of the stories that get told. These days most of the best stories I read/view come from comics, because the medium is flexing it's muscles and really showing of what it can do. Unfoetunately we are stuck with the misnomer of 'comics', and when you try to change that, and try to put a more correct label on it, like Sequential Art, people roll their eyes and accuse you of pretension.
I just see the need for more unity in the field. It's not Marvel, DC and Todd against the rest of the creators-the big guys are starting to see this-they're starting to bring in real talent when they see it. The indy creators should stop trying to compete directly-if you have nothing new to add to the super hero pot, don't bother-you can't compete with 40 to 70 years of history surrounding the Big Guys. But if you have something unique to say, a new wrinkle, or you aren't doing super-heros at all, then dive right in, and give it your best shot. Everyone benefits from it. Even folks who read nothing but spandex books have gained from the new talent and level of quality brought about by the expansion of the independant segment.


Darth

[Thrasymachos]

Thanks for posting the column, Olav.
Some of Terry's points were also made in an
article a few years ago by Larry Niven, which explained why Superman could never marry Lois Lane. Belief is a bridge over a chasm-- it can be suspended only so far. When it contradicts its internal laws, it falls. For example, Dr. Isaac Asimov wrote some books based on fictitious physical laws. But the stories worked because they obeyed those laws. Originally, Superman had very modest powers and wasn't safe from bullets. Jerry Siegel tried to give a pseudo-scientific explanation of those powers. But over the years Superman got new powers with every issue until he was as powerful as God. Worse than impossible science are implausible characters. We have seen characters that have no self; that are not internally consistent; that turn from gibbering coward to foolhardy idiot, from blackhearted villain to altruistic hero in the blink of an eye, with no hint, no explanation, and no reason other than the writer's need for an exciting scene. We have seen this in the works of Crichton and Lucas and in many superhero comics. This may be okay for 11-year-old boys, but not for adults. Comics will not be accepted as an art form so long as it is defined by superheroes. Fortunately we have S.I.P., Kabuki, A Distant Soil, Age of Bronze, Stray Bullets, Love and Rockets, and Finder!

[usmu]

Well here?s my two cents on the matter:

I do agree with most of what Thrasymachos wrote. Where things go wrong in my view in at least what you can consider the classic superhero comics is inconsistency in internal laws. Which is bad writing.

I don?t necessarely think it?s superhero?s that are holding back comics as an art form. It?s bad writing that?s killing this medium.

In that respect there are a lot of paralels with modern day television. There?s a lot of bad "writing" on, made for a quick buck without any meaning or message. Talkshows like Jerry Springer and a host of sitcoms are prime examples.

Those extremes/minent things that are highlighted and thus television get?s judge by that.

Still "mindless" entertainment isn?t a bad thing in itself, it?s usefull and can be fun. It definately has validity. But it shouldn?t be come the prominent force if it soley consists of "bad writing".

Art, in which ever form it may come, needs involvement of a person to gain validity. This means involvement in whatever medium the art is in, either by making or consuming it.

The only way this is going to happen is if there?s a consistent quality about it. And that can only be done with good writing.