Hmm do you think it's enjoyable if you don't have in detail knowledge about US domestic politics and/or stereotypes? I e.g. have just a vague idea what "anti-establishment militias" in the US are or why "Middle America" is more likely to rise up.
I read the first few issues when they originally came out and took it to be a satire of American involvement in foreign countries. A kind of "What if Iraq/Syria were happening in the US of A?". The themes may have evolved in later issues.
I'm not really sure I want to read DMZ, due to Brian Wood's supposedly quite terrible misogyny.
That's why I don't read Shakespeare.
I'm curious about what you're referring to specifically?
It seems to have calmed down since November and Fowler appears OK with using it as a teaching moment and taking the higher ground, but the whole affair and a LOT of discussion of Wood's behavior outside of it is...not great.
Ah I remember that. I was worried there was some other hideous thing I'd missed, after the recent Alan Moore interview I probably wouldn't have been able to handle it. Or possibly after the recent Alan Moore interview it would have seemed totally benign, what I've managed to read of that interview is quite bad.
If he is a shit then it doesn't come across in his work at all. But if you're still uncomfortable with it I can sympathise, everyone says Ender's Game mostly preaches tolerance or something but I'm still not going to read it.
I can't work out a pattern for how I react to learning that a creator is actually a complete tool. I really loved some of Frank Miller's stuff before all the Holy Terror crap and that thing where he implied that the first amendment actually only protects the act of fighting muslims. Now I'm not even interested in the stuff I liked before. On the other hand I watched Chinatown knowing full well what Polansky was like and still really enjoyed it. Have you ever found out about a creator being a villain after you'd got invested in their work?
I'm still waiting for Vertigo to release the third part of the four volume Annotated Sandman. It's been nearly a year.
His work is generally considered to be pretty female positive, which is why it was such a surprise. I reserve judgement to some degree, since he hasn't reacted badly and everyone seems to have moved past it. I think he may be more likely guilty of privilege and being unaware that he was coming across as creepy or threatening. I wasn't there, don't know any of the people involved, so I try to remain mindful.
Frank Miller, on the other hand, has become a complete ass. And yes, it colors my perception of even his earliest, best work. Alan Moore's opinion of some of his past audience doesn't bother me, but Miller's snide ass-hattery makes me reasses a lot of his older work in a very judgemental way. Things I would have given a pass now seem like warning signs.
I think on some degree you need to disassociate the work from the artists, but it all depends. If Cory suddenly turned out to be running slaves from Uzbekistan to North Korea or something, I might stop buying his work to make sure I'm not endorsing or enriching someone I find questionable...but there is a limit to how much that will affect an artist for past, successful works.
Ultimately, I'm not sure I have a good answer or even rule-of-thumb. It's kind of catch as catch can, really.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.