Did nineties editorial really get it so wrong?

[Richard]

Well, not to nitpick, but saying [Wagner] was mainly absent just isn't accurate. Or including him in "loss of writers" for the decade. And there's always Al's Baby, etc. There is a lot of 90s Wagner material, and sure, Dredd counts.

Wagner was almost entirely writing for the Megazine in those days. He was virtually absent from 2000 AD.

[Mills's] opinion of the reader of the comic has never in my opinion seemed that great.

He sometimes comes across that way in print. But I met him at a signing once and he was very friendly, polite and respectful to all the fans present (even to me when I asked him lots of dumb questions at the end). So given that he's not exactly shy about saying what he really thinks, I think he might hold the readers in higher regard than you suspect.

[Frank]

Whilst his contribution to the creation of 2000AD can never be forgotten his opinion of the reader of the comic has never in my opinion seemed that great

I probably have a higher opinion of Mills and his recent work than you, so I view what you describe not as contempt but as a consequence of Mills's odd double consciousness concerning class.

As Future Shock demonstrates, The Pat Mills History Of 2000ad is that of the working classes sticking two fingers up to the establishment ... despite being made by mostly middle class creators and editors* .

I don't have an axe to grind about Mills not working down 'pit, but I think having to imagine himself into some weird headspace where he's appealing to some Platonic ideal of the working classes sometimes has odd results.


* O'Neill and McMahon being the obvious exceptions

[PsychoGoatee]

Well, not to nitpick, but saying [Wagner] was mainly absent just isn't accurate. Or including him in "loss of writers" for the decade. And there's always Al's Baby, etc. There is a lot of 90s Wagner material, and sure, Dredd counts.

Wagner was almost entirely writing for the Megazine in those days. He was virtually absent from 2000 AD.

Not true. See that's my point there, we're talking about the entire decade of the 90s. That would include Necropolis in 2000AD, The Pit in 2000AD, and many many other Dredd stories. The dark ages of no Wagner in 2000AD there were only a few years.

Still not as ubiquitous as in the 80s, but there was a lot of Wagner writing in 2000AD (mostly via Dredd) in the 90s. Enough that having all of it collected and trying to carry it, it would be quite heavy. 

And say you love 1990, 1997, 1998, and 1999 of 2000AD. That's almost half the decade. Just saying.

[IndigoPrime]

I suspect most people are using the 1990s as shorthand for the dark era, during which Wagner was conspicuous in his absence from 2000 AD, and where arguably his best work at the time was in fact created for an entirely different comic.

[Skullmo]

I don't know - how many did he rewrite?

[BPP]

Any time I've talked to Pat about the past, including the dark ages, his point has always been that the readers supported him and not the editors so I've no idea where this contempt for readers thing has come from.

[Jim_Campbell]

Any time I've talked to Pat about the past, including the dark ages, his point has always been that the readers supported him and not the editors so I've no idea where this contempt for readers thing has come from.

And how was Pat canvassing this support from the readers? Sounds suspiciously like 'the lurkers support me by email', TBH.

Cheers

Jim

[Skullmo]

The pat mills haters thread - I'm out.

[Jim_Campbell]

The pat mills haters thread - I'm out.

The Mills 'Dark Days' narrative on 2000AD's history is difficult to square against a number of verifiable facts. It's not 'hating' to point that out. There's a chunk of Pat's output that could unquestionably have done with a firmer editorial hand (ahem... Secret Commonwealth) and it's not 'hating' to point that out. The 'Future Shock' documentary has had the effect of cementing the 'Dark Days' narrative as if it was fact, and it's not 'hating' to challenge that.

Cheers

Jim

[Hawkmumbler]

Surely discussing weather a persons body of work is objectively bad isn't "hating".

[Frank]

Surely discussing weather a persons body of work is objectively bad isn't "hating"

Sorry, Hawkmonger, but that's really not what's under discussion here.

As stated above, I love Pat Mills. The quality of his "body of work" isn't really in question, just a period which coincides spookily with the exact moment the comic he fashioned in his own image entered a decade long slump too. The History of 2000ad is the history of Pat Mills.

The purpose of this thread is to question the validity of the version of 2000ad history presented in the Future Shock documentary. Plus maybe the equally stubborn myth that a comic written by guys born in the forties and drawn by hippies was 'punk':

[TordelBack]

Just to be absolutely clear, I count myself as a devoted a vocal fan of Pat Mills - he IS 2000AD as far as I'm concerned. What we're discussing here is his perspective on the comic's history.

there's a chunk of Pat's output that could unquestionably have done with a firmer editorial hand (ahem... Secret Commonwealth)

Mills' intro to the Slaine:Lord of Beasts collection devotes half a page to specific editorial interference on Secret Commonwealth (the lowpoint for Slaine IMO, at a time when much of the rest of the comic was thriving under Diggle) in terms of content, structure, pacing, language and even enforced adherence to the 'rules of drama', so perhaps this is one where editorial input really was the issue...

[W. R. Logan]

Any time I've talked to Pat about the past, including the dark ages, his point has always been that the readers supported him and not the editors so I've no idea where this contempt for readers thing has come from.

When I'm back in the UK I'll dig out one of Pats intros to a GN that I think highlights my point.

[W. R. Logan]

The History of 2000ad is the history of Pat Mills.

I'd strongly disagree, Pat created and gave life to 2000AD but in less than a year after its birth left it.
The history of 2000AD is far more than one person.

[Frank]

Which is where I was hoping this thread would get to eventually. I share TB and Colin's affection for Mills, but his excoriation of 90s editorial (and particularly Diggle) is a case of him projecting his problems onto others.


Mills lost his way in the 90s. Mills forgot what it was about his early stuff that appealed to readers. Listening to him scourge 90s Tharg is painful for me, because it's really Mills beating up on himself.

When I describe Future Shock's narrative of early vigour gone awry, then (partially) regained, as The Pat Mills History of 2000ad, what I mean is it's the story of Pat Mills.

I love Pat Mills. The quality of his "body of work" isn't really in question, just a period which coincides spookily with the exact moment the comic he fashioned in his own image entered a decade long slump too. The History of 2000ad is the history of Pat Mills.

I'd strongly disagree, Pat created and gave life to 2000AD but in less than a year after its birth left it.
The history of 2000AD is far more than one person.

The meaning and scope of my metaphor is clear from the context in which it is used.