Mark Millar on his MillarWorld Forum here :-
http://forums.millarworld.tv/index.php?showtopic=91197
QuoteI had no idea what I was doing for the most part and just learning how to do very basic stuff then. Only good stuff I'd recommend would be Big Dave (which was co-written with Grant Morrison), a few Dredds, a thing called Inferno, maybe Canon Fodder and, uh, that's about it.
Honestly, the bulk of what I wrote was pure shite and I'm not being modest. I didn't really get any good until I started on Swamp Thing in my early twenties. Most of the 2000AD stuff was done when I was 18-21.
QuotePS I didn't write anything like 18000 pages. It was more like 800 pages really. Not that much at all.
PPS Red Razors for the Megazine was pretty good and Insiders for Crisis too. But I never really read or liked 2000AD at that time and had no idea what I was doing. I got into it later when I read some great early Pat Mills stuff, but I mostly wasn't into it at all.
He's honest about it, I'll give him that. Can't imagine what my takeover of 2000AD would have looked like if I was 18 and had never read or liked the thing...
I'd like to have been in that editorial meeting. "Don't like it, never read it, once I've squeezed me zits let me write most of it for what'll seem like years. I'm not really bothered, but I'll do some of that Captain Dread thing if you'd like - I have this idera about conveyor belts I'd like to try out. Nah John, you stick to the dinosaur thing".
Wow and recommending his Dredd's. Well its all subjective I guess.
Still I enjoyed 'Silo' and 'Manic 5' too.
Quote"pure shite"
That pretty much describes Mark Millar. His derisive attitude to Twoth even before he joined as a writer was despicable.
Quote from: Marbles on 05 January, 2010, 02:27:16 PM
PPS Red Razors for the Megazine was pretty good and Insiders for Crisis too.
He's entitled to his opinion.
He has his own forum? Isn't that a bit... oh wait :-X
The thing is, he is being modest: I think I managed to stick two issues of his Swamp Thing which was also fucking awful.
Cheers
Jim
Can't we all just pretend that the early 90s 2000AD never existed?
-pj
Maybe we can do it like the missing 11 days in the Gregorian calendar. Fuck the 90's into the bin forever.
QuoteAlthough the Gregorian Calendar was adopted in 1582 in Italy, the new calendar was not adopted in England until September 1752. By this time, another day of error (leap year, 1700) had accumulated, causing the calendars to be 11 days out of synch. Correcting this error required eliminating 11 days from September in 1752, resulting in a month that was only 19 days long.
As I've said before though for every 'Inferno' and new 'Robohunter' there's a 'Firekind' and 'Metrobolis'
I dont really blame him for being rubbish - I do blame him for the spiteful little interviews he gave at the time about how great he was and how rubbish 2000AD was before he came along. Perhaps he might have been better off reading a few of those "Great early Pat Mills" stories before attempting to write for the comic ,or at the very least before slagging Pat and John as past it grandads...
I think I killed (and was killed by) him on MW 2 yesterday. Unless it was another "mark millar".
Quote from: Marbles on 05 January, 2010, 02:27:16 PMBut I never really read or liked 2000AD at that time and had no idea what I was doing. I got into it later when I read some great early Pat Mills stuff, but I mostly wasn't into it at all.
What I don't understand is:
a) Why he even thought about writing for a comic he had neither read nor liked - its not like conning your way in was a guarantee of riches (although it had clearly worked out very nicely for him in the long run, it can't have been some part of some evil masterplan)
b) Why anyone let him write for 2000AD
I can only assume he got in riding on Grant Morrison's coattails but unless GM had Polaroids of Tharg caught in bed with Mek-Quake after overdoing it on the polystyrene cups at the Nerve Centre Xmas party it is still baffling.
Yeah his Robohunters were pretty much what made me stop reading about '95, which was a big sad decision to have to make!
Quote from: Emperor on 05 January, 2010, 06:35:22 PM
What I don't understand is:
a) Why he even thought about writing for a comic he had neither read nor liked - its not like conning your way in was a guarantee of riches (although it had clearly worked out very nicely for him in the long run, it can't have been some part of some evil masterplan)
Well he probably wasn't the first or last to use 2000ad as a springboard without having too much affection for the title. Its almost a standard entry system for UK writers trying to get noticed in America.
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 05 January, 2010, 07:18:55 PM
Well he probably wasn't the first or last to use 2000ad as a springboard without having too much affection for the title. Its almost a standard entry system for UK writers trying to get noticed in America.
The difference is Millar & Morrison made a point of broadcasting it to the world, rubbing our noses in their shit so to speak. I can't think of any others who acted like this even if they had ulterior motives.
can we remove the '2k' bit from the title. It would make it more appropriate. Like he suddenly became good when he had finished alienating the 2000AD readership from their beloved prog.
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 05 January, 2010, 07:18:55 PM
Quote from: Emperor on 05 January, 2010, 06:35:22 PM
What I don't understand is:
a) Why he even thought about writing for a comic he had neither read nor liked - its not like conning your way in was a guarantee of riches (although it had clearly worked out very nicely for him in the long run, it can't have been some part of some evil masterplan)
Well he probably wasn't the first or last to use 2000ad as a springboard without having too much affection for the title. Its almost a standard entry system for UK writers trying to get noticed in America.
Yes I suppose. I'm probably being naive, as getting a story in 2000AD would be on my "things to do before I die" list but to others it is on their "stepping stones to working on American comic books" list and it seems those who cynically pursue this (with not much of an eye to anything else) do seem to do well.* I'm worried now - I got plenty of nice jumpers and T-shirts for Xmas and there seems to be a lot of people out there who will buy the Emperor's new clothes, I'll have to remember to lock all the doors and windows tonight in case of burglars.
* Although I was please to see Jock, Simon Spurrier and Rob Williams joining Paul Cornell on the
Dark X-Men: The Beginning anthology, so sometimes hard work and talent does pay off).
Quote from: uncle fester on 05 January, 2010, 02:53:13 PM
He has his own forum? Isn't that a bit... oh wait :-X
Are you suggesting we have a new rival forum? Has John Byrne's mob been ousted?
QuoteHe has his own forum
Has the infiltration began?
Can we not invade other forums? It will be funny for about five minutes then it'll get increasingly pompous and tenuous.
Wow after displaying sensitivity the other day, today Roger displays restraint. Maybe we have an infiltration of our own here to worry about!
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 06 January, 2010, 07:35:21 AM
Wow after displaying sensitivity the other day, today Roger displays restraint. Maybe we have an infiltration of our own here to worry about!
I knew hiring those Christmas Ghost costumes was worth it.
Yeah, I'm actually shocked that a professional would come out and rip on the place he got his start - whether he felt that way or not. Has he given any thought to the fact that (for some unknown reason) he may have carried over fans from 2000AD?
And how many people are actually posting on his forum?
Tsk, he's a bit of a knob sometimes, is'nt he? Still, I do enjoy some of his work.....some. ::)
Well he's only saying what we've been saying here for years.
The only disagree with one thing and thats that he thinks anything he wrote for 2000 was any good.
Good for Millar. He's learned "insight," even if "telling an entertaining story" still eludes him.
Quote from: locustsofdeath! on 06 January, 2010, 08:05:57 AM
Yeah, I'm actually shocked that a professional would come out and rip on the place he got his start - whether he felt that way or not.
Oh, it's better than that, my pestilential friend -- he (and Morrison) were doing this
while they were actually working for the comic, giving interviews where they said "2000AD was shite until we came along".
For Morrison, not that I think it's an excuse, I get the feeling that this was as much about his unerring ability for self-promotion, since he very rarely exhibits actual contempt for previous versions of series he works on. Millar, not so much.
Cheers
Jim
Mark Millar?
Mark Wankar, more like.
Did Mark Millar have comic writing experience before 2000ad?
I'm guessing even with Morrison as his sponsor he would have to have submitted examples. Didn't their lack of relevance to 2000ad start the alarm bells?
It's like an artist being commissioned to do Dredd after a portfolio of only Spiderman and Batman examples - something I've always thought the submissions process warned against.
Quote from: Dunk! on 06 January, 2010, 11:45:29 AM
Did Mark Millar have comic writing experience before 2000ad?
Yes. He got a LOT of publicity in the UK comic press for writing "Saviour" for Trident, in which the Devil has come back to Earth looking exactly like Jonathan Ross and has his own chat show, whilst Christ is a homeless alcoholic. Ooh! Controversial!
I think it only lasted a couple of issues.
Cheers!
Jim
Maybe there was some desperation involved?
Wasn't it around the time of a mas exodus from 2000ad- Wagner and Grant departing would have left a massive hole in the roster that would have needed filling as quick as possible.
Surely it could only have been desperation that forced Tharg to employ a guy that actually didn't like the comic.
Quote from: Dunk! on 06 January, 2010, 11:45:29 AMDid Mark Millar have comic writing experience before 2000ad?
This is about as comprehensive as I can get it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Millar#UK_publishers
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 06 January, 2010, 10:46:20 AM
Quote from: locustsofdeath! on 06 January, 2010, 08:05:57 AM
Yeah, I'm actually shocked that a professional would come out and rip on the place he got his start - whether he felt that way or not.
Oh, it's better than that, my pestilential friend -- he (and Morrison) were doing this while they were actually working for the comic, giving interviews where they said "2000AD was shite until we came along".
For Morrison, not that I think it's an excuse, I get the feeling that this was as much about his unerring ability for self-promotion, since he very rarely exhibits actual contempt for previous versions of series he works on. Millar, not so much.
Indeed. As best I can tell it was a routine the two did to paint themselves as the "enfant terribles" of British comics (although I suppose if you go for a more literal translation that could just be "terrible babies" ;) ) hence the Summer Offensive. The whole thing was piss, vinegar and cock swinging - not my idea of a night out but tastes may differ.
When I went through those old interviews what amazed me was the contempt shown (faked?) about Morrison's Arkham Asylum, which he pretty much dismisses:
QuoteNot exactly the easiest way to get yourself into the comic industry, but he's reaping the benefits now, with a super champagne lifestyle and a posh house in Glasgow's trendy west end - his Batman graphic novel Arkham Asylum has sold over 200,000 copies worldwide and earned him a fortune. No small fish, despite being a remake of the Lewis Carroll classic Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.
Grant: "Well, I'd read the Alice books and decided to put Batman into a similar situation - where he goes into a strange place, strange things happen to him and then he comes back out at the end, none the wiser - and by the time everyone got the shrink wrap off and realised that they had been ripped off, I was already rolling in it."
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/fish1000/index/lostcontent/gm-mm-XStatic1-May92.txt
Anyone interested should take a skim through these:
http://fish1000.blogspot.com/search/label/Lost%20and%20Found#gminterviews
The previous link (from a 1992 interview) includes such classics as:
QuoteThey are even working on a massive re-launch for 2000AD which will see the light of day mid 1993. Mark outlines, with a certain degree of fervour, the character who will spearhead the campaign.
Mark: "Grant and I are co-writing a strip called 'Big Dave - The hardest man in Britain'. Dave comes from Manchester and wears shellsuits and trainers. He's got two pit-bull terriers and he takes on everything from aliens to Spaniards."
Grant: "We're both sick of the way 2000AD is full of poofs these days. Judge Dredd's turned into a poof and so has everyone else. All the stories are about Buddhists, Feminism and Ecology - it's a real drag. These old bastards keep complaining about how 2000AD is not as good as it used to be - well, who do they think is writing the bloody thing these days! -THEM! - Pat Mills and company, that's who!"
...
The atmosphere soon lightens when I buy the lads another drink and they soon forget their differences. Getting on to the subject of rubbishing the efforts of those present, I ask them what they think of the claim by the original 2000AD team that the younger writers don't have the talent to create new characters.
Mark: "I'm sick of listening to them bleating on about how bloody great they are. Take a look at some of the stuff they've created. Only Judge Dredd is any good. If they had their way, they'd turn 2000AD into WOMAN'S OWN! We want a kicking comic with teeth and big bastarding Doc Martens boots."
Strong words, but if Mark's dream sounds too much like the late unlamented Toxic, then you could be in for a shock.
Mark: "Toxic was done by old poofs for old poofs - and it showed. We're going to make 2000AD more like The SUN - with a 'Dear Tharg' problem page and Page Three birds done up like Judge Anderson and Halo Jones with their tits hanging out. We're going to fit some bingo in there, too. There's plans to give away free gifts like stick on tattoos and a cassette of Big Dave singing 'Fly me to the Moon' on a Karaoke machine."
Grant: "2000AD has been out of date for years - it's more like 1800AD these days - we want to liven things up a bit."
They both smile and say "Solid!". (I'm not entirely sure if 2000AD is safe in the hands of these two.) It's like giving your firstborn child to Charles Manson to babysit - but if anything, it should prove to be... well, interesting.
I know it is all an act (and Grant likes to wear his fiction suits - this was "young, cocky and arrogant" he went to "wild psychonaut" at the end of the nineties and has evolved into "corporate suit" now but "cocky" is till only a letter away from "cock" and I'm surprised no one offered to chin one or both of them at the time.
QuoteNot exactly the easiest way to get yourself into the comic industry, but he's reaping the benefits now, with a super champagne lifestyle and a posh house in Glasgow's trendy west end - his Batman graphic novel Arkham Asylum has sold over 200,000 copies worldwide and earned him a fortune. No small fish, despite being a remake of the Lewis Carroll classic Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.
Grant: "Well, I'd read the Alice books and decided to put Batman into a similar situation - where he goes into a strange place, strange things happen to him and then he comes back out at the end, none the wiser - and by the time everyone got the shrink wrap off and realised that they had been ripped off, I was already rolling in it."
Grant Morrison is the Damien Hirst of comics. Arkham Asylum was always shit and he knew it. For all his dissing of Moore, he didn't mind hopping on his bandwagon and failing artistically. Why they feel the need to rub their failures in our faces is just contemptible.
I haven't read much of Millar's work in 2k, and I haven't read any of his non-2k work but anyone who uses the word "solid" in that context is definitely a wanker in my book.
I like Arkham Asylum, and in fact most of Grant Morrison's stuff. Including Big Dave. I still think Millar is a gobshite though.
'Poof' this, 'poof' that. Those were the days, eh?
Silo was reasonable. Big Dave was funny but one note and outstayed it's welcome.
"Pure shite" - that's a fair comment. I'd apply it to everything he's written full stop.
Quote
We're going to make 2000AD more like The SUN - with a 'Dear Tharg' problem page and Page Three birds done up like Judge Anderson and Halo Jones with their tits hanging out. We're going to fit some bingo in there, too. There's plans to give away free gifts like stick on tattoos and a cassette of Big Dave singing 'Fly me to the Moon' on a Karaoke machine."
At least all this didn't happen - as shite as their tenure was, seems like it could have been so much worse, and I don't think even Tahrg's mighty organ would've come back from that!
It was a pose though, a feeble attempt to turn comics into music- with the "big names" trying to act like how they imagine popular musicians act. If you lump it all in with the contemptible Tank Girl crap that was being peddled by Deadline at the same time, it all begins to make sense.
What got my goat about Morrison was an interview I read where he "described how he summoned up a demon"- like "a black negative force in the corner of his room". There's a word for writers who think they are magicians- and it's 'mental'. I lose all respect for people when they start spouting this particular kind of shite- which is why I can't read Alan Moore these days without laughing and thinking "knob".
SBT
Alan does it for a joke though. He's admitted it loads of times that he's simply playing up to this image people have of him.
Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 06 January, 2010, 05:11:16 PM
It was a pose though, a feeble attempt to turn comics into music- with the "big names" trying to act like how they imagine popular musicians act. If you lump it all in with the contemptible Tank Girl crap that was being peddled by Deadline at the same time, it all begins to make sense.
It worked though - the picked up on the big name value of Alan Moore and Frank Miller and worked themselves into the position of being the rockstars of the comic book world, able to sell comic books and get more work on name value alone. I'm not necessarily sure if this is A Good Thing, but I do enjoy a lot of Morrison's work but I still judge them on a case-by-case basis.
Quote from: Christov on 06 January, 2010, 06:30:54 PM
Alan does it for a joke though. He's admitted it loads of times that he's simply playing up to this image people have of him.
Indeed - I think some reporters have taken that rather literally and harp on about it a lot (so they get told what they want to hear). He is interested in magick but his belief system is rather dynamic and fluid, so is actually rather difficult to pin down (his upcoming "grimoire" should be well worth reading on these lines and it sounds like it could be quite a fun read. as he takes none of this very seriously). I suspect he realised )around his 40th birthday?) that he had actually being making magick for years, what he has done since is formalise the process (and weave some of it into his work).
Who was it that decided to reprint Red Razors ?
That pisses me off when i think of far better material that is still waiting to be reprinted.
Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 06 January, 2010, 05:11:16 PM
What got my goat about Morrison was an interview I read where he "described how he summoned up a demon"- like "a black negative force in the corner of his room". There's a word for writers who think they are magicians- and it's 'mental'. I lose all respect for people when they start spouting this particular kind of shite- which is why I can't read Alan Moore these days without laughing and thinking "knob".
Moore has always seen it as a creative intellectual exercise, a language he can play with that helps him think outside the box and in my opionion it's paid off; I think Promethea is marvellous. With Morrison saying he had literally summoned a demon was just another way to be "cool", hanging out at fashion conspiracy shindigs like Disinfo etc.
Judging by this article Grant Morrison seems to be seriously interested and knowledgeable about Magic :
http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:0OtaMYTd28kJ:www.scribd.com/doc/24506/Pop-Magic-by-Grant-Morrison+grant+morrisson+summons+demon&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a
I think the same goes for Alan Moore as its a serious interest rather than something that is used to contrive an image.
Pity Alan Moore's a (mostly) excellent writer - I want to HATE him based on how he comes across.
Happily Grant Morrison & Mark Millar are both awful enough to make up for this.
Quote from: Mike Gloady on 06 January, 2010, 09:48:21 PM
Pity Alan Moore's a (mostly) excellent writer - I want to HATE him based on how he comes across.
Really? I think the man's a national treasure!
Cheers
Jim
He mentions "magic" for Cod's sake.
If you're not pointing and laughing at someone for believing in that sort of thing, that makes you a complete idiot. Moore gets a pass for his writing though, and he IS kind of interesting in conversation (I remember a Radio 4 show where Stewart Lee interviewed him pretty interestingly).
But magic? REALLY?
Oh dear.
Quote from: Mike Gloady on 06 January, 2010, 09:57:37 PM
But magic? REALLY?
Oh dear.
You
really need to listen to more Moore interviews. An interview with the Bearded One is -- pretty much without exception -- a little gem to be treasured. Even when he's pissed off, he's funny and erudite and articulate.
As far as the magic thing goes: I may be misremembering this, but ISTR Moore saying that he was finding it increasingly hard to write (understandable once you've been pretty much definitively feted as the greatest living comic writer a few times) and stumbled upon a method of writing where he externalised his imagination as a landscape; a separate place (a magical realm if you want) where stories took place and which he visited to retrieve them. The 'magic' thing is a mechanism by which he interacts with his imagination.
If you've ever heard him talk about Glycon, magic, and the rather matter of fact way in which he refers to "going mad", it's quite disarming.
Cheers
Jim
Moore's ideas about what 'magic' is, and why he's interested in it, are pretty intriguing.
I'm probably misquoting and misrepresenting, but his starting point was, IIRC: "Magic and art are closely analagous: both are the creation of something from nothing". Magic for him seems to be a way of approaching the world and the creative process from a new angle. It's significant that the 'demon' that is his totem or guide is Glycon, one of the few gods of the ancient world that were actually exposed as a fraud at the time (jn this case a snake puppet - according to Lucian, at least). For him, the real idea of a fake god, the value of the idea of magic in interpreting the world, seems to be the important thing, rather than the 'truth' or reality of it.
Quote from: TordelBack on 06 January, 2010, 10:29:19 PM
Moore's ideas about what 'magic' is, and why he's interested in it, are pretty intriguing.
Yeah ... that's sort of how I understand it, too. It
is fascinating, and I'm not unsympathetic to the viewpoint, TBH. I recall having a conversation with another friend who was inclined in a writerly direction some twenty years ago, in which he pointed out that a work of fiction can change -- genuinely change -- who you are, how you think. Transformation, without any physical action ... how is that
not magic?
Cheers
Jim
I love reading Alan moore interviews or listening to him because he is always interesting and he is a complete individual.
And NO i wont point my finger and laugh at someone else because of their interests and beliefs as i find that kind of behaviour to be childish and unintelligent and i dont particularly care if that makes me an "idiot" either.
I dont get involved in Magick myself but i am interested in it and i have some understanding of it.I have an interest and an understanding of many many different things and magic is one of them.
I liked Millars Tales from Beyond Science, Silo was pretty OK as well. The rest was shite, never read any of his American stuff, and probably wont unless I pick it up cheap somewhere.
I think the thing that Millar, Morrison and Ellis have in common is that they are shrewd buisness men, they have taken the internet and made themselves famous to a small but vocal group of teenagers/young adults. Morrison and Ellis for the small amount that I have read have some literary skills to back up the hype, Millar, apparently remains to be seen.
As for Moore and the magic thing, if its for real, and its a belief, then its really no different that been a Christian or a Muslim, religions are a crutch to help people get through the day. Im not trying to offend anyone(im a chatholic,and not very good!) but if thats what he believes, its as good as any other.
David
Quote from: Mike Gloady on 06 January, 2010, 09:57:37 PMBut magic? REALLY?
Oh dear.
I'm afraid magick (and I like to use the k to distinguish it from stage magic ;) ) is more than pointy hats and wands. As Jim and TB say above it is about the way ideas can be made to change the world, which is all they've been doing with their stories. The "magick" can then be seen as formalised or ritualised ways of aiding the creative process (Grant Morrison in particular has laid out ideas than can help effect change, even if only in yourself - some of which I'm still digging into). As they are both expressing ideas that have a lot in common with Chaos Magic, you don't need to believe in anything, except when you are actually engaged in the process, in between it is often wise to treat the whole thing with amusement (and you can see this in Moore's interviews in particular) as it helps avoid you loosing perspective.
I know a lot of people who use magick but I'd really only go wrong tugging the beard of anyone who took it too seriously (but you'd do that with anything in life) and most people are fairly open to the idea that they may not actually be able to influence causality but it can still be helpful to theme and if you can use it to help make a story more powerful or compelling and you can get that out in the world then you can bring about change. It might not the the waving a magic wand but if it was that easy we'd all have solid gold toilets.
I'm sorry- someone has to say, at this juncture: bollocks. No offense to anyone trying to justify a belief in magic of any kind, but it really IS just a load of old balls.
Transformation without physical action is just growth. There's nothing magical about it- unless you choose to define "magic" in such a way that it encompasses anything.
But, as I say, no offense to anyone who finds pleasure in pointy hats, bathrobes, wands and beards.
SBT
I dont feel like i need to justify an interest in something to anyone.
BTW "interest" need not be thoughtlessly read as belief.
Hope this helps.
The love my wife and I share is magical :D.
What a tedious and prescriptive view of the world you put forward, SBT.
Art -- any art -- is either something from nothing, or the transformation of something base into something of beauty, or wonder, or horror, or revulsion ... I have been transfigured by music, transfixed by art, moved to profound philosophical revelation by mere words on paper. You choose not to call this magic, presumably because your definition requires pointy hats and robes and wands.
Mine doesn't. That one person can effect a change in another with nothing more than their voice? That one person can write something that, hundreds of years later, can reach across a chasm of time and touch another person directly? Arrange a sequence of noises in such a way as to make grown men weep?
Is my definition of 'magic' a little romantic? Well, yes, perhaps it is. If you find no wonder in these things, only bollocks, then I don't take offence, but it does seem to be a small and closed-off little world you describe.
No offence. Obviously.
Jim
Jim- NOTHING you describe has anything to do with "magic"! Not unless, and I say again, unless you're so changing the definition of "magic" as to make it actually mean "just being human and having a working mind".
There's no need to look for "magic" when we have minds that are far, far more interesting.
:)
SBT
In all seriousness, I always tell my daughters that magic exists as long as they choose to believe in it.
I personally am a Materialist, but I don't want them to grow up so fast. Audrey and Rowen believe in fairies and gnomes and magic, so I let them have that!
But I guess I can't knock the beliefs of others: "Witches, warlocks and necromancers, we're all searching for answers."
Magic is all about focussing your will and your intent together to bring about some kind of change in reality or yourself or others.Your will and your intent have to be correctly and equally aligned for this to happen and this can be done with or without the use of ritual as ritual is just a means that is used by some to focuss their will and their intent together.Personally i dont get involved in any kind of ritual as i just visualise and use positive thought and that works for me.
Quote from: Peter Wolf on 07 January, 2010, 12:13:54 AM
Magic is all about focussing your will and your intent together to bring about some kind of change in reality or yourself or others.
Isn't that actually called "not doing anything about it, just hoping it happens"?
No, Peter, I know what you mean- and I have sympathy for the point of view of "being interested" in things that patently don't exist. I read The Fortean Times, I'm a lover of "real ghost stories"- but I don't for one minute believe in them. I just like trying to work out what they REALLY are.
It's all great fun- but "small and boring" though it may appear, the world and this existance is just that. I stick my "faith" in the likes of Richard Dawkins and psychology.
Let's have another :) before we all fall out!
SBT
Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 07 January, 2010, 12:06:51 AM
Jim- NOTHING you describe has anything to do with "magic"! Not unless, and I say again, unless you're so changing the definition of "magic" as to make it actually mean "just being human and having a working mind".
Alternatively,
your definition of magic is so limited as to preclude anything more than what is presented in bad fantasy novels.
Clearly, we have the opposite sides of this coin. Whatever is causing you to bristle at this is probably the same thing that makes me bristle at UFO conspiracy nuts*. FWIW, I'm not a hippy, nor a pagan, nor even
convinced by the idea of magic ... I just said that I wasn't unsympathetic towards it at a conceptual level.
Certainly, since the day when I sat at my desk and watched my hands hammer out the last 3000 words of a 7000 word short story with literally
no conscious thought on my part as to where the story was going, or how it would end, I've had a feeling that the creative impulse in its purest form can come from somewhere else, be that a Platonic ideal, channelling some unconscious reserve, I don't know.
The word 'magic' clearly annoys you because of connotations that I don't understand. However, if thinking of creative energies in those terms helps people focus them in productive ways, I'm not really sure why you would have an issue with it.
Cheers
Jim
* Certainly in so far as a great deal of that Chariots of the Gods shit can be far more adequately explained by human ingenuity, engendering far
more wonder in me than some woolly ideas about aliens.
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 07 January, 2010, 12:27:49 AM
Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 07 January, 2010, 12:06:51 AM
Jim- NOTHING you describe has anything to do with "magic"! Not unless, and I say again, unless you're so changing the definition of "magic" as to make it actually mean "just being human and having a working mind".
Certainly, since the day when I sat at my desk and watched my hands hammer out the last 3000 words of a 7000 word short story with literally no conscious thought on my part as to where the story was going, or how it would end, I've had a feeling that the creative impulse in its purest form can come from somewhere else, be that a Platonic ideal, channelling some unconscious reserve, I don't know.
What you are talking about or have experienced is all to do with the subconscious mind because the subconscious mind is where a lot of creative impulses and inspiration comes from and its all to do with connecting with your subconscious mind.
I have had similar experiences with writing articles where the writing just flows and all i am doing is typing the words that are coming into my head one after the other with no real thought or consideration and often it doesnt need editing.This is not the same as what you are talking about as you were writing fiction and i wasnt but its all about relaxing and getting into that space or zone where everything just flows.
Anyone who is creative should be able to understand this.
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 07 January, 2010, 12:27:49 AM
Certainly, since the day when I sat at my desk and watched my hands hammer out the last 3000 words of a 7000 word short story with literally no conscious thought on my part as to where the story was going, or how it would end, I've had a feeling that the creative impulse in its purest form can come from somewhere else, be that a Platonic ideal, channelling some unconscious reserve, I don't know.
Unconscious reserve, yes. You wrote the story with the help of your unconscious mind, I would imagine. Maybe you used your instincts- in much the same way that anyone who does something without consciously thinking about it does. This doesn't have to be writing, or indeed anything creative- the man walking up the motorway at 3am, having suffered a nervous breakdown six hours previously, is similarly only unconsciously aware of what he is doing.
But giving it the fluffy term "magic" is misleading. And no matter how you may try to pin misuse of the term on me, it's plain that it's again just warping the definition to include
absolutey anything. If you're saying that the human mind is a wonderful thing that is mysterious and does stuff we don't understand from time to time- then yes, absolutely. That's what we have psychology for; to try to understand it. But if you are saying that we can alter objective reality by thought alone, then sorry, no.
SBT
Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 07 January, 2010, 12:45:57 AM
But giving it the fluffy term "magic" is misleading. And no matter how you may try to pin misuse of the term on me, it's plain that it's again just warping the definition to include absolutey anything. If you're saying that the human mind is a wonderful thing that is mysterious and does stuff we don't understand from time to time- then yes, absolutely. That's what we have psychology for; to try to understand it. But if you are saying that we can alter objective reality by thought alone, then sorry, no.
SBT
I have to disagree there, Magic is only a fluffy term if all you've been raised on is Paul Daniels on TV and magic sets from the toy shop, which is not strictly a definition of magic at all. Magic as I've always understood it, as a term, is used to describe something mysterious that has caused an effect in the physical or mental realm and I think we can all attest to witnessing that on some level. There are many who don't even consider psychology a proper science because it is so nebulous, vague and subjective, producing questionable results. I think it's just another way of using language much like Derren Brown, who to me is a magician in a strict classical sense even if he portrays himself different.
I think it's the modern semantics you have a problem with and not he act itself.
Quote from: Garageman on 07 January, 2010, 01:24:05 AM
as I've always understood it, as a term, is used to describe something mysterious that has caused an effect in the physical or mental realm and I think we can all attest to witnessing that on some level.
Hi Garageman- yeah, c'mon then! More grist to the mill! :) Yep- re the above, that's what I thought it meant. And nope, nothing has ever "affected the physical or mental realm" that can't be explained by either physics, chemistry, biology or psychology. That's exactly the woolly nonsense that I'm trying to challenge.
QuoteThere are many who don't even consider psychology a proper science because it is so nebulous, vague and subjective, producing questionable results.
There may be people who don't consider psychology a science- but they are wrong, and possibly delusional.
Buuuuuut, I don't want to fight. All opinions welcome. Even the odd ones.
SBT
I can't stand Richard Dawkins. If there's one thing more annoying than a 'holier than thou' attitude it's a 'cleverer than thou' one. He comes across as a condescendingly smug git, so convinced of his own beliefs that he feels the need to convert everyone to his way of thinking, never realising the utter irony of his actions.
He doesn't know. Nobody does. All there is is theories, and some kind of entity creating the universe, whether you want to call it God or Buddha or Neville or whatever, is just as likely as the universe suddenly pinging into existence out of pretty much sod all, (which actually sounds far more like the magic previously discussed).
Of course all the major religions made stuff up, but they did it based on what they had to go on at the time, in exactly the same way scientists have always done. You might argue that science progresses based on new discoveries but there are always those unwilling to accept anything that doesn't tally with their own scientific "beliefs". There are numerous conflicting theories about how the universe works and how it was formed just as there are in religion.
You want to know what magic really is? It's what they called science before they changed the name to make it seem more respectable. Mixing strange potions in rooms shut off from the outside world? Alchemists. That's what they are. Just ask that Isaac Newton bloke. He was one.
As I once said to someone else, if I were to turn you into a frog right now, SmallBlueThing, I'm sure there'd be a logical, scientific explanation that made it possible to happen, but there'd be plenty of people who'd remain convinced it was due to magic. I wouldn't make any attempt to alter that opinion.
Richard Dawkins gets on my tits quite a lot of the time and you took the words right out of my mouth.
I often refer to him as The Church Of Richard Dawkins and it is slightly amusing watching himself and his followers because of their hypocrisy.
Dawkins does himself and his cause no favours by adopting the same supercilious posture and straw man tactics as his sworn enemies. However, when he's talking about the subject he actually knows about (evolution), he speaks with the passion of an evangelist and writes piercingly clearly and sometimes beautifully. There's no doubt in my mind that had he been born 150 years ago he would have been a powerful champion of the established Church. He's no Stephen Jay Gould, but I find myself buying all his books as they come out, and have done since the days of the Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene.
As to magic... this really has boiled down to a debate about semantics. Our options as I see them:
(a). Magic = a metaphor or alternative paradigm (-shudder-) for exploring and interpreting the source and nature of creativity and its effects in the world. The Alan Moore camp.
(b). Magic = a supernatural force wielded to affect the objective world in a manner contrary to scientifically derived laws. The Dumbledore camp.
(c). Magic = some guy in a bad toupee married to his assistant. Just camp.
Pick one.
I think Steev is right in asserting that Option B is the dominant understanding of the word. That doesn't mean that other people can't mean Option A when they use it.
As much as I respect Jim and how he feels about his own writing, I tend to agree with Steev on that burst coming from his subconscious. I'll do this quite often - trance out and then look up and expect nothing done and find several thousand words written. But as for conjuring demons and all of that...nah.
Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 07 January, 2010, 12:21:24 AM
Quote from: Peter Wolf on 07 January, 2010, 12:13:54 AM
Magic is all about focussing your will and your intent together to bring about some kind of change in reality or yourself or others.
Isn't that actually called "not doing anything about it, just hoping it happens"?
No, this is called "praying"
God bless us and save us
Amen
Quote from: locustsofdeath! on 07 January, 2010, 09:54:03 AM
But as for conjuring demons and all of that...nah.
I didn't actually say I
believed it, I said I wasn't
unsympathetic to it. In my case, there was a genuine sense of -- I dunno -- almost of
possession, of the story flowing through me. I've heard comic artists talk about the same thing, where their hands just get on with it and they can actually watch themselves draw as if they were looking over someone else's shoulder.
Now, I don't choose externalize that, nor feel the need to formalize it with ritual, as someone who chooses to call it magic might wish to do.
However, harnessing imagination is essential to the creative endeavour and I certainly see no harm (and would certainly not "point and laugh") at someone who did choose to go down that route.
Cheers
Jim
Ritual I can agree with. Magic, no.
I feel (not to sound pretentious) that every time I sit to write I'm performing a ritual. All of my stories or scripts have to be very lyrical, almost prose poems, so a certain type of atmosphere lends a lot to what I want to accomplish. I also tend to "black out" as you've described. I do suppose in a sense that can be considered "magical"...
Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 07 January, 2010, 01:55:20 AM
Quote from: Garageman on 07 January, 2010, 01:24:05 AM
as I've always understood it, as a term, is used to describe something mysterious that has caused an effect in the physical or mental realm and I think we can all attest to witnessing that on some level.
Hi Garageman- yeah, c'mon then! More grist to the mill! :) Yep- re the above, that's what I thought it meant. And nope, nothing has ever "affected the physical or mental realm" that can't be explained by either physics, chemistry, biology or psychology. That's exactly the woolly nonsense that I'm trying to challenge.
QuoteThere are many who don't even consider psychology a proper science because it is so nebulous, vague and subjective, producing questionable results.
There may be people who don't consider psychology a science- but they are wrong, and possibly delusional.
Buuuuuut, I don't want to fight. All opinions welcome. Even the odd ones.
SBT
And thank goodness you're here to tell us which is which!
:thumbsup:
People laugh at folk who believe in magic because "it's nonsense".
And then they believe in god, and that Jesus 'rose from the dead'*- which is also (IMO) utter shit.
If it makes folk happy and able to cope with real life, then it doesn't matter what they believe- as long as they leave other people alone. Magicky folk tend to do that a lot more than bible-thumpers, who drive me far more bananas than any magic-believer ever does. I might snigger in private at folk who believe in magic, but I certainly don't point and laugh at them.
After all- who really knows? People didn't believe in Chi (Qi), but IIRC it has now been scientifically measured.
*though not necessarily anyone here- I don't know, or care what, your spiritual beliefs are.
Quotethat can't be explained by either physics, chemistry, biology,geology or psychology.
Just fixed that for you there ;)
From what I've just read the main thrust seem to be 'is magic paranormal?' Surely by definition it is? Doesn't mean it will
never be explained, but right now it isn't.
I'd pretty much be in SBT block with this overall, but I'm truly fascinated by that part of the creative process where the artist doesn't feel conciously in control of their actions. I've never been much of an original creator (although I have plans!) but am familiar with that 'in the flow' feeling where insight or expression come seemingly automatically when working either at a desk or in the field.
Do 'new' artists experience the same thing or does it come with time? I'm tempted to say it happens after a time working in the chosen area.
M.
Ohhhh!
I've missed a bloody good conversation here!
My tuppence worth:
Jim is spot on in his description of the creative process. In full flow I amd not in control of what's being written. Characters 'decide' to take off in their own directions and have conversations with each other that I did not plan.
Magic? It's as good a word as any for it. And before anyone jumps on me for saying this- if you knew me at all you'd know just how little I believe in anything that could be labelled 'supernatural'.
As for Moore- my take on it (BTW do a searchon youtube for the backstage interview he did at the Carols for Unbelievers show just before Christmas. Listen to him talking about his 'god' there and then tell me he's serious) is that Moore does not believe in 'magic' as a force. Rather he believes in the idea of magic. And I don't want to sound patronising here-although I probably will anyway- but perhaps this is what 'non creative' folks (for want of a better name!) find hard to grasp?
Quote
Quote
that can't be explained by either physics, chemistry, biology,geology or psychology.
Just fixed that for you there
Isn't geology just physics, chemistry and biology plus time? Much like history, really.
Pfft! Bloody archaeologists!
Everything is essentially physics and chemistry.
M
Quote from: Mikey on 07 January, 2010, 01:41:14 PM
Pfft! Bloody archaeologists!
Everything is essentially physics and chemistry.
I thought
everything was essentially just maths.
My understanding was that it all came back to the 2000ad podcast.
I like Richard Dawkins; it's fair enough to say we don't know whether there's a god or not, but at least he (Richard, that is, not God) doesn't plug the gaps in his knowledge with unprovable and very unlikely hypotheses. If you want to read some truly arrogant atheistic literature, have a look at Christopher Hitchens' stuff.
That said, I have no problem if anyone else follows a religion, as long as they keep it out of politics and don't try to force it on anyone else.
Oh yeah, and I tried some of Grant Morrison's pop magic a few years ago during a fairly unhappy period of my life. Did it work? Me bollix, it did. What worked was getting a job, meeting people and having a social life again.
Quote from: Emperor on 07 January, 2010, 01:50:28 PM
Quote from: Mikey on 07 January, 2010, 01:41:14 PM
Pfft! Bloody archaeologists!
Everything is essentially physics and chemistry.
I thought everything was essentially just maths.
I used to think it was all atoms, but apparently everything is made up of strings...and multiple dimensions. Ow. No wonder people have fallen back on magic and God and other delusions.
Scientist joke:
An astronomer, physicist and mathemetician are on a train going to a conference in Scotland. All the sheep they have seen so far have been white, but as they cross the border they see a black sheep in a field.
The astronomer says "from our observation, I deduce that the sheep in scotland are black"
The physiscist says, "no no, that's far too imprecise. All we can safely deduce is that some of the sheep in Scotland are black.
The mathemetician sighs at his colleagues' woolly thinking: "All we can really say is that at least one side of at least one sheep in Scotland appears to be black"
That one cracks up maths nerds.
Quote from: Dandontdare on 07 January, 2010, 02:34:22 PMThat one cracks up maths nerds.
And I always thought it was the "what does the mathematician do when he gets diarrhoea?" joke that did that. ;)
QuoteI thought everything was essentially just maths.
Aaargh! Not the sums with no numbers!
So does that mean that Mark Millar would describe his non 2k stuff as applied shite?
M
back on topic
look old big mouth strikes again.(No not me)
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/01/05/dc-comics-makes-legal-move-over-mark-millars-nemesis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BleedingCool+%28Bleeding+Cool+Comic+News+%26+Rumors%29&utm_content=Google+UK
Quote from: TordelBack on 07 January, 2010, 08:44:51 AM
Dawkins does himself and his cause no favours by adopting the same supercilious posture and straw man tactics as his sworn enemies. However, when he's talking about the subject he actually knows about (evolution), he speaks with the passion of an evangelist and writes piercingly clearly and sometimes beautifully. There's no doubt in my mind that had he been born 150 years ago he would have been a powerful champion of the established Church. He's no Stephen Jay Gould, but I find myself buying all his books as they come out, and have done since the days of the Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene.
Me too. Agreed on just about every comma and apostrophe.
Quote from: TordelBack on 07 January, 2010, 08:44:51 AM
As to magic... this really has boiled down to a debate about semantics. Our options as I see them:
(a). Magic = a metaphor or alternative paradigm (-shudder-) for exploring and interpreting the source and nature of creativity and its effects in the world. The Alan Moore camp.
(b). Magic = a supernatural force wielded to affect the objective world in a manner contrary to scientifically derived laws. The Dumbledore camp.
(c). Magic = some guy in a bad toupee married to his assistant. Just camp.
Pick one.
I think Steev is right in asserting that Option B is the dominant understanding of the word. That doesn't mean that other people can't mean Option A when they use it.
Yeah, that's how this discussion seems to me as well - it's wordplay. If you REALLY believe in B-type magic then I'm sorry, but I'm going to laugh at you and call you derranged (I feel precisely the same about religion so don't worry, no hypocrisy here). If you believe in A-type magic, I'm going to think you're a pretentious so-and-so but if that's your creative process I'm not going to say it out loud. Very often.
Quote from: Dog Deever on 07 January, 2010, 12:25:30 PM
People laugh at folk who believe in magic because "it's nonsense".
And then they believe in god, and that Jesus 'rose from the dead'*- which is also (IMO) utter shit.
Don't worry, I think they're ALL batshit crazy.
Quote from: Mike Gloady on 07 January, 2010, 03:08:13 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 07 January, 2010, 08:44:51 AM
Dawkins does himself and his cause no favours by adopting the same supercilious posture and straw man tactics as his sworn enemies. However, when he's talking about the subject he actually knows about (evolution), he speaks with the passion of an evangelist and writes piercingly clearly and sometimes beautifully. There's no doubt in my mind that had he been born 150 years ago he would have been a powerful champion of the established Church. He's no Stephen Jay Gould, but I find myself buying all his books as they come out, and have done since the days of the Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene.
Me too. Agreed on just about every comma and apostrophe.
Quote from: TordelBack on 07 January, 2010, 08:44:51 AM
As to magic... this really has boiled down to a debate about semantics. Our options as I see them:
(a). Magic = a metaphor or alternative paradigm (-shudder-) for exploring and interpreting the source and nature of creativity and its effects in the world. The Alan Moore camp.
(b). Magic = a supernatural force wielded to affect the objective world in a manner contrary to scientifically derived laws. The Dumbledore camp.
(c). Magic = some guy in a bad toupee married to his assistant. Just camp.
Pick one.
I think Steev is right in asserting that Option B is the dominant understanding of the word. That doesn't mean that other people can't mean Option A when they use it.
Yeah, that's how this discussion seems to me as well - it's wordplay. If you REALLY believe in B-type magic then I'm sorry, but I'm going to laugh at you and call you derranged (I feel precisely the same about religion so don't worry, no hypocrisy here). If you believe in A-type magic, I'm going to think you're a pretentious so-and-so but if that's your creative process I'm not going to say it out loud. Very often.
Quote from: Dog Deever on 07 January, 2010, 12:25:30 PM
People laugh at folk who believe in magic because "it's nonsense".
And then they believe in god, and that Jesus 'rose from the dead'*- which is also (IMO) utter shit.
Don't worry, I think they're ALL batshit crazy.
I really admire your openminded and tolerant and mature attitude towards others who dont share your own particular world view or view of reality Mike.
:lol:
Kettle, thou art black!
M.
To mangle James Russell Lowell:
"Behind the dim unknown,
Standeth (X) within the shadow,
Keeping watch above his own."
(X) was penned as God, but I'm thinking magic, science or even Tharg would fit just as well. It's all down to what we each put our faith in, I suppose.
Quote from: Mikey on 07 January, 2010, 04:13:53 PM
Kettle, thou art black!
M.
I am struggling here to find an example of where i have laughed at or have been intolerant of someones elses religious beliefs or faith or beliefs in magic or anything else of that nature.
Perhaps you can help ?
I believe in ghosts, UFOs and the Loch Ness monster, so I might as well add God and magic in there, too.
Believing in any or all of these things is not itself a problem - faith, hope and imagination have a lot going for them. Problems only arise when you (A) let such beliefs control your life, (B) start believing that you have credible evidence that these things exist, and (C) start trying to force other people to believe in them, too, and then (D) get uptight when they won't.
Though obviously anyone who believes that Mark Millar's Robo-Hunter was actually good is a deluded, pitiable fool.
Regards
Robin
Quote
I really admire your openminded and tolerant and mature attitude towards others who dont share your own particular world view or view of reality Mike.
:lol:
I have to admit, I'm in agreement with Peter here. Just because you believe something is nonsense doesn't mean you should insult and harangue the practitioners of said nonsense. I prefer to judge people by their actions rather than their beliefs.
Quote from: Peter Wolf on 07 January, 2010, 04:30:20 PM
Quote from: Mikey on 07 January, 2010, 04:13:53 PM
Kettle, thou art black!
M.
I am struggling here to find an example of where i have laughed at or have been intolerant of someones elses religious beliefs or faith or beliefs in magic or anything else of that nature.
Perhaps you can help ?
Technically, you did just now, when you mocked Mike for hs views religious or magical stuff.
:)
Quote from: Jared Katooie on 07 January, 2010, 07:38:05 PM
Quote
I really admire your openminded and tolerant and mature attitude towards others who dont share your own particular world view or view of reality Mike.
:lol:
I have to admit, I'm in agreement with Peter here. Just because you believe something is nonsense doesn't mean you should insult and harangue the practitioners of said nonsense. I prefer to judge people by their actions rather than their beliefs.
Quote from: Peter Wolf on 07 January, 2010, 04:30:20 PM
Quote from: Mikey on 07 January, 2010, 04:13:53 PM
Kettle, thou art black!
M.
I am struggling here to find an example of where i have laughed at or have been intolerant of someones elses religious beliefs or faith or beliefs in magic or anything else of that nature.
Perhaps you can help ?
Technically, you did just now, when you mocked Mike for hs views religious or magical stuff.
:)
That comment was just sarcasm and wasnt really to do with Mikes views but just the lack of tolerance but i see what you mean.
Quote from: Robin Low on 07 January, 2010, 07:14:50 PM
I believe in ghosts, UFOs and the Loch Ness monster, so I might as well add God and magic in there, too.
Believing in any or all of these things is not itself a problem - faith, hope and imagination have a lot going for them. Problems only arise when you (A) let such beliefs control your life, (B) start believing that you have credible evidence that these things exist, and (C) start trying to force other people to believe in them, too, and then (D) get uptight when they won't.
Though obviously anyone who believes that Mark Millar's Robo-Hunter was actually good is a deluded, pitiable fool.
Skilfully brought back on topic. :D
I do like the way the discussion on Mark Millar ended up on the subject of magic, when he isn't.
Aside from the magic of self promotion to propel a career forward?
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 07 January, 2010, 08:22:28 PMAside from the magic of self promotion to propel a career forward?
I still can't work out how he does it - I suspect it is all done with mirrors.
I loved The Ultimates. That is all.
I liked Tales From Beyond Science but detested most of the other stuff he did for 2000ad.
Did we change topics from Mark 'I'm not shit all of the time' Millar to the nature of the universe, Richard Dawkins, and UFOs overnight?
Quote from: Christov on 07 January, 2010, 10:13:02 PM
Did we change topics from Mark 'I'm not shit all of the time' Millar to the nature of the universe, Richard Dawkins, and UFOs overnight?
Err, no. It was fairly logical thread drift over the course of several pages.
Cheers
Jim
Quote from: Emperor on 07 January, 2010, 08:28:19 PM
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 07 January, 2010, 08:22:28 PMAside from the magic of self promotion to propel a career forward?
I still can't work out how he does it - I suspect it is all done with mirrors.
and lots of smoke, probably...
I've jst had a lovely cup of coffee whilst reading this thread- which I'd not looked at since page 2- and would just like to say thanks, once again to this board for being flippin' brill.
For myself I've had several occaisions where I've had pictures seemingly 'fall out of the pencil' for me- but that is more to do with the circumstances being just right than magic. However, Magic is what they make me feel, emotionally.
Peter,
I'm not intollerant. Believe what you like. I can have whatever opinion of your views I like. God, alien abductions, magic, flying spaghetti monster and so on are all in the same camp.
QuoteI am struggling here to find an example of where i have laughed at or have been intolerant of someones elses religious beliefs or faith or beliefs in magic or anything else of that nature.
QuoteTechnically, you did just now, when you mocked Mike for hs views religious or magical stuff.
There you go! It was meant in a general sense Peter - we're posting on an internet forum, where dimissing peoples views is, so I'm told, rampant.
M.
This thread prompted me to have a look at a couple of progs from the Summer Offensive last night. I realise it's a bit of a scab on the arm of 2000AD, and picking at it really doesn't help but I just can't understand what Millar and Morrison were trying to do with Big Dave. I admit I'm a PC lefty, but that isn't what I dislike about it. Why would you try and satirise tabloids, "pc gone mad" attitudes and lad culture in a sci-fi comic with a large teenage readership? And if you are going for satire then at least try and make it funny and have a point to it.
And I think it was only down to Morrison, but somebody needs to apologise for the pile of turd that is "Really & Truly."
I love Really and Truly, although mainly for the art.
Quote from: Matt Timson on 07 January, 2010, 08:42:35 PM
I loved The Ultimates. That is all.
I loved the Ultimates too, right up until the final part of the story arc, where (and this is pretty ironic) the characters are saved from destruction thanks to [spoiler]a big army of magical warriors that were magically transported to earth to save the day.[/spoiler]
Quote
There you go! It was meant in a general sense Peter - we're posting on an internet forum, where dimissing peoples views is, so I'm told, rampant.
M.
Rubbish.
Heh. Screw you Katooie!
I have not re read the Summer Offensive ever, but I wonder if approaching it from idea spacewould reveal something more, like in Assasin's Creed when you use eagle vision?
M.
I've not read the Summer Offensive myself...I have it, but it just looks like crap so I busy myself with my prog slog, struggling to get the the rest of the mid-90s crap.
The Summer Offensive only has one real highlight for me: Smith and Peart's Slaughterbowl. Great fun, simple story and cyborg dinosaurs.
I do like Big Dave on occasion too, and the idea of the Summer Offensive itself was neat - disposable comics, ultra violence, light druggy poppy stories. If it hadn't been for Inferno, I might even have chalked it up as a good idea.
Quote
I do like Big Dave on occasion too, and the idea of the Summer Offensive itself was neat - disposable comics, ultra violence, light druggy poppy stories. If it hadn't been for Inferno, I might even have chalked it up as a good idea.
I agree - I enjoyed that period of 2000ad, though disposable was the word - it's not something I would have enjoyed for too long. 2000ad wasn't exactly in its heyday anyway around then, and for me the Summer Offensive was a welcome break.
I liked Big Dave a lot, and enjoyed Really and Truly - a comic strip for pillheads I suppose. Not that I was one at that time. Slaughterbowl was great too.
Wasn't a fan of Maniac 5 (did anyone notice that Tony Blair died TWICE in that series? Very lazy). Inferno started off really well - kicked the shit out of Ennis or Millar's Dredd - but lost it at the end.
One thing about The Summer Offensive was that it got one or two of my non-2000ad-reading friends interested. Big Dave appealed to the teenage Viz reader in them and then they started getting hooked on the action in the other strips.
So all in all, though Millar is a cock, I'll defend the Summer Offensive.
I don't mind Inferno, it wasn't as bad as I though it was going to be from what i had heard about it. My main gripe with it is that it comes so soon after Necropolis and Judgement Day. I think MacGruder says something along the lines of "we just can't handle this so soon" and that's exactly how I felt when reading it. It just seems so unnecessary to me.
Quote from: Mike Gloady on 08 January, 2010, 09:36:57 AM
Peter,
I'm not intollerant. Believe what you like. I can have whatever opinion of your views I like. God, alien abductions, magic, flying spaghetti monster and so on are all in the same camp.
My own little indulgence concerning the metaphysical is to visualise and engage positive thought and to be connected to the cosmic oneness of the universe.
Other than that i have no time for anything New Age in nature.
I believe in the supernatural and that belief is based on personal experience or a multitude of personal experiences.This is mostly because i am "psychic" or at least hypersensitive.
Earth energies/Ley lines and Geomancy are another of my interests.
Each to their own as the saying goes.
Quote(did anyone notice that Tony Blair died TWICE in that series? Very lazy)
actually I might be wrong there - think he died and then somehow came back to life in a later series. And why did every single person involved in releasing the Maniacs (except Ross Perot) commit suicide? i mean they didn't kill as many as the A-bomb or the Iraq invasion and no officials commited suicide then.* Either way up, fuck off, Mark Millar. Red Son was good though, you can stop fucking off to write things like that, but just don't do any interviews.
Has there ever been a thread so blatantly split into two different subjects?
*Hang on, there was one, wasn't there?
Coincidentally I read a couple of my older 2000Ads just this morning while reorganising them and stumbled upon a Mark Millar Dredd story - specifically the one where a whole sector house goes futsie. After reading that I have to wonder why they would continue accepting stories from this guy?
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 07 January, 2010, 10:23:12 PM
Err, no. It was fairly logical thread drift over the course of several pages.
Cheers
Jim
Jolly good. Looking at page 5 then flipping over to 7 was a rather surreal experience, and I sort of assumed the topic changed rather suddenly.
This thread is intersting! How did I miss it until now? Damn drawing...sucking up all my net time! ;)
Just wish I had a cup of Joe to read with like Bolt-1 did.
This thread is so like the Dr Who Xmas special thread, I'd love to see that: RTD and Mark Millar writing Stickleback illustrated by Mr Byrne? :D
Stickleback doesn't deserve that. Not even the Space Girls deserves that.
very true, i only said Styickleback as its something truely wonderful that they would right royally feckup
Hmmm, I'd sooner kill MM and RTD with my bare hands than see them within spitting distance of Stickleback, but perennial toothless loon Byrne has produced some very fine comics, so I wouldn't necessarily object to seeing his try-outs...
bloody 'ell I wasn't serious
Quote from: Emperor on 06 January, 2010, 02:35:39 PM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 06 January, 2010, 10:46:20 AM
Quote from: locustsofdeath! on 06 January, 2010, 08:05:57 AM
Yeah, I'm actually shocked that a professional would come out and rip on the place he got his start - whether he felt that way or not.
Oh, it's better than that, my pestilential friend -- he (and Morrison) were doing this while they were actually working for the comic, giving interviews where they said "2000AD was shite until we came along".
For Morrison, not that I think it's an excuse, I get the feeling that this was as much about his unerring ability for self-promotion, since he very rarely exhibits actual contempt for previous versions of series he works on. Millar, not so much.
Indeed. As best I can tell it was a routine the two did to paint themselves as the "enfant terribles" of British comics (although I suppose if you go for a more literal translation that could just be "terrible babies" ;) ) hence the Summer Offensive. The whole thing was piss, vinegar and cock swinging - not my idea of a night out but tastes may differ.
When I went through those old interviews what amazed me was the contempt shown (faked?) about Morrison's Arkham Asylum, which he pretty much dismisses:
QuoteNot exactly the easiest way to get yourself into the comic industry, but he's reaping the benefits now, with a super champagne lifestyle and a posh house in Glasgow's trendy west end - his Batman graphic novel Arkham Asylum has sold over 200,000 copies worldwide and earned him a fortune. No small fish, despite being a remake of the Lewis Carroll classic Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.
Grant: "Well, I'd read the Alice books and decided to put Batman into a similar situation - where he goes into a strange place, strange things happen to him and then he comes back out at the end, none the wiser - and by the time everyone got the shrink wrap off and realised that they had been ripped off, I was already rolling in it."
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/fish1000/index/lostcontent/gm-mm-XStatic1-May92.txt
Anyone interested should take a skim through these:
http://fish1000.blogspot.com/search/label/Lost%20and%20Found#gminterviews
The previous link (from a 1992 interview) includes such classics as:
QuoteThey are even working on a massive re-launch for 2000AD which will see the light of day mid 1993. Mark outlines, with a certain degree of fervour, the character who will spearhead the campaign.
Mark: "Grant and I are co-writing a strip called 'Big Dave - The hardest man in Britain'. Dave comes from Manchester and wears shellsuits and trainers. He's got two pit-bull terriers and he takes on everything from aliens to Spaniards."
Grant: "We're both sick of the way 2000AD is full of poofs these days. Judge Dredd's turned into a poof and so has everyone else. All the stories are about Buddhists, Feminism and Ecology - it's a real drag. These old bastards keep complaining about how 2000AD is not as good as it used to be - well, who do they think is writing the bloody thing these days! -THEM! - Pat Mills and company, that's who!"
...
The atmosphere soon lightens when I buy the lads another drink and they soon forget their differences. Getting on to the subject of rubbishing the efforts of those present, I ask them what they think of the claim by the original 2000AD team that the younger writers don't have the talent to create new characters.
Mark: "I'm sick of listening to them bleating on about how bloody great they are. Take a look at some of the stuff they've created. Only Judge Dredd is any good. If they had their way, they'd turn 2000AD into WOMAN'S OWN! We want a kicking comic with teeth and big bastarding Doc Martens boots."
Strong words, but if Mark's dream sounds too much like the late unlamented Toxic, then you could be in for a shock.
Mark: "Toxic was done by old poofs for old poofs - and it showed. We're going to make 2000AD more like The SUN - with a 'Dear Tharg' problem page and Page Three birds done up like Judge Anderson and Halo Jones with their tits hanging out. We're going to fit some bingo in there, too. There's plans to give away free gifts like stick on tattoos and a cassette of Big Dave singing 'Fly me to the Moon' on a Karaoke machine."
Grant: "2000AD has been out of date for years - it's more like 1800AD these days - we want to liven things up a bit."
They both smile and say "Solid!". (I'm not entirely sure if 2000AD is safe in the hands of these two.) It's like giving your firstborn child to Charles Manson to babysit - but if anything, it should prove to be... well, interesting.
I know it is all an act (and Grant likes to wear his fiction suits - this was "young, cocky and arrogant" he went to "wild psychonaut" at the end of the nineties and has evolved into "corporate suit" now but "cocky" is till only a letter away from "cock" and I'm surprised no one offered to chin one or both of them at the time.
What never occurred to me is that the interviewer for that last piece was Martin Conaghan, who went on to helm Insomnia's Vigil imprint and wrote the Burke and Hare graphic novel. He revealed today/yesterday that it wasn't just an act, it was actually largely fictitious:
QuoteI wrote that interview, and a few others with Grant and Mark in the following years. What people failed to realise at the time was that it was almost entirely fake. The whole thing was pretty much made up after I had forgot to take my dictaphone along to a signing session in Edinburgh that also featured Duncan Fegredo John Smith and Pete Doherty. I had been out boozing with Mark the night before and split my head on a wall trying to find somewhere to take a piss down a dark alleyway, so we just chatted on the train on the way to Edinburgh and on the way back and I made up an interview based on what we had been chatting about. I then posted it to Grant and he added more stuff in. The stuff in the restaurant about the hair and the lipstick, and the train journey home with the book of surrealist games is true - but the rest is pure theatre. It was the same with the Summer Offensive interview for Comic World.
www.bleedingcool.com/forums/showthread.php?p=124783#post124783
The Comics World interview being this one, in which Martin is described as "The Grand Vizier of Verity":
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/fish1000/index/lostcontent/gm-COMICWORLD18-Aug93.txt
Of course, I'd been taking it as largely fictional adopted personas but it doesn't make it any less insulting to those they were slagging off, it may even make it worse as they didn't just come up with it when out boozing but actually collaborated with it afterwards. I suspect Pat Mills has killed people for less, with just a withering stare... ;)
It's alright for you lot... you only had to read "Canon Fodder"... I had to draw the bloody thing!
:)
Ha! Ha!
What the bloody hell was it reprinted in the Meg floppies for?
Quote from: Dog Deever on 11 October, 2010, 02:57:55 PM
Ha! Ha!
What the bloody hell was it reprinted in the Meg floppies for?
The artwork... obviously!
:)
Quote from: Chris Weston on 11 October, 2010, 03:12:19 PM
Quote from: Dog Deever on 11 October, 2010, 02:57:55 PM
Ha! Ha!
What the bloody hell was it reprinted in the Meg floppies for?
The artwork... obviously!
:)
Well as Chris bagged my first answer... it was so they could get round to printing Kek-W's go at the character ;)
That said, I did enjoy Canon Fodder for what it was and it has to be one of my favourite solo stories from him and it stands up well over time (I also didn't hate Maniac 5 but re-reading it these days isn't as enjoyable), but perhaps that was all down to the art - the pages where Fodder encounters God and the Goddess are stunning.
Quote from: Chris Weston on 11 October, 2010, 03:12:19 PM
Quote from: Dog Deever on 11 October, 2010, 02:57:55 PM
Ha! Ha!
What the bloody hell was it reprinted in the Meg floppies for?
The artwork... obviously!
:)
I agree - That was was some outstanding work - From you that is.
The more I read about that Mark Millar the more My Blood Boils.
''We're going to make 2000AD more like The SUN - with a 'Dear Tharg' problem page and Page Three birds done up like Judge Anderson and Halo Jones with their tits hanging out. We're going to fit some bingo in there, too. There's plans to give away free gifts like stick on tattoos and a cassette of Big Dave singing 'Fly me to the Moon' on a Karaoke machine."
Now does that sound like Clint or what?
Quote from: Dog Deever on 11 October, 2010, 02:57:55 PM
Ha! Ha!
What the bloody hell was it reprinted in the Meg floppies for?
Wasn't it to finally make David happy and give him his darn reprint so he'd quit hassling Tharg about it?
QuoteIt's alright for you lot... you only had to read "Canon Fodder"... I had to draw the bloody thing!
Snigger. It didn't bleeding deserve Weston art. 'Let's see now... Strange man character - Victorian times supporting characters - journey to other dimension - Victorian cast dies - encounter with giant multifaceted deity - okay, thanks Mr Smith, good story, though I've actually come up with one of my own. Is Chris busy?'
Quote from: Emperor on 11 October, 2010, 03:08:54 AM
Of course, I'd been taking it as largely fictional adopted personas but it doesn't make it any less insulting to those they were slagging off, it may even make it worse as they didn't just come up with it when out boozing but actually collaborated with it afterwards. I suspect Pat Mills has killed people for less, with just a withering stare... ;)
Frankly I can see why Alan Grant was so upset by Millar. If I'd invited someone to stay at my house and tried to give them some advice and then saw this I'd be pretty hurt too, even if it was "fictional".
Still I won't slag him off too badly, I did enjoy Red Son and... um... well if he hadn't created Canon Fodder then we wouldn't have gotten Kek-W's second series with Chris Weston's wonderful art (that Zeppelin emerging from the cigarette advert is an image that sticks with me to this day [in a good way, not like the opening scenes of "Feed". Brrrr])
Chris