Julian, it's funny that in an argument about reading that you didn't actually read what I wrote. I did write that I occasionally read modern superhero comics, in paper form and on the internet.
Alright, but correct me if I am misrepresenting what you're saying here...isn't the thrust of your point that you can acquire comics lore through osmosis?
I do read books without pictures, also. Occasionally trying to read pulpy crap like Meltzer's
I went into BOOK OF FATE thinking it was going to be a beach read. Which was what it was, so I wasn't disappointed. I suppose its subjective. I am willing to forgive a great many flaws in a thriller if it is paced well. And Meltzer does pace well.
On the other hand...
JACK AND BOBBY had a very irksome "self-hating Jewishness" about it that really, really turned me off. That was by far the least of its crimes, however.
It was the TV equivalent of one of those schmaltzy, totally unwatchable movies like PATCH ADAMS or PAY IT FORWARD that are self-congratulatory about their quality, emotionally pornographic, and try to be feel-good and inspirational, but are so fake they make you wish all mankind would spontaneously combust and die.
Dino del Monaco.
Amusingly enough, the example of Dino actually strengthens my point: the reason that story was interesting was because it was a very atypical LOIS LANE story. It didn't fall into the gimmickry that plagued the book (e.g. fake marriages, Lois v. Lana, Lois getting powers, transformations) With the Italian scenery, and the sensitive artist/female fantasy Italian lover, it was more like an issue of a romance comic aimed at women.
If they did a Lois Lane comic TODAY, stories like a guy trying to marry her for a green card would be the sort of tale that would fill it up.
Though I dunno if the character of Dino del Monaco has potential. For one thing, the guy was a pretty one-dimensional scumbag giggolo. He wasn't that complicated. If he really DID love Lois or had second thoughts...maybe I'd agree with you.
We're talking about the guy who drew hundreds of million-selling Capt. Marvel and Superman comics, right?
Many artists do superheroes spend most of their career doing superheroes, who have a style that is not really suited for them. Kurt S. is one, I'd say, and I'd lump Dick Dillin, Gene Colan and Don Heck into that category too (though Heck is one of my five favorite artists of all time).
And heck...Gil Kane, as great as he is...my favorite Kane stuff were things like his Westerns, and the issues he did with Roy Thomas as guest-artist on CONAN THE BARBARIAN.
And Joe Shuster,
Who said he was a good artist?
Wayne Boring, Dick Sprang,
Neither of these guys are all that cartoony. Underneath their simple lines they had a real sense of solidity. They were very grounded. Batman had no neck, but he looked like he could throw a punch and take 'em.
Jack Kirby,
At the point when Kirby was the most influential, he was the least "cartoony," and had a realistic polish and glamour. Nobody ever imitated Kirby's more abstracted, less realistic, craggy and squiggly later art except in deliberate parody (e.g. McCloud).
But I donīt think it would be the case in a book starring Superman or crossong with him in the DC Universe, like Infinite Crisis and 52. Superman is not only for kids, but it should be a for all ages character.
I'm not disagreeing with you...maybe you're right.
But think back to when YOU were a kid. Trust your
own experiences instead of listening to the "Mrs. Reverend Lovejoy" types.
Did YOU like violence? I sure did! I was a filthy little savage. I loved reading Tarzan books because he was a wild, crazy phony that pulled a guy's throat out with his bare hands. My parents forbade me from seeing JURASSIC PARK, but I snuck and went to see it anyway, because I heard it had dinosaurs eating people.
I loved the giant JANE'S WEAPONS SYSTEMS books. To this day, I can remember all the major Russian tanks and Norwegian anti-submarine missiles.
And MAD Magazine. God, I loved that. It was absolutely vulgar and filthy, and while I didn't get half the jokes, it was wonderful because it didn't talk down to me.
I refuse to believe any of you were all that different. Okay, maybe you weren't borderline pyromaniacs like I was, but...as a kid, who didn't use swear words, or read those National Geographics with the naked women, or furtively sneak a drink from Dad's liquor cabinet?
The point I'm trying to make is, there's something misplaced about the urge to "protect" children from sex and violence. Maybe if I had my own children I'd feel differently about it, but what kids want to see are dinosaurs eating people and zombies. Is it so wrong for creators to give these things to them?