After that the book, took a drastic plunge. It sort of reminded me of Robert Crumb’s brother. That lost his mind doing comic books. Where the dialog totally took over the story. And that ended up being just crazy rambling in the end. And he was no longer able to accomplish anything, and eventually killed himself.

I tried reading cerebus at different times after issue 100. Expecting that there would be something to catch my interest. That perhaps Sim had just gone off on a bad story line for a while. But such was not the case. Each issue was more boring, and meaningless then the issue before. So there for I just gave up on cerebus.

Recently I picked up the last 5 issues of Cerebus. Hoping maybe the end might make some sense to the ramblings of the last couple hundred issues. But alas, they were the worst issues of all. 5 whole issues, that basicly were little more then an ancient Cerebus, walking around his room in slow motion pulling up his pants while grunting and snorting. I was shocked any mind could call this story telling, or any mind might be entertained by it.

The only high note, was the last finalie, as Cerebus slips off a chair, and smashes his head. Killing himself, and finally putting an end to this monstrosity. Of a parody, parodizing itself onto insanity.

I don’t know, how Sim came up with all the clever dialog that made cerebus great for the first 100 issues. Anymore then what was going through his head when he destroyed him in the last 200.

The real controversy with Dave Sim I think is caused because I think most folks are willing to admit he’s one of the best cartoonists around & one of the best letterers around & in a lot of people’s opinions one of the best writers around, but he also has consistency of content & he’s somehow become a quasi-celebrity. All these things make him a lot harder to write off if you disagree with him. Kinda like you can easily dismiss Linday Lohan but Morton Downey is a bit harder.

Also I wouldn’t say Glamourpuss is short lived as it’s still coming out. Anything over six issues I wouldn’t call short-lived.

I think we can all agree that there are many perfectly acceptable reasons to stop reading a comic or listening to a song or whatever, and one’s opinion about the artist is one of them. I wasn’t arguing that there is *harm* in Dave Sim expressing his opinion (though words *can* certainly instigate harm and violence in some contexts). Just that he has shown his views, and readers have the right to express dismay and stop reading because of them. That doesn’t mean you have to. Sometimes people seem to forget that “free speech” means the right to say something, not the right to be free of negative consequences for doing so (except from the government).

Anyways, you understood my point about dismissing critics, and were not dismissive in your response. Mission accomplished (you’re ahead of Scott Adams!). Let’s move on to a more interesting question:

When do an artist’s feelings/views interfere with his/her work?

Obviously, an artist’s viewpoint is vital to the form and meaning of the art. But it can also distract or weaken it. For example, take “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”. A classic movie, but for modern viewers the blatantly racist caricature of a Japanese neighbor is very distracting. Just a sign of the times, but it interferes with enjoyment of the rest the movie. Or let’s say Mel Gibson made a buddy cop movie and included a very anti-Semitic portrayal of a Jewish character (this is a fictional example). Not integral to the art itself, but distracting. This is worse if it’s known to come directly from the artist’s views (Mel Gibson is known to be anti-Semitic, George Lucas is not known to be particularly racist).

But it’s even harder to ignore if the views start informing the art itself. Caricatured females in a fantasy work aren’t too unusual, but a storyline *about* how “weak” women are is. The same is true for any viewpoint, of course. Unrelated and “messagey” storylines are weaker, and the reader is less likely to forgive the author if the topic is offensive or hard to believe. Some people notice and dislike the “pale vs. swarthy” aspects of Tolkien; imagine if LotR had been actively pushing racist philosophy, rather than just being set in a European-style world.

But it is damned gorgeous.

I stand on that rare earthen place where I never see harm in expressing views and opinions. We could hold a perfectly civil discussion regarding the pros and cons of the Nazi movement, and though it would surprise me if it were actually kept to a calm and even tone, my own arguments against its ultimate viability would remain civil.

Sim clearly has issues; one does not develop the sort of bile and vitriol we’ve witnessed without some sort of catalyst. The man has obviously been burned. Probably more than once. He sees the fairer sex as some sort of vast universal depressant. And I’m not saying his state of mind is some woman’s fault; like as not he brought it upon himself. And I think he’s still paying for it. Who thinks the stuff he does without some sort of constant mental anguish going on somewhere in the recesses?

But regardless of how right his opinions are, I believe he is free to express them, and people who are offended by those expressions–general expressions, I mean, not insults directed at a particular person–I see as weaker creatures, emotionally. A nerve is touched, one that has nothing to do with them personally (because really, the hatred of an entire gender is beyond infantile, and in my view should be mocked rather than argued), and they reflexively kick.

That probably sounds rather high horse. I’m not better than someone who is more easily offended. (I’m certainly not smarter.) I just see that sort of sensitivity as a chink in the armor, so to speak. Why reveal it at all? To the logical mind it seems counterproductive. It’s just so hard to take seriously.

(I get hate mail regarding this subject often. I’m not offended. Blatant irony. No worries.)

These days I actually find men to be more sensitive to verbal insult than women. Though I still find women are more prone to crying–and that may shift one day too, who knows? Sim’s detractors certainly are not all women. I suppose I could use non-gender specific terms, but really, it’s all allegory. And language wasn’t meant to be subjected to political correctness. (And “Wimp” is such a wimpy word. It has no oomph. It’s like “honky.”)

Once Sim’s personal views do start encroaching upon his writing it will be measured fairly here. Though that too is subjective; you could technically argue his first step was introducing Red Sophia in her chain-mail bikini and then promptly covering her face with a word balloon in issue 3, but I’m not ready to read so deeply into it that early.

It will come. For now it’s about a really cool sword & sorcery comic book parody.

As to my interest in the issue of misogyny, it’s true I have very little if the topic is simply kept to words on paper or screen. Some people have equated cultures who “circumcise” young women as being “misogynistic,” when in fact that barbaric act just about the sickest thing imaginable. That offends me: physical cruelty. Lumping that in with misogyny is insane. Even if, by Webster’s definition (and by Greek etymology) it is defined as a hatred. And hatred often spawns violence.

Still, the subject here is the hatred. Not whether it spills over into something else.

(And hatred is a strong word in my book, and should be relegated to cat lovers and Glee.)

But words are still wind.