🚀 go-pugleaf

OK, Tim, as far as I can see you objections to "God Loves, Man Kills" (or,
at least, your objections to our views of GLMK) are for two basic reasons,
one major and one minor:

MAJOR:  It doesn't deserve the acclaim it's getting.
MINOR:  It is a caricature of a TV preacher

Well, all I can say about the first point is that everyone has a different
opinion about this book.  I think it is about the best thing Claremont has
done, which you may agree with; I also think it is a fine example of what it
is titled to be, i.e. a "graphic novel".  After re-reading it several times,
I find the things I enjoy about it most (and the elements I find which are
most effective at moving me) is the excellent graphic composition of the
book.  The way that Anderson sets up panels and moves from scene to scene,
the use of P.O.V. shots, all add up to give a very cinematic feeling to the
book (and I think the rather blurry artwork may actually help this).  It
also has a rather claustrophobic, dark feel to it throughout.  Admittedly, it
has poor moments at points -- Xavier's brain-washing is poorly handled.  But
again, let me come back to the point that I feel, when reading this, as if
I'm watching a film; and Anderson and Claremont use this to raise a level of
tension, of relief and of anger which extend beyond the dialogue -- if this
were in book form with no illustrations, the writing would not look nearly
as impressive.

As to originality -- no, I don't think the plot was particularly original.
Originality is a difficult thing to find in any genre these days; outside of
some of the things done by Moore and some of the independents (Loebs,
Burden), not much shows fantastic originality in stories.  Heck, even those
mentioned above use the same basic ideas seen in literature everywhere;
however, they add original "tweaks" which are noticeable enough for the
average reader to say "That's different!" (Norwegian Bachelor Farmers take
note).  I'm re-reading David Copperfield these days, and I have to admit
that I don't find this particularly original; rather, my enjoyment stems
from Dicken's humorous eye for human nature, his wonderful characterization,
and his dialogue and careful eye in describing detail.  In short, finding
originality in literature is tough to do; precedents are there for you
wherever you go.

So if your grading comics strictly on originality, then I think you going to
be pretty dissatisfied.  If you find super-hero stories infantile, then I'm
sure you won't enjoy the majority of things reviewed in net.comics.  For
better or worse, the majority of comics deal with the super-hero genre.
Most of us who read a lot of comics accept that genre, even though a lot of
us believe that Sturgeon's law about the percentage of crap in anything
extends to the comics field.  Me, I grade on several things: depth of
characterization; artwork and the way it's presented; dialogue; absurdity;
and most importantly, whether I enjoyed myself or not.  "Thunder Bunny" is
certainly not Twain, but I get a kick out of it nonetheless, due to its
light-hearted manner to the super-hero theme.  Not satire, but more the
tongue-in-cheek effect of Beck & Binder's Captain Marvel.

So, in summary, the above is why I put God Loves, Man Kills where I do.  I
wouldn't rate it any higher than an A, i.e. one of the best products of that
year in comics.  It has a niche in my comics memory.  Mainly, it moved me,
due to the elements above.  If you feel the sentiment is smarmy, fine; I
don't, and I feel that in this book Claremont has captured the "persecuted
family" that defines his X-Men better than in any other X-Men appearance he
has written (a feeling which has been lost of late in his works).

Well, onto the minor point.  You seem to feel that Stryker lost his potency
because of his one-dimensionality; that it comes down to "Black Hats vs.
white hats".  Well, I admit that Stryker is not developed into a full
character, though I don't think he's the icon you seem to elaborate on.  A
comic or graphic novel has a limited amount of space to define something in,
and Stryker shows the limitations of this.  However, I don't see (and I've
said this before) why you feel Stryker represents fundamentalists.  He seems
to be someone who has mixed religion with the anti-mutant fervor, and I'm
not at all sure that it goes any farther than that.  Besides, I don't see
Stryker as evil, especially "comic book evil" (`Nyah-ah-ah').  I think the
reason I found him effective was that he is a crazed fanatic, who believes
absolutely that he is doing God's work.  In comparison, I find Fallwell and
the majority of the fundamentalist preachers you and I both seem to object
to as ranging from intolerant narrow-minded people who are trying to alter
the constitution to fit their ideas of morality, to con-men (Fallwell fits
here).  And as to a "punch-out", by FAR the best thing about this book is
the conclusion, with the X-Men and Kitty refraining from attacking Stryker.
His own fanaticism leads him to draw on her, and the rescue comes from
OUTSIDE the group of heroes -- from someone not involved in the conflict,
someone who has seen that the prejudice Stryker believes in is wrong --
from someone ORDINARY (the implication: "like us").  This moment is
effective due much to the frame-by frame pull-away from Stryker to the
close-up of the cop -- but I find that this scene almost always makes me
release tension, due partly to the effective build-up in tension in the
frames before that, but due mostly to the feeling that this IS still a
society that believes in right and wrong, and has not let fear dull its
humanity completely.  I'd almost call it a moral K.O., or a re-affirmation,
after all the fear and bigotry in the rest of the book, that there is still
a right and wrong in this country; that the fanatics are not in control, and
that the reason of the masses is still there.

I feel that it had much less to do with than the idea of prejudice.  One
can still think back to some of the atrocities of the 60s during the civil
rights movements and realize that things like this are possible in Americans
(another good moment -- perhaps trite, but effective -- is where Kitty says
to Ms. Hunter "What if she'd called me a NIGGER-lover?").  Perhaps, there,
is the core point to the excellence of this book -- Claremont and Anderson
got the true, awful feeling of prejudice by the seat of the pants and held
onto it through the majority of the book, depicting it from it's more
conventional, frequent forms (name-calling, suspicion) to the very rare
ultra-extreme (child killings).

>Would someone care to enlighten me on the virtues of this
>marvelous piece of work, without feeling the need to insult me in the
>process?  (Ha ha ha...)
>-=-
>Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot, Centram Systems West, Berkeley
>uucp: {sun,lll-crg,well,dual,ptsfa,frog,decvax}!hoptoad!tim

We aims to please, Tim...

                        "Here's the holiday schedule for Monday's
                         observation of Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday,
                         when the following will be closed:
                         
                         - Governmental offices
                         - Post offices
                         - Libraries
                         - Schools
                         - Banks
                         - Parts of Palm Beach

                         and the mind of Senator Jesse Helms of North
                         Carolina."
                                                -Dennis Miller

                                        Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA
UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, allegra, sb6, lbl-csam}!fluke!moriarty
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>