| |
|
Both *sides* of this argument are sooooo full of shit. Flux, you can't go on about how this debate's a non-starter and then proceed to reduce Moore's work to "is bullshit magic 'n' swords 'n' deconstructing superheroes, innit?"
And as for Houdini's total bollocks about "juvenile art"..... RrrGgg. Shut UP and take the time to read the guy's work.
Moore has a very traditional approach to storytelling and is FANTASTIC at it. He writes with so much precision, clarity ands...mmmm...symmetry. He's utterly direct. Moore says "here's an emotion!" and bricks you round the head with it. And that's marvellous.
But there are other, less grand, less forceful and, dare I say it, *obvious* approaches. Moore's all in the affirmative - it's all bold statements (even the end of V and Watchmen, which are ostensibly open-ended, are, well....it's a very BIG kind of open-ended), whereas Clowes' work occupies the grey areas. There are no affirmatives. Things don't *make sense*. The work is non-commital to the extent that character's inner lives lend themselves to endless interogation. There's a kind of ambivalence to Clowes work and a lack of, for want of a better word, neatness, that, for me at least, hits upon a kind of human truth that simply isn't present in Moore's.
But it's only one "truth", and Moore certainly has as much to say as Clowes. Moore's all about the big revelations. Clowes is interested in where those revelations begin to fray at the edges.
And they are both fucking masters at what they do.
Stupid. Idiotic. Argument. |
|
|
