Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Comic Books >

Proposal For a Group Re-Reading Of The Invisibles

Page: 1 2 3(4)5

Less searchable M0rd4nt

13:31 / 06.02.07

Well, I was speaking more of the idea of a dedicated forum. But since you ask...

As a mod I can't really complain too much. It's not off-topic and there seems to be sufficient interest to justify it, and I'm not very actively involved in the Comics forum so I don't feel able to weigh in with the heavy criticism.

Speaking purely personally as just another board member, I don't like this project. I think it's rendered largely redundant by existing annotations and comment. Furthermore I think this whole project will certainly increase the number of people percieving Barbelith is being of Grant Morrisonness and criticising things they don't like as non-Morrisonian, a state of affairs likely to have a net negative impact on the board. This will be especially likely if we have a multiplicity of threads on the front page of Comics.

Still, if there's a majority of people who want this to happen it's going to be a bit difficult to stop it without massive changes in the way we moderate (unlikely and IMO undesirable), so all the rest of us can really do is register our discontent and start creating/bumping rival threads on other topics.

13:33 / 06.02.07

Uh, I won't be contributing after all. The notation alone would be too much for me, I'll just re-read it for fun methinks.

13:36 / 06.02.07

I think it's rendered largely redundant by existing annotations and comment.

Also that. Isn't there, like, a whole Bomb of stuff already out there somewhere? Will this project add to it or duplicate it?

14:00 / 06.02.07

I was hoping that this would add to the Bomb. Such a wonderful site surely could use an update.

14:19 / 06.02.07

I'm with you there, Quants. I just don't have time in my life for this little project.

For the record, I do share some of Mordant's reservations about this activity. I think we may well be getting into duplication territory and I'm not sure about the message that this reevaluation will send to the world about Barbelith. I also don't want to see the front page littered with Invisibles threads, because a) I'm unlikely to reading them in anything other than a mod capacity, and b) anyone visiting the Comic's forum is liable to think this is a very Invisicentric space, which I don't think it is.

On the other hand, the good folk of this forum should be allowed to do what they want within the bounds of the forum's remit, and if it gets people fired up and posting I'm hoping that'll have a knock-on effect on the other threads hereabouts.

I would like us to reconsider the amount of threads this project needs, however. I know minimising the number of threads will make searching that much more difficult, but I think we could reasonably do this with no more than three.

14:33 / 06.02.07

I agree, one thread for each volume.

14:35 / 06.02.07

One thread per volume seems reasonable enough. We really ought not cover old ground, we don't need annotations on what a Situationist is or Oreo cookies.

I'll also note my additions will probably be (relatively) sparse, just noting small things here and there. At least, I hope so.

14:40 / 06.02.07

I disagree on the one thread per volume idea.

While I agree that one thread per issue would clog up the works, trying to have any sort of detailed discussion of twelve pre-existing issues in a single thread would be a mess.

One thread per story arc seems like a natural compromise.

14:52 / 06.02.07

I thought Kneel Before Our Lady Zod had the best thread distribution idea, namely (as stated several pages earlier in this thread):

>> Thread One: Issues #1 to #12. This makes sense as it begins and ends with King Mob shooting someone in their brainparts. If anyone really wants to discuss 'Hexy' they do it in this thread.

Thread Two: Issues #13 to #25. The events of 13 to 24 are supposed to take place over a period of a day or two (how this fits in with Dane getting up to and back from Liverpool in what must be an afternoon I don't know, this could be one of the many exciting things we discuss).

Thread Three: Volume 2, Issues #1 to #10. Ideally at twenty-two issues we should be able to split in 11/11, but issue 10 is the end of the 'Sensitive Criminals' arc, so poo.

Thread Four: Volume 2, Issues #11 to #22. Thrill! As Grant suddenly loses interest in the character of Boy! Discuss! Is there actually some story missing between KM and Robin's adventure in the church and the next issue?

Thread Five: Volume 3, Issues #12 to #2/#1. I personally don't think the last issue is worth it's own thread but you might think differently.
--------------------------------------------
Just my two cents on the subject.

17:35 / 06.02.07

I understand why some of you are irritated about how this might clutter up the board, but having one thread per arc I really think is reasonable. We want to go in depth with the analyzing, and discussion, and I feel that one thread per volume would just make any conversation over a specific part just seem rushed and messy. This is supposed to be a group re-read and analysis, and I want to see it go as deep as possible into the text, so that we talk about all of things that you might have missed the first time, or that you just didn't understand yet.

17:58 / 06.02.07

You think having more than 5 threads is reasonable?

That's a whole lot of threads

17:59 / 06.02.07

I do have to ask (and this may be an inopportune place for it, but what the hell): Is the great wide world paying enough attention to the comics forum of this site to really concern ourselves with whether they think it's the Church o' Morrison where we worship the bald fox our of dreamy dreams? I myself refuse to worship anybody that won't buy me a halfway decent dinner (or at least a cup of coffee) first, but clearly there's almost always been more going on in the various areas and threads, and well, unless there's been a general cry to change the name of the Underground and everything... we're stuck with that unavoidable tether.

Who's watching and judging, though? Who isn't already on the board?

18:12 / 06.02.07

You think having more than 5 threads is reasonable?

I do. Particularly since we're talking about one thread per week. I don't really think it will be a problem.

Regrettable Juvenilia

18:14 / 06.02.07

We want to go in depth with the analyzing, and discussion, and I feel that one thread per volume would just make any conversation over a specific part just seem rushed and messy.

Well, why don't we see what kind of discussion gets generated first, before we decide? If discussion of the first story arc or two is fruitful, yields new insights and fascinating in-depth analysis for several pages, then there might be an argument for having a new thread for each arc. If not, then one thread per volume, or one thread per trade, max.

19:07 / 06.02.07

And keep in mind, as we move through the series, the older threads will start to drift down off the main page. I don't see a situation where there's more than three or four threads at the top of the comics forum. The best way to ensure that things don't become cluttered with Invisibles threads, and that the board is seen as just a place for Invisibles discussion, is to get interesting threads going on other topics.

Jake, Colossus of Clout

19:48 / 06.02.07

And each thread could be locked after the designated discussion period is over. That would cut down on clutter.

20:19 / 06.02.07

Psst!

Put stuff in The Bomb wiki!

Is fun and easy!

20:22 / 06.02.07

I really don't think that's a good idea, Jake. I really don't. But, lets let the discussions actually get started before we even consider locking any of them.

20:26 / 06.02.07

The best way to ensure that things don't become cluttered with Invisibles threads, and that the board is seen as just a place for Invisibles discussion, is to get interesting threads going on other topics.

While not especially seeing the merit of the current Invisibles project if it's not being done issue by issue, I tend to agree.

As GM himself once said 'if you don't like the news, make some of your own!'

20:26 / 06.02.07

I like that quote.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

21:04 / 06.02.07

I don't have a problem with a group re-reading, but I'm really glad the one thread per issue idea has been nixed. Come on, we decided that was a bad idea for Seven Soldiers, and that was still running at the time of discussion.

I like the thread-per-volume idea, but think Lady's idea is a workable compromise.

21:18 / 06.02.07

I'll be reading by trade if at all, so for ease I'd also prefer one-thread-per-trade, though I also think the five thread proposal is a good compromise.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

05:43 / 08.02.07

To be honest, now it's been going a few days I'm rapidly losing interest. Could I suggest that people read things alongside the annotations at The Bomb and, where applicable, not 'annotate' the comic in terms of something that's already there, but either note something new or discuss themes based on those annotations? The Blake stuff is great because we don't have that.

07:23 / 08.02.07

I've sold mine on eBay so I can't play.

16:17 / 08.02.07

Blake stuff? New?

Add it to The Bomb wiki!

Is easy and fun!!

Our Lady Has Left the Building

05:51 / 11.02.07

Well, the volume by volume idea is really working well so far isn't it? If I can work Mr Quimper, Jolly Roger and Coyote in to my next response we will have mentioned every single story arc in the series straight out!

17:08 / 11.02.07

I don't think a close reading volume by volume should limit people from making (careful) reference to future events/characters. I'm certainly not finding it unhelpful to look at and point out themes with a view to how they develop or are modified in later story arcs, but that might be personal preference.

That said, where are we on this? I'd be quite happy to move on to discussing how themes from the first story arc build into the second, and I think iamus' point about the dalang are quite relevant, but are we continuing in the thread as is, starting a new one, or what? I'm quite happy to carry on in the current thread, and go with the less is more approach above, but someone should change the thread title and abstract to reflect that we're not just talking about the first story arc.

17:10 / 11.02.07

i vote to just carry on in thread and change the abstract.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

18:12 / 21.02.07

Well, it's been going well over the last week...

Our Lady Has Left the Building

14:26 / 25.02.07

From the actual rereading thread...
After a week without any new entries, PatrickMM bumped the thread asking if anyone was still reading.

iszabelle I was just going to ask if it was a good time to start a new thread.

To which I replied I would only suggest that some attempt is made to see if anyone is actually bothering with this any more before any more threads are started.

So I thought I'd bump this thread too, in order to ask whether other people's enthusiasm for this has passed by.

15:08 / 25.02.07

I'm still quite up for it, just haven't had internet access for the past week or so due to (a) my wireless connection going down and (b) being in Spain. I think things need to move on to discuss the next trade, though, or possibly look at the trio of 'self-contained' stories featuring Crow, Sutton and Murray first, before moving into Sheman and Entropy in the UK.

15:13 / 25.02.07

I'm re-reading the second trade now after a bit of a crap week for me in terms of getting things done, more because I've started re-reading rather than with a view to specifically contributing to a stalled seeming thread. If enough other people were still interested in it for an actual discussion to coalesce I’d probably pitch in, but otherwise I probably won’t bother, not helped by the fact that personally so far I don’t have as much to say about the next arc and the general environment isn’t hugely motivating at the moment. But… that might just be me feeling run-down this week, so I dunno… I’d certainly like to see more people participate but a new thread’s obviously not justified if there aren’t going to be any.

17:16 / 25.02.07

I've been studying alot this past week, and honestly haven't contributed very much yet, but I have alot of things I'd enjoy discussing. I think that the new thread would be justified.

17:23 / 25.02.07

Actually, I'll start the thread later today. I think it would probably be more acceptable by all if the second thread was just the second trade. We could do a thread for the three one-shots, but, I'm thinking that there might not be enough interest to sustain two separate threads for the Apocolypstick Trade.

23:56 / 25.02.07

in my capacity as a boring bastard, my personal enthusiasm waned very rapidly, as the whole thing turned off down a subjective, interpretative cul-de-sac, from which it seems unlikely to emerge.

whilst the reread in itself's interesting to follow, i'll be taking grant's advice and contemplating additions to the bomb wiki, rather than contributing to any further threads.

Page: 1 2 3(4)5