Thanks to Charlie Horse 47 and Killdumpster for their sponsorship of this post, via the magic of Patreon.
***
Journey with me into mysterious realms, for we are set to enter the most puzzling of them all. One that even I, your omniscient host, knows not how to navigate.
And that's because it does not yet exist.
Just what path will be carved from the labyrinthine tangle that is the human mind?
That, I cannot say.
And will not be able to say until some brave soul plots it in the comments section below.
It can only mean the return of the feature which will not die.
The one in which the first person to comment gets to decide just what it is we must discuss.
Therefore, look you not behind you, for fear of what strange fiend may be matching you, stride for stride but, instead, move forward into the light and illuminate the discourse, just as hope must illuminate even the most wretched of souls.
Posts
23 comments:
If there were no negative consequences, what sort of life might you aspire to?
This is rooted in yesterday’s discussion on the formerly alive actor Alain Delon and MP mentioning a lifestyle of cigs, dames, and easy money (paraphrasing) which wasn’t a bad goal.
Thanks for the topic, Anon.
Such is my total lack of ambition that I'm struggling to think of anything. I'd definitely live on the 51st floor of a building that officially only has 50 floors, though. That's a thing that's always grabbed me.
Only the 51st, Steve? Such a lack of ambition...
Personally, I don't worry too much about negative consequences - you've got to live a bit while you're able to, right? This is probably explains why I am not materially successful.
Although I do still plan to take over the world (I am playing the long game).
Hey, if we're carrying on the previous thread, what about Neil Gaiman then? Further thoughts, anyone?
-sean
*This probably...
Duh. Apologies for the typo.
I'd battle monsters and evil wizards while defending the virtue of scantily-clad wenches...
..or I'd travel around Europe driving stakes through the black hearts of the undead.
Charlie, I love your description of Alain Delon as "the formerly alive actor" rather than "the late Alain Delon" or something similar ;)
Obviously subjective, but I’ve never found any of Gaiman’s comics to be compelling. Violent Cases was ok, but benefitted from very good Dave McKean art. I read about a dozen Sand Man issues, and found them bland (perhaps with the exception of the first appearance by Death). Miracleman was a wasted opportunity.
I’d put St. Swithin’s Day and Zenith ahead of anything by Gaiman, but Morrison then also seemed to settle into a superhero groove, that I’d moved on from.
I think Gaiman manages his public persona extremely carefully, and for years any photo opportunity seemed to have the same ‘rock star’ staring moodily at the camera lens. He is very much the Taylor Swift of comics.
DW
Sean -
Are you asking about Gaiman's work? [I'm pretty much on record about that].
Or the recent 'revelations'?
Matthew
I was unaware of the recent news until your post prompted me to google said individual. Probably best not to comment further. My previous comments were solely based upon his comics work.
DW
I'm not a happy person (even doing stuff I like). I like consistency though - and dislike inconsistency. "I want to fly an F-111," I wrote at infants school, when asked my ambition (aircraft buff). Young adult - interested in writers & writing. I've now written a book (albeit it's unsold). So, that ambition's unsuccessfully achieved. The question's hard to engage with, for miserable sods!
Sean's question. Neil Gaiman recommended a book, named 'Lud-in-the-mist', as being the best thing since sliced bread. I read it, but thought it was rubbish. Taylor Swift's popularity's a mystery to me too.
Phillip
I've just googled Neil Gaiman to read about the 'revelations' mentioned by Matthew and I noticed that Gaiman's birthday is November 10th which was also the birthday of my uncle who died aged 54 in 1990 on the day before Maggie Thatcher resigned.
A few years ago I read a book of short stories by Neil Gaiman which was OK but nothing special - I wondered what all the fuss was about.
Charlie, I was in Tesco this morning and they played Kate Bush's Running Up That Hill (yes, really!!) and it occurred to me that the song chimes with your question because Kate is aspiring to be a man - but Kate Bush is rich enough to afford a sex-change without needing to appeal to God :D
If I only could
I'd make a deal with God
And I'd get him to swap our places...
Charlie has never had any particular career goals after flying Chinooks in Germany 40 years ago. Hence he drifts aimlessly.
However he might have been willing to “dance with Mr. D” to have founded “NOW THAT’s WHAT I CALL MUSIC.”
The frequency with which it is mentioned as a chart topper here at the venerable SDC would ensure undying fame!l and respect!
RED - do you ever run across those UK CDs?
BTW. Since 1984, NOW THAT’s WHAT I CALL MUSIC has spent 771 weeks at #1 in the UK collectively. Astounding! No wonder SDC will forever continue mentioning it!!!
Over 2,400 artists have neen featured and over 675 of UK #1 songs as it celebrates its 40th anniversary!
The 40th anniversary was actually last November, Charlie.
Thanks Colin! Btw, I heard FEEL FOR YOU by Tchaka Kahn and TAKE ON ME at the Whole Foods grocery whilst hunting for organic garbanzos and chicken thighs! 80s keep rolling!!! Like “NOW… MUSIC” lol.
Matthew, I wasn't aware of the Gaiman 'revelations' either.
Fairly recently I read the complete Miracleman: Silver Age and - finally - got round to his version of The Eternals, which is more Neil Gaiman comics than I've read for a VERY long time.
So I suppose after the way DW brought him up last time I was particularly interested in how he seems highly regarded*, yet when his name comes up on threads like this its often with a bit of a dig. It occurs to me that maybe there's a difference between how the general audience sees him, and on the other hand comic 'fans'...?
Anyway, I was wondering about general thoughts on him as a writer.
*Gaiman, not DW (which isn't to say we don't hold you in high regard here, Daren)
-sean
Is DW a writer? I thought he lived in Australia and was a West Ham fan?
ChArlie
And how did Sean know that DW's name is Daren? Sean also knew the approximate dates of Redartz's and Steve's birthdays. How does he find out this information??
Well.. in fairness to Sean… We’ve emailed a few times! A very interesting fellow and also good for some interesting conversations!
Hence he would know my name and probably a few other bits not necessarily discussed here.
But Charlie enjoys a good conversation especially about pop culture!
DW has mentioned it in his comments in the past, Colin. Excuse me for paying attention to what people write here!
-sean
I haven’t read any of his books because I lost interest in his comics writing before he started publishing novels.
I really liked his early work, when he was trying really hard. Violent Cases, Black Orchid, the first half or so of Sandman.
Then when he found his audience he began phoning it in, preaching to the choir. I can’t remember the last time it felt like he took a chance. When you compare him to Moore, who’s made a lifetime career out of taking chances, he just dwindles away to nothing.
How was the end of Silver Age? I bought 2/3 of it as floppies, but it was so boring and laborious that I gave up. When they eventually do a Gaiman omnibus I’ll probably pick that up, but I’m in no hurry to spend any more money on the series.
Actually, if you look at Miracleman Golden age where he was firing on all cylinders, and then the first couple of chapters of Silver Age (where he was comfortably established as Neil Gaiman: Superstar Comics Writer), the qualitative difference between the two illustrates my point perfectly.
I enjoyed reading the complete Silver Age well enough, Matthew - and The Eternals - but they didn't wow me.
That's a good point about Gaiman not really trying much once he'd made his name. Whereas Moore generally continued to push himself post-DC (eg From Hell, Big Numbers, Promethea).
My theory on the pair of them is that in the 80s (and a bit after in Gaiman's case) they were big fish in a small pond. Basically that Gaiman was a competent writer - which made him good by the low standards of the comic biz - whereas Moore was a great one, which is why even his old work still dominates mainstream comics.
-sean
Post a Comment