This is the Fables thread

In the Hollywood story, I liked how it dealt with the issue of whether or not their power/immortality comes from human belief and how it's only a theory even in the Fables community. It was also a really cool way to get rid of a character and give him a fitting send-off as opposed to just killing him off (see one of Tep's posts in the recent killing-off-characters threads).

(the "original spin" put on the various fables* seems to be carried out in a series of very unoriginal modes) (most annoying of which is the "like the worst bits of Sandman only with less chops")

*which is a stupid name for them

Hmmm... I don't know what the means so I'm going to let it slide.

I like how four years have flashed by with the two Hollywood issues. I can't wait to find out what's happened to Snow, Bigby and their kids in that time.

Fables just never gets dull for me.

I also sort of like the fact that the focus of each issue has been bouncing around from character to character, instead of trying to juggle a bunch of different subplots in every issue.

But the "adversary"... Was it the dude w/the pencil thin moustache? Because Bloy Blue really made short work of him...

... SNICKER SNACK!

...Anyway, is the rest as good as the set-up?

Another plus (& it can't be overstated) - those gorgeous James Jean covers. I love this month's JOIN NOW! poster.

since we know from March of the Wooden Soldiers that he never gets his lady back

What do we know? I can't remember.

Yeah, I remember that from the "Last Castle" special or whatever, but the RRH that showed up in Mundy world was a faker, so as far as we know the fate of the real RRH is still unknown, right?

i think it is Hans Christian Anderson

i was tring to think "what is evil to a fable" rather than "who is the most evil character in fables"

What do ppl think of the current Arabian Nights stuff?

Um, Mark Buckingham.

Anyway:

It's a superhero comic without superheroes -- the best such -- right down to iconic characters/outfits/schticks, evil overlords with master plans, traditional hero/villain roles and the contemporary blurring of that line, and the same interest in continuity and familiarity that superhero comics appeal to, except that in this case the C&F refer to traditional fairy tales and fables (and, oddly, Pinocchio).

-- Tep (icaneatglas...) (webmail), Today 3:03 PM. (ktepi) (later) (link)

Whether that's something that works for people or not is a separate thing, but I think the above works pretty well as a description, and sums up a lot of the appeal for some folks. It isn't about fairy tales exactly -- however well-read Willingham is on the matter, there isn't much (if anything) in the way of in-jokes or references only the very well-informed will get. He's just relying on them as icons who are familiar to the reader even before they discover the characters he's used them for -- no one really contradicts the two-dimensionality of their source material, and it isn't some grad-student-friendly deconstruction with Betelheim footnotes and Marxist glosses on Rumpelstiltskin or an early 90s Vertigo reclamation of all the sex and violence Bowdlerized out of the children's books.

What it does lack from the superhero genre is the formula story -- there's no Fables equivalent of Spider-Man stopping a bank robbery or Superman tricking Mxyztplk into saying his name backwards. That's neither a strength nor a weakness, per se -- it makes it a title without a status quo.

i think yr "no status quo" point is pretty good, tho.

Love the "no status quo" part and the fact that the spotlight keeps shifting between the characters. I'm also surprised at the death rate in the book, characters who seem big players get killed very quickly (Bluebeard, for example). And some of the best M.Buckingham art I've seen.

Anyways, I have to say that I'm generally disappointed with the "second wave" vertigo titles. I liked Delano Hellblazer (even Ennis Hellblazer), Sandman, Swamp Thing, Shade, Kid Eternity, etc., but I don't really see the point of Lucifer, Fables, Mike Carey Hellblazer, and Y the Last Man. Unlike the older titles, these new ones don't really seem that different to me from bad superhero books, just with Vertigo cliches slathered on top.

And Ken U nutz - I only wish more funny books were as "bad" as Y!

That said, if the premise is chafing you even after reading the book, then you're probably not gonna be sold on it, regardless of what you read.

The other side of the "lack of status quo," too, is that unlike a lot of books for which that's true, there's no overarching uberplot going on either: I mean, things come back, plots get followed up, but it isn't like Lucifer's "one big plot leading to the end," and there isn't even a specific protagonist we follow through the whole thing. It's closer to Astro City in that sense, without being structured like an arc-based anthology.

Actually, one of the things I like about the book, come to think of it, is the contrast between extremely competent characters -- who are not always the ones you expect -- and the ones running in place just to stand still. It's made for a couple of deus ex machinas, but they haven't felt too forced.

xpost; yeah, you're right, Y kind of started as a disaster movie, and instead of the disaster being averted/resolved, it's just ... segued into a different movie.

The same thing doesn't work as well in Y, maybe because for so long the beginnings/endings of issues were seamless. I started the last couple thinking "did I miss an issue?!" (it would probably read better in trades though).

xpost, I think the Arabian stuff is the weakest so far, but agree that the Boy Blue arc rocked.

Am I misremembering the Boy Blue issues, or were they A-Plot only, IE no sign of what was happening back home. Whether or not, I never had any impression that he was actually in danger.

I think Fables is very low on thrillpower, it's a Classy Comic, very well thought out.

Whoah, dude's a republican? I had no idea - I was reading all the "Arabian Nights" stuff as satire, especially since I can't really see a Prince Charming-led Fabletown as the "good guys" any more than the Bush administration.

How many suckers (like me) are gonna buy the spinoff?

DO NOT READ VOLUME ONE, BECAUSE IT IS THE SHITTY VOLUME.

Volume 2 & (especially) 3 are where you should start, & you're not missing much by jumping in mid-stream (unless you don't know who the Big Bad Wolf & Snow White are).

thanks daniel

*soz*

Read the first three now. The second two are a lot better, yes. I've just found out about the zionism allegory. As a typical wooly liberal, will this piss me off to the extent that I stop enjoying it as this aspect (presumably) becomes more explicit?

no

It only becomes explicit in one specific speech Bigby gives later in the series, but mostly it's not really that bothersome. There are some other glimpses to Willingham's right-wing views in the series, but they're minor details, not anything on a Milleresque level, so Fables remains enjoyable to a left-wing reader too.

Yeah, there've been a few hints of right-wingness already, but nothing more than has made me go 'tsk', then carry on reading.

I guess the right-wing undercurrent was most irritating in the Arabian Nights storyline, where the "civilized" Western fables were contrasted with the "backward" Arabian fables (though of course Willingham had to include one "good" Arabian character to dodge accusations of racism). Prince Charming accusing the Arabs for their backwardness (because, among other reasons, they kept slaves) was kinda hypocritical, since in the previous issues it had been established that Fabletown was willing to assasinate their ex-members on dodgy basis (Ichabod Crane) and execute their own even if they were non compos mentis (Trusty John). Prince Charming himself killed Bluebeard without any ramifications at all. And I don't think Willingham was really critical of this hypocricy - even though most of the main characters are depicted as morally ambiguous, they're still the good guys, and they're still morally above those lousy Arabs.

Another thing which is bothering me in the series is the internal inconsistencies, though I know critizing them is mostly nitpicking, because the stories have been mostly good anyway. Anyway, the biggest inconsistency I think concerns the Fables' origin and their immortality. It is strongly implied that Fables are born out of human imagination, and it is their continuing popularity in the minds of people that keeps them near immortal. This seems to be the reason Snow White survives her assasination attempt. But why then does the series state that the Adversary has kept on invading new lands for about 1000 years, even though Pinocchio was only written in 1883? And moreso, why does Geppetto plan on invading Earth and killing most of humankind, if it is their imagination and popular culture that's keeping him alive? Doesn't he know that? Maybe in future stories Willingham will actually reveal that Fables exist irrespective of human imagination, but for now the series remains kinda contradictory regarding their nature.

Another thing about Geppetto: even though I like the idea that the bad guy is this old geezer living in his hut instead of some terrifying monster, I don't think Willingham has really managed to make his motivations that credible. He doesn't seem to lust after power, sex, money, or anything like that, so why does he want to be the ruler of an empire? The way his backstory is told makes it seem like power fell onto him almost by sheer accident, and he only accepted it because he saw no other choice. But why does he keep on expanding his empire then, if doesn't even care for power that much?

Anyway, despite the criticism I think Willingham is mostly a good writer, and one of his strongest points is incorporating relatively complex internal politics into a fantasy story, something you rarely see.

Do people think that Fables will go into endgame soon? Because Geppetto's plan to destroy the world by 2009 seemed to imply the story will end in one way or another by then too. (I've only read the paperbacks, so I don't know what happens in the latest issues, maybe they'll answer this question?) If it's true I think it's kinda sad, because Fables seemed like the kinda of series that could go on for years without needing any big resolution.

Or was it 2010? I guess that'd give more time.

Any of you have a definition for Bigby's... erm... colorful "military term" from this issue? I could guess what it means, but when I googled "jody-fucked", only a bunch of porno stuff came up. Which, I suppose means, Willingham made up the term.

Urbandictionary sez:

"Jody

In the Marines, a "Jody" is a generalized term meaning: any man who stays home while everyone else goes to war. He gets to enjoy all the things the Marines are missing, more specifically the Marine's girlfriend back at home while the Marine is away on active duty. The reason that they're called Jody specifically dates back to black soldiers in WWII. They took a character from old blues songs named Joe the Grinder (or Joe D. Grinder) who would steal the ladies of inmates and soldiers, and clipped his name to Jody.

That's why they say, "Jody's back home, fucking your girlfriend.""

Thanks!

hmm

http://www.avclub.com/content/newswire/bill_willinghams_fables

Not reading this thread to avoid spoilers, but I just read vol. 10 (The Good Prince). Great story! I'm sincerely impressed how much this series has improved as its gone on - at first, I thought it was a pretty average comic with decent ideas, but it's really remarkable now.

Realizing he's a right-winger is really kind of disappointing, especially how it probably relates to certain subtexts of the series... (I notice now, you guys did talk about it earlier)

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bwillingham/2009/01/09/superheroes-still-plenty-of-super-but-losing-some-of-the-hero/
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2009/01/willingham-no-more-superhero-decadence-for-me/

His stance here seems remarkably hypocritical, considering how he's deconstructed characters most people know nowadays through cartoons. And he actually quotes Rush Limbaugh... unironically! I can't believe it...