DESOLATION JONES readers -- spot the difference...

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Between the real comic and the one read by this man:

http://nobodylaughsatmisterfish.blogspot.com/

"Periodically, censorship-hungry right-wingers have a go at the comics industry. They can't help it, because it's just part of their nature. Thankfully now is not one of those times..."

Yes it is. But does he have a point? Granted, he has come in halfway through the film and then walked out ten minutes later, but is it true that comics can be too disturbing? And if a comic is disturbing, does that mean the writer is trying to make you think, or just trying to beat off?

― Vic Fluro, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 16:10 (twenty years ago)

oddly, I found the latest issue to be rather chortlesome (in a good way), and feel the title is back on track after the relative blandness of the second issue. But I am a dirty vicar.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Tuesday, 20 September 2005 16:18 (twenty years ago)

I did find the 'porn issue' a bit gruesome in places, but after the 'let us look at the stars oh strange arachnid woman' second issue it did feel like a return to the down and dirty.

― Vic Fluro, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 16:33 (twenty years ago)

Does that mean the writer is trying to make you think, or just trying to beat off?

All Frank Miller and Garth Ennis to thread.

Actually, the only comic that's really revulsed me (a looong time ago as a kiddie) was Batman: Cult, but I'm not sure whether it would have the same effect now.

2000AD, Zeck's Punisher and Miller's stuff always felt dark and "edgy" -- sorry, horrible word -- to me as a teen, and looking back on them, it's clear they were more about writers "beating off" than "making me think", but to a thirteen-year-old, they were pretty thrilling and transgressive. (Though for me, it was more about the darkness and weirdness than the violence.)

― Chuck_Tatum (Chuck_Tatum), Tuesday, 20 September 2005 16:34 (twenty years ago)

I think that horror has desensitised me, for I found the DJ issue in question not that repulso at all. Maybe I have researched too many articles about the porn industry.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Tuesday, 20 September 2005 18:09 (twenty years ago)

There's some requisite Ellis-wank in issue #3 of this series, but I think the issue is readable! I got caught in what was an obvious twist because after the quick readers digest of porn I didn't expect the character to admit to being in the hard stuff. Ellis played two points (you have to have issues to watch this gonzo crap versus the actress having it as an outlet for her different sexuality) against each other reasonably well. Jones is recoiling from the whole thing in the story.

By Ellis-wank I mean that instead of straight plot he's inserting large bits of science he's read about, sexual taboo stuff he's read about or has picked up on from his community, and bitter brit bastard stuff. I think he ends up creating a dozen comics a year just by culling an idea or two from that melting pool and overlaying it with a flimsy plot that hits some common denominator. If you imagine content from boingboing.net with a sexed up version of what the readers wish they looked like as characters, you might have the story.

― mike h. (mike h.), Tuesday, 20 September 2005 18:24 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.