recommend me some essential graphic novels to acquire

i've avoided cerebus b/c i heard it was terribly misogynistic. should i get over that & read it anyway?

re: Gerhard, no argument there!

re: mysogny - it is quite clear in the book when Sim's mysogyny comes to the fore, and its somewhere around Book 8 or 9, I forget. Up to that point there's plenty about sexual politics, but nothing that makes it unreadable or inherently offensive. Its when Sim starts to speak - directly to the reader and practically out of nowhere - about how women control everything and men are all victims of their evil predatory ways that it goes to shit.

(I should point out that before then there was quite a lot of interesting explorations about gender and power and feminism and political-religious hierarchies and whatnot - its when Sim gets all pedantic and really antagonistic that it starts to hamper and poison his work)

also: the irony of such a gargantuan achievement in the medium being a deeply mysogynistic and basically "I SCARED OF GURLS" screed should be self-evident, particularly when one considers the traditional target audience of comics (awkward adolescent boys)

I'll second Ellis' UFF big time--it's my go-to book for introducing people to superhero comics. I think any of the better-written books from the Ultimate series is a good choice, if only because you aren't going to have to sit someone down and explain backstory for 90 hours.

Also:
Whedon's X-Men
that one Iron Man reboot-thing that was really good until Civil War started.
BPRD/Hellboy
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen for some people :D
Love & Rockets
Maybe The Maxx, it could possibly make someone hate comics forever.
Certain arcs of Constantine maybe.
Preacher
Transmetropolitan
Batman: Year One

I would NEVER try to intro someone to comics via:
Sandman
From Hell

I think Watchmen is the kind of book that you can go back to and get something different from several times. It'd be cool to read it as "just" a comic book; the story's good, the characters are interesting. So in that respect it's fine to show it to someone who hasn't read a lot of comics. On the other hand, it would definitely warrant a revisiting after you've earned your comic book big boy britches.

I think From Hell would be good for somone who wanted to read "graphic novels" not "comic books". Sure it's hardly light reading - it's the equivalent of the big weighty serious novel, so for someone into them it could be ideal.

man fuck that person.

So noone likes Lady Snowblood? Koogs, back me up here! :-)

I agree with Ledge, fwiw.

hirded. From Hell is great, but is more of an investment of time than anything else with drawings in it, possibly.

Yeah, From Hell is, IMO, a much better introduction than Watchmen, at least insofar as it's not laden with Comics Baggage. On certain days, I'd argue that it's a better work than Watchmen.

And Preacher: no. No no no. Unless the person you're introducing comics to is a college freshman who's all about "EDGY", no. It is by far a more juvenile work than a lot of mainstream superhero stuff.

Ledge is definitely right, but at the same time that person isn't going to ever become someone who reads a lot of comics, are they? They'll read From Hell and Cerebus and maybe Sandman and whatever coming-of-age b&w book Salon is pushing, but they aren't going to become a fan of comic books.

That's really the issue with introducing people to comics by way of quality indie stuff. There just isn't enough of it out there to sustain a person and make them a true Comix Fan if that's all they read.

From Hell is definitely a superior work to Watchmen

Agreed, I'd argue that any day. From Hell is amazing in an obsessive, painstaking way. I wonder if he was doing a lot of speed when he wrote it.

I think some people on this thread might be surprised how well Watchmen still works even if you don't really care about or are aware of the comics-baggage issues going on in it.

I can't make myself unaware of them, so I'm not sure how I could verify that... on one level I think Watchmen's inferiority to From Hell is specifically due to all its superhero-comic-book baggage: on the one hand its amazing to see such a humanistic deconstruction of the genre, but on the other its impact is limited because the story is constrained within those reference points to a large degree. From Hell, by contrast, is just a great story, well-written and painstakingly executed, about much larger and more universal themes and issues and goes DEEP into human culture and the psychology of evil in a way that just isn't possible within the confines of a conventional superhero story (however meta that story is).

I dunno, I think Watchmen is more entertaining and an easier read, and therefore I prefer it. From Hell is admirable for its attention to detail and obsessive exploration of a story, but frankly, it's kind of boring.

rong.

kind of boring = needed more fight scenes?

how about a carchase?

Yes, because Watchmen was so shallow and action-oriented.

I thought From Hell was fantastic. But then I am not a "real" comics fan, since I've only read stuff by Dan Clowes, Adrian Tomine, Chester Brown, Jeffrey Brown, Jessica Abel, Ariel Schrag, Craig Thompson, Charles Burns, Brian K. Vaughan, Art Spiegelman, and Chris Ware, and haven't really wrestled with the whole Alan Moore/Frank Miller/Neil Gaiman/Dave McKean/Grant Morrison branch. There's also some well-respected comics that I just can't get into because I don't like the art.

Oh, I'm not saying From Hell is bad at all. I just prefer Watchmen because I think Watchmen is more readable, and therefore more successful as a book. The fact that half of the From Hell trade consists of appendices, to me, doesn't really make it a super fun read. Very smart, did exactly what it set out to do, not something I'd ever read again.

the whole Alan Moore/Frank Miller/Neil Gaiman/Dave McKean/Grant Morrison branch.

Even though they've all done superhero comics, I think it would be a mistake to think of their work as a "branch."

See, what you call a "humanistic deconstruction of genre", I might call a "deep probe into a set of issues, oh which happen to be the ones that superhero comics have claimed ownership over". And you don't have to be a comics fan to be interested in those issues, or to appreciate Watchmen's take on them. Or the insane level of detail. There's another layer for comics fans, who recognize who Rorschach is a variation of, but that's not actually needed to enjoy the book.

I've said this before, but another reason why I'm not a "real" comics fan is that in my mind, Alex Ross is the classical music critic for the New Yorker and Warren Ellis is the violinist for the Dirty Three.

Even though they've all done superhero comics, I think it would be a mistake to think of their work as a "branch."

I didn't know what else to call it, Rock. It's all stuff that I glanced at after getting into the medium in college and was sort of turned off by the fact that it looked like comic books.

Racist!

I think Chris Ware and Dan Clowes have spent almost as much time deconstructing and playing with classic comic book forms and superheroes as Alan Moore has.

turned off by the fact that it looked like comic books.

I'm not sure where to go with that. Too many primary colors? A lot of the works you've read have been B&W.

Maybe as a percentage of work. But Alan Moore is ridiculously prolific sometimes publishing dozens of books a year, and Ware/Clowes, um, aren't.

(Yes, it's apples and oranges because Moore doesn't draw his own stories. So fucking what?)

i can't believe this thread has gone this long without anyone mentioning SCOTT PILGRIM which might be the best intro to comics ever. this dood scott has a new hot gf and needs to defeat her evil ex bf's for her love nintendo style and is in a punk band called sex bob-omb. they are on book 3 and its awesome. some other stuff i recently read and liked:

http://www.hillcity-comics.com/graphic_novels_2007/new_graphic_novel8330.jpg
WORMWOOD

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51zyPd08SPL._AA240_.jpg
Batman: Snow

http://www.paneltopanel.net/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/i1351/1101109-120x160.jpg
A Patch of Dreams

Pizzeria Kamikaze

http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/51GBQ7FXE0L._SS500_.jpg

Alan Moore/Frank Miller/Neil Gaiman/Dave McKean/Grant Morrison branch

the difference between these guys and the others you listed is that all of these dudes made their marks working for one of the Big Two (DC or Marvel) and within the context of their intellectual properties. Those other guys are, for the most part, all independent and coming more from the tradition of the underground comics started in the 60s. I can totally see a legitimate delineation between these two camps.

x-post

Just thinking out loud here, not necesarily on any topic... A lot more auteur-type books will be B&W because they're more publishable... i.e., they're not going to sell as many copies as big loud genre and superhero books, but that's okay because they'll break even or make money quicker. "correlation is not causation..."

I'm not sure where to go with that. Too many primary colors? A lot of the works you've read have been B&W.

Maybe, although Ware and Clowes both work in color, and I like their art a lot. (It's clean.) I think lettering has a lot to do with it, too.

ugh well don't get me started about those shitty B&W Marvel bound collections that they churn out. Absolutely horrible - that goes for the B&W reprint of Kirby's New Gods that DC kept in print forever too.

Eternals #1 (Still Only $75!)

Did Chester Brown ever publish a bound collection of his adaptations of the Gospels? I know he didn't finish all of them, but whatever he did finish?

Didn't Morrison get his start on 2000 AD? xxpost

I would actually highly recommend Flight (there are four volumes so far) to people trying to get into non-superhero comics. They're anthologies of stories from different artists loosely based around flight (very loosely), which gives a lot of different choices, the art is for the most part gorgeous, the stories are charming, and they aren't the "precious coming-of-age" tales that make me want to burn all of that crap. Same goes for Daisy Kutter -- just a fantastic story, and the author is a master of using space to both convey movement and mood. I can't recommend either highly enough.

Walking Dead loses a little steam when they first find the prison, but only wallows in soap opera territory briefly.

I welcomed the (short) change of pace at this point! And it didn't last too long, either, which was good.

I should also mention Vic & Blood, one of my most favourite one-off books in recent memory.

Also second Batman: The Long Hallowe'en (I was completely unfamiliar with Batman lore, hadn't even seen the movies, when I read this. It was awesome, and the "plot twist" that everyone ACTUALLY knows because they've read/seen enough Batman stuff to know? Was ACTUALLY a plot twist to me. I was thrilled!)

Loeb and Sale are like the anti-Moore/Gibbons. Not that either one is necessarily better than the other (I enjoy both quite a bit), but they have nice, big panels with plenty of breathing room, and concentrate on telling the story as opposed to trying to make some sort of big intellectual statement.

I agree that Jeff Loeb is the anti-Alan Moore, in as much as Moore is an excellent writer whose future work I look forward to reading.

Didn't Morrison get his start on 2000 AD? xxpost

similar to Moore getting his start at Warrior (I think?) - but that stuff was more of a springboard to working with DC in both cases. British comics are kind of persona non grata in the US.

Also, uh, Douglas's new book to thread.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/417is2I3IOL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

Did Chester Brown ever publish a bound collection of his adaptations of the Gospels? I know he didn't finish all of them, but whatever he did finish?

OH MY I certainly wish, but it hasn't happened. D&Q's been saying for like 4 years they're gonna put Ed the Happy Clown back in print. You'd think with the success of Louis Riel they'd be inspired to revive his older stuff.

I've never bothered with the Louis Riel thing... but I still have my original pressing of Ed the Happy Clown - unfortunately the one with the "revised" ending that deleted a bunch of stuff that appeared in the comics (luckily I have a few of those too).

I thought the only gospel he finished was the Gospel of Mark...? I really liked that - ANGRY JESUS!

I'm not sure where to go with that. Too many primary colors?

Most superhero comic art seems busy (as in "not clean"), loud, brash, and uh anatomically hyperarticulated, all of which are turnoffs for me (and I believe for jaymc).

Though it's not just superhero stuff -- I find, like, Peter Bagge nearly unreadable because his art is so busy and brash (in a somewhat different way than superhero stuff, sure).

Aw, I thing Peter Bagge's art is k-great and fun, but it keeps the man from reading it too.