gailsimone:
sweaterkittensahoy:
Gail Simone is recommending the Cerebus sale at Comixology. I have never read Cerebus, but Dave Sim, its creator, is a noted misogynist, so it’s hugely disconcerting to see Gail Simone backing his work.
I sort of understand Simone’s tweeting of it because it’s a book that means a lot in the continuity of comics and is—from everyone I’ve known who’s read it—a very good story. But Sim refers to women as “voids” and defined that as “without a glimmer of understanding of intellectual processes.” He accused Jeff Smith (creator of Bone) of being dominated by his wife, and when Smith called him out on it, challenged Smith to a boxing match to, I assume, prove his manliness.
And I look at Simone supporting the sale of this book, and I understand its historical significance in comic book history (the first fully self-published title to take off), and I understand that it’s known for being a truly epic, well-done story, and I think of the Tony Harris apologists who say he’s not actually calling out “real” geek girls, and I wonder if one of the main reasons sexism persists so hard in comics is because high-ranking people in the industry—specifically, one of the most recognized women in the industry—back the sale of a book by a man who has referred to everyone of her gender as “without a glimmer of intellectual processes.”
Recently, I was talking to a buddy of mine about some reservations I had on a writer change on a comic, and I said I wanted to give it a few issues to see how I felt even though the early news was making me twitchy, and my buddy said, “I’m going to tell you something I think a lot of comic readers need to hear.”
“What’s that?”
“You don’t owe them shit.”
Dave Sim wrote an epic comic. That is impressive. It is, by all accounts, a good story. That is also impressive. But you don’t owe him your time or money just because he pulled it off. You don’t owe him your attention and glimmers of intellectual processes (if you’re a man because we ladies are “voids”). You don’t owe him shit.
Gail Simone has written some of the most-enjoyed comics in the last decade, including a great run on Birds of Prey, the enjoyable Welcome to Tranquility, and a loved run on Suicide Squad. You may have read one or all of these and really enjoyed them. You may really respect her talent and skill. You don’t owe her shit.
Ick.
First, no, no reader owes me anything. Who ever said or implied such a thing? No one owes me a damn thing and I didn’t ask anything of anyone, either.
And it was Secret Six I wrote, the beloved run on Suicide Squad was by John Ostrander.
Do I think my mentioning that Cerebus is available digitally is one of the reasons “sexism persists so hard in the industry?” No, I think that’s a pretty goofy assertion.
The implication seems to be that I apologize for Dave Sim’s misogynist horseshit, or that I defend it, in some way. I do not. When Dave was on his previous ‘internet tour,’ big name creators lined up to kiss his ass, and precisely two known mainstream creators addressed him directly about his ridiculous and offensive statements. Myself and Pia Guerra.
You’ll be happy to know I got a ton of tsk-tsking about that, as well.
Dave Sim’s current philosophies are fairy dust mixed with bullshit mixed with gender rage on a massive scale. They do not lend themselves well to honest defense or apologies. The comments you quote are just a tip of a very depressing iceberg.
The issues Dave is making available digitally, to my mind, constitute a masterwork of comics. They are so good, there are only a handful of North American comics that can compete with them. When I was a kid, for a long time, I could only afford one comic a month, and that comic was Cerebus.The story being reprinted, HIGH SOCIETY, is possibly my favorite single comics story ever.
Some time much, much later, Dave Sim lost touch with reality. I’m not saying he became mentally ill, I don’t know and don’t want to guess. But he became what I think is a pretty tragic figure. I think his ideas are loathsome and contemptible, but I also think they are not entirely dissimilar from what you hear from a lot of street corner prophets.
Does that mean that the work he did before this break, where he routinely had some of the most fascinating female characters in comics, is tainted? Does that work now have implications of misogyny no one saw at the time?
For me, and I thought long and hard on this, the answer is no. I reread the early volumes and they still are tremendously good comics. But I expect my followers are intelligent people who can make their own choice.
The big questions are, and I think it’s perfectly fair to struggle with them…is great art still great art if it’s sexist? Is art created by an artist before a personality breakdown to be lumped in with later work? Is buying work that you find valuable and meaningful an endorsement of an artist’s much later-stated views?
I don’t tell people not to enjoy or purchase work by an artist because I find their views offensive. I don’t feel I have any authority whatsoever to do that. Like any other rational person, I make those judgments for myself, and myself only.
I have a lot of followers. Some might have gotten some enjoyment and value out of those early Cerebus books. My views on Dave Sim are ridiculously well-documented, I’ve never shied away from condemning his nonsense. I will continue to do so. I absolutely respect the opinions of anyone who doesn’t want to read these books based on Sim’s later rants.
But if someone were to ask me what comics to study to learn meaningful sequential storytelling, Cerebus would likely be in the top two or three choices I would recommend.
My followers are adults, I full expect they can make up their own minds, and I knew some would be interested. I am not going to judge them either way.
I agree with what Gail said: as adults, we should all be free to make up our minds.
However, I feel like the original poster’s remarks speak to a larger point, one of the problems I encounter the most on Tumblr:
For all the passionate fandom positivity that’s out there, there’s also a large amount of people on this site seem to be unable to separate a work of art from their creators. They treat their creators as part of their work. While arguments can sure be made about creativity and their source, and how much of an author is in a work, the point remains: art does not equal its creator.
Alfred Hitchcock might’ve been an abusive sociopath. Same with Stanley Kubrick, same with James Cameron. Pablo Picasso was a philandering douche. T.S. Eliot was an anti-semite. Victor Salva is a kid-toucher. Roman fucking Polanski. Robert Kirkman, Frank Miller, & Alan Moore come across like assholes in their own special ways. Billy Corgan is a delusional egomaniac.
Celebrating their creative achievements and enjoying their artistic output doesn’t mean I condone their failings as human beings.
On the flipside, I also am privileged to know some extraordinarily cool and nice people who are completely talentless as creators. I’m sure Stephenie Meyer is a lovely person to talk to. Doesn’t change the fact that she has clue zero on how to write a functional narrative.
I’ve never read Cerebus, but it’s been recommended to me by plenty of people. I also have read enough on most comics sites to know Dave Sim is on the same category of jackass as Scott Adams (who also, holy shit, is a lunatic- but I still enjoy Dilbert!)
Will I read it someday? Sure. Will I still think Dave Sim is an out-of-touch moron? Of course.
So, Tumbl-peeps, don’t attack Gail Simone for recommending what she believes to be a quality book.
Just try to grasp that creators and artists are human beings too, and that a creator’s failings do not detract from their amazing output.
Or, more simply put:
With great talent sometimes also comes great douchiness.
