Bottom line: If slash, feminism or anti-oppressive practice makes you react negatively,
Please read the community ethos and rules before posting or commenting.
Links
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
| You're viewing Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More | Reload page in style: site light |
no subject
Date: 2010-07-29 02:41 am (UTC)But then, I would argue that, at the time, DC at least was so moribund that it kind of needed that. What everyone forgets is that nobody wanted to buy the "innocent" DC anymore. Everyone was sick of it, because it had become static and boring and kids now had video games and cable as competition--not to mention the alternatives were getting very successful at that time and DC wanted some of that money. And Marvel? Marvel was taking lots of chances and had never put themselves in the trap of appealing primarily to little kids, so had the freedom to move that DC, full of old editors with no ideas left, did not, and so was kicking their asses; they had to compete. And did I mention Alan Moore and Frank Miller were very popular, and DESERVED to be?
It's easy to look back now and go tsk tsk, but back then it seemed just about the only way to start writing stories from a new angle.
Personally though, I think at the time Grant Morrison did a better critique of the darkening, especially in ANIMAL MAN.
By the way, bringing up Jurgens? Well, I wouldn't really consider him influential nor worth remembering, frankly. I mean, I wouldn't even KNOW about that story without S-D.
Another point: It was when he was doing DC characters that SANDMAN was at its darkest, and once he stopped, oddly it got a lot LIGHTER.