Cerebus 300 is in

[Aman619]

well, after all these years Cerebus 300 just came out. Hard to believe its done. Like all of you who still care about the book, I have mixed feelings watching it end.

AWE that Dave stuck it out for each of the 290 MONTHLY issues since he hatched the idea to do 300 ..and quit!

ADMIRATION at his drawing lettering and storytelling skills which grew by leaps and bounds over the years.

RESPECT for a guy whose ideas about politics, sex, rights, religion developed and deepened before our eyes, page by page.

 

BUT, along with all of the above...

 

SADNESS at witnessing Dave isolate himself willfully from everyone he met, loved or worked with (except Gerhard, but Im interested to hear his side of the last 20 years now that they are done together...)

DISGUST, not over his views toward women, but over his total inability to see the big picture fairly, not just thru his jaundiced eye. He's had bad luck with women, sure, but mistakenly misconstrues ALL women to be similar to his experiences with them, totally absolving himself from any ownership of his actions towards or his OWN behaviour or opinions that played a hand in his failed relationships (both personal and professional) with women. He seems to live in abject FEAR of women!

 

I too have lived with Cerebus since issue 25. I will miss it every month. But as much as I respect the creation of it, I wont miss Dave Sim much.

 

I am still baffled how someone so creative, so skilled with words and ideas, so smart and given to really searching for truths and understanding that he literally immersed himself in the three (of the five?) great religions of the world, coming out with a deep and profound love of God (the last words in #300 are a 2-page ecumenical prayer of thanks to God) , I am puzzled and dismayed that this man came away with a total disregard for others opinions and disrespect and outright condensation toward all who disagree with his version of the truth rather than an acceptance of all others.

 

Its such a shame, eh?

[joe_collector]

Basically, Sim lived the life of a true artist and agree or disagree, he did it his way.

[supapimp]

cocaine is a hell of a drug!

[Aman619]

true enough... hes entitled to his opinions. Even if he werent an artist. But he wasnt always like this. Back in th eearly 80s he was an up and coming businessman/creative type - - making some real money and enjoying himself and his new self-made status. Remember when he went to Hawaii for two minths with Gerhard and a drawing table and did the book from a hotel room? That was cool!! Remember when the bih=ggest thing we had to complain baout Dave was his over-use of xeroxing panels for "cinematic effect" before Gerhard came on board?

 

If only we knew what was in store ...

[Aman619]

I think Id prefer lamenting Daves current state circa issue 300 more if he were a burnt out druggie stumbling to the finish line; than a religious nut women (and humanity) hater with a burnt out storyline that stumbles to its finishline.

[Kevin Boyd]

Wow.

 

I just finished absorbing everything in the last issue of Cerebus.

 

It's now less than 48 hours before I get to spend time with the man who created it and all of the other 299 (297 really) issues of Cerebus, a book that I have been reading monthly since issue 45 or some 20+ years ago.

 

First thing, Cerebus the Aardvark... the monumental graphic novel that details the life and struggles of a short, grey animal with a big honkin' nose is a fantastic work of personal vision and complexity that I will still be absorbing and re-reading and reflecting on for the rest of my days. As I've recently gone back and re-read the issues in the phonebooks - unencumbered by the essays and controversies that surround them - I think it's one of the greatest works of social satire to be thrust upon an unsuspecting population since Swift.

 

Do I feel sorry for Dave...? I don't know.

 

I think he's a man of unique perspective. Satirists are rarely a part of society, their function is to exist apart from it and look in, rather than look out. Here's a guy that is looking for TRUTH, and I must say, I'm happy for him that he has found it. He seems a much happier individual for it.

 

That being said, presenting his views rarely gets him anything more than criticism from TCJ, misrepresentation in the biased comic-media as a "misogynist", and a bombardment of letters from guys (rarely women) who feel it's their social role to be the defenders of feminism.

 

I don't think that he's actually afraid of women... more like he doesn't understand them, and he doesn't understand their socio-political arguments as presented by feminists that have been accepted as truths by most people in western society, particularly in Canada. What he is afraid of, is the fascistic response that people in this society have to people who don't agree with the feminist socio-political arguments and try to challenge them.

 

To a satirist, reason is truth, and feminist theory is rife with beliefs that fly in the face of reason, and hence is something to be satirized and, ultimately, rejected.

 

Kev

[ghoulaid]

I may have to pick up the last issue. I haven't bought Cerebus since issue #100 or so. I'll always owe a debt of gratitude to Dave, as one of the great thrills in my life was seeing my first professional comics work published in . . .Cerebus! Those were the days.

[Aman619]

Im no feminist. I cant quote any of their slogans etc. But even a guy doesnt need to be deaf dumb and blind to see that women have always been second class citizens in all cultures. Whats wrong with more equal pay etc?

And my wife, for one, puts no limits on me whatsoever like Dave moans about constantly. What women has HE been around? AS JACK NICHOLSON called them in CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, they mustve all been BALLBUSTERS!!

[blutobc]

Obviously, his divorce left a major scar on him. He felt betrayed by someone he loved, as it all turned in his view to just being about money.

 

I found his candor to be refreshing over the years. The guy bared his personal feelings, and not all were flattering. Not many people have the guts to speak up and disagree with some of the established social dogma.

 

As far as Cerebus, I read it from 30 to 200 with an occasional break here and there. Basically, it was a nice change of pace from the other books in the 80s. However, it was overpriced(I know it was an independent book) and somehow was always one of the first books to be axed whenever my cash was low. Sure had pretty pictures though.

 

Final thought...it was always the quickest read each month.

[Kevin Boyd]

Im no feminist. I cant quote any of their slogans etc. But even a guy doesnt need to be deaf dumb and blind to see that women have always been second class citizens in all cultures. Whats wrong with more equal pay etc?

And my wife, for one, puts no limits on me whatsoever like Dave moans about constantly. What women has HE been around? AS JACK NICHOLSON called them in CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, they mustve all been BALLBUSTERS!!

 

I wasn't accusing you of being a feminist. However, one would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to not see that women have NOT been second class citizens in North America, particularly Canada, for a long time.

 

What were initial attempts to open more doors for women in the workplace have been warped into a system of government imposed discriminatory hiring policies and bizarre strategies to right supposed inequalities in the pay structure. They do this by scaring/bullying men into accepting them by labelling any man that disagrees with these policies as a misogynist (as Dave has been)... and who wants to be called that? Definitely not a politician - 50%+ of his/her voters are women. So most capitulate, or turn a blind eye to it.

 

Equal pay, equal opportunity - there's nothing wrong with those ideas. But that's if "equal" means everyone starts at the same pay or everyone has a chance for the job. That race and gender are not an issue.

 

However, that is NOT what it means in today's workplace (particulary in Canada).

 

Kev

[localshop]

Just time to get your 1 to 75 complete run in (not my auction):

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2230173492&category=3952&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBWA%3AIT&rd=1

 

One where I think the current price is going to be the final price!

 

Anyway, haven't picked up my copy yet, but heading out to the store to do so this lunchtime. I'm sad it's finishing, but some of the recent stuff has been a bit of a struggle. I just hope that the achievement of the series is remembered, along with the best features of Dave and Gerhard's story-telling - just fantastic panel layouts, narrative structures and pacing, astounding lettering - and not so much of the negative stuff associated with Dave Sim and his views himself.

 

Any thoughts on what the guy will/ should do next? I doubt that we have heard the last of him.

[Aman619]

Equal pay, equal opportunity - there's nothing wrong with those ideas. But that's if "equal" means everyone starts at the same pay or everyone has a chance for the job. That race and gender are not an issue.

 

Kev

 

I agree with that utopian scenario. But we live hre on earth where the playing field has ben seriously tilted and unfair since there have ben civilizations. In western societies, if you are not born white or rich, you have an uphill climb to the starting line. If you dont agree with that statement, we will never agree on solutions. In the last 50 years, American governments have accepted this fact and taken steps to address it. In another 50 years after monority races, cultures and women have caught up in the workplace, we can eliminate affirmative action.

 

Ive done well and made good money. (eenough to buy and collect HG comics!) But I dont kid myself that my father's successful career enabaled me to sleep thru a good HS and get into a top 25 college, and even propel me into setting up my own company. Subject to my possible screwing it up, I was "bred" to make it. Not a trust fund baby like the Rockefellers or Hiltons, of course, but definitely not a struggle from the ghetto to survive middle school.

 

Nor was I a girl trying to enter a workplace in the 70s where women were rare and new at it. I always recall women I did work for back then as too touchy, taking business faults as personal insults. I accepted that as due to their fragile status in the game...thay they perceived that guys WANTED them to fail (or conspiring to make them look ridiculous, and became overly aggressive (trying to be like the boys). Theyve gotten much better at it. Women in their 20s today feel at home in the workplace, and why shouldnt they?

 

We dont live the same as we did a hundred years ago. SO why should we treat minorities and women the same? Lower the barriers, let them in, get acclimated, have a stake in society, earn money to own property, THEN, when the playing field in fairer, we can judge PURELY on ability.

 

Let me finish by adding that this is from my perspective. I had advantages that I took, (well), advantage of. If I were born white but dirt poor, perhaps I would be affonted that THEY were getting the breaks, not me. But I still think that the pecking order places poor and white male above black and female in getting a job....

[valiantman]

I'm 27 years old, so I didn't even start kindergarten until 1981.

There has ALWAYS been equality in schools in my lifetime.

 

In college, scholarships are given to those of "other backgrounds"

for LESS performance than my own... same education, different standards.

 

For instance, if I am a white male who makes a 24 on the ACT,

I can be prepared to pay for part of my tuition and all of my boarding.

If I am NOT a white male who makes a 24 on the ACT,

I may get full tuition paid for me... and possibly qualify for lots of other dollars.

 

What differences were there in our kindergarten through 12th grade education? None.

...and anyone graduating high school TODAY didn't start until the 1990s!

 

Why does it take 50 more years to "make things equal"?

What's been unequal about schools since the 1980s? Much less, the 1990s?

[blutobc]

I'm 27 years old, so I didn't even start kindergarten until 1981.

There has ALWAYS been equality in schools in my lifetime.

 

In college, scholarships are given to those of "other backgrounds"

for LESS performance than my own... same education, different standards.

 

For instance, if I am a white male who makes a 24 on the ACT,

I can be prepared to pay for part of my tuition and all of my boarding.

If I am NOT a white male who makes a 24 on the ACT,

I may get full tuition paid for me... and possibly qualify for lots of other dollars.

 

What differences were there in our kindergarten through 12th grade education? None.

...and anyone graduating high school TODAY didn't start until the 1990s!

 

Why does it take 50 more years to "make things equal"?

What's been unequal about schools since the 1980s? Much less, the 1990s?

 

Careful, you may be found guilty of using logic!!!

[Apotheosis]

In another 50 years after monority races, cultures and women have caught up in the workplace, we can eliminate affirmative action.

 

So I have to deal with "affirmative" action for the rest of my life? I've never lived in a time that didn't have it.

 

Women in their 20s today feel at home in the workplace, and why shouldnt they?

 

Well why wouldn't they? American business bends over backwards for women and minorities now.

 

Lower the barriers, let them in, get acclimated, have a stake in society, earn money to own property, THEN, when the playing field in fairer, we can judge PURELY on ability.

 

And we wonder why American business' are struggling right now? When a company is more interested in the color of the skin or the the persons sex instead of getting the best person for the job they are setting themselves up for failure. Maybe not with that person, but at some point they are going to hire someone that just isn't getting it done and it's going to hurt them.

 

Let me finish by adding that this is from my perspective. I had advantages that I took, (well), advantage of. If I were born white but dirt poor, perhaps I would be affonted that THEY were getting the breaks, not me. But I still think that the pecking order places poor and white male above black and female in getting a job....

 

And this is where we part ways (again). As a 28 year old white male I have to confess that you are out of touch with the current entry level hiring practices. Not too long ago I had a Maricopa County Community College decide not to renew my work contract. Was it because my work was sub-standard? No. According to the President of the college it was because SHE felt that there weren't enough minorities in charge in my department (keep in mind that we only had 3 people in charge in our department and the head person in charge was female). Now is that fair? Nobody would think so, but affirmative action is so mis-used now that this happens more than you would think.

 

Now I work for a Fortune 50 company. Is it any better here? Maybe, but not by much. We recently had an employee who was breaking company rules about twice a week. He was also within the 90 day probation period that everyone is under when they first get hired on. He should have been released after his second offense like other people that I've worked with have been. The fact that he was of hispanic origin though meant that he didn't even get sent home the first time until his 8th offense! Is that the company's fault? Yes. Would it happen if companies were so affraid of getting sued by minorities? Probably not. Is affirmative action to blame? Absolutely.

 

I will agree that affirmative action doesn't need to go away all together (we all know that there are still plenty of racists and sexists out there), but it does need to be amended in some way. When I start losing promotions that I deserve just because the company needs to have more minorities in "power" then there's something wrong.

 

And just for the background. I came from a lower middle class family and didn't get to go to the nice high school or college. I've worked hard to get where I am and don't relish the thought that my current stumbling blocks aren't my abilities, but my skin color and gender.

 

 

With that said... I enjoy Cerebus immensely. I do think that his views on women are a bit extreme though. Hopefully he'll be able to find some happiness in his post-Cerebus life.

[Kevin Boyd]

I agree with that utopian scenario. But we live here on earth where the playing field has ben seriously tilted and unfair since there have ben civilizations. In western societies, if you are not born white or rich, you have an uphill climb to the starting line. If you dont agree with that statement, we will never agree on solutions. In the last 50 years, American governments have accepted this fact and taken steps to address it. In another 50 years after monority races, cultures and women have caught up in the workplace, we can eliminate affirmative action.

 

Then I'm afraid that we will never agree.

 

I have serious problems with using inequality as a means of making reparations.

 

We should be making every effort to end discrimination based on race and gender but not at the expense of shifting the pendulum in the opposite direction by maintaining a system of reverse discrimination. In other words, two wrongs do not make a right.

 

I've done well and made good money. (eenough to buy and collect HG comics!) But I dont kid myself that my father's successful career enabled me to sleep thru a good HS and get into a top 25 college, and even propel me into setting up my own company. Subject to my possible screwing it up, I was "bred" to make it. Not a trust fund baby like the Rockefellers or Hiltons, of course, but definitely not a struggle from the ghetto to survive middle school.

 

Well, I was born to a middle class family in a country where everyone in my lifetime has had equal access to education and social programs. I was born in 1969 and, as a person with a degree in Canadian history and political science, I am very confident in making the statement that there has not been institutionalized discrimination of race and/or gender in my lifetime. Individual cases, definitely.

 

Nor was I a girl trying to enter a workplace in the 70s where women were rare and new at it. I always recall women I did work for back then as too touchy, taking business faults as personal insults. I accepted that as due to their fragile status in the game...thay they perceived that guys WANTED them to fail (or conspiring to make them look ridiculous, and became overly aggressive (trying to be like the boys). Theyve gotten much better at it. Women in their 20s today feel at home in the workplace, and why shouldnt they?

 

They shouldn't. When I started working during my the summer breaks in the mid to late 1980's all employees were able to apply for any job that interested them at the amusement park that I worked and it was a pretty even gender split, with a very diverse racial group. When I entered the legitimate workforce in 1990 I entered into an office situation that was 95% female. I work in healthcare, and aside from the occasional summer student, I've never had a male co-worker and I've always had a female boss. What I have noticed is that now instead of working in an office full of white women I now work in an office that is made up of east indian, chinese, black and a few white women.

 

We dont live the same as we did a hundred years ago. SO why should we treat minorities and women the same? Lower the barriers, let them in, get acclimated, have a stake in society, earn money to own property, THEN, when the playing field in fairer, we can judge PURELY on ability.

 

We don't "treat them the same as we did 100 years ago". Western governments abolished institutional racism and sexism (individual cases will always pop up) generations ago. In theory everyone should be allowed the same "equality of opportunity" as white males without "lowering the barriers". We "lowered the barriers" back in the 1970's, and instead of making the playing field fairer we have created a system of false opportunity where ability means nothing.... and we have settled of a mediocre workforce where no one has to justify their ability to do a specific job.

 

Let me finish by adding that this is from my perspective. I had advantages that I took, (well), advantage of. If I were born white but dirt poor, perhaps I would be affonted that THEY were getting the breaks, not me. But I still think that the pecking order places poor and white male above black and female in getting a job....

 

I was not born poor, nor was I born rich. I went to school, I studied, I got a job and I earn a decent living. I don't resent anyone for getting breaks, I just find it illogical to use a method of inequality to supposedly create equality, and we've ended up with a completely different type of discrimination.

 

I don't think a day goes by where I don't encounter a commercial on radio or television where a man isn't openly portrayed and stupid and weak, even children are given more credit in ads than a lot of men are. If the ad was reversed and women were openly insulted like that the people that made it would be fined for committing a hate crime.

 

Society has just transferred hate and discrimination to a different group instead of eliminating it on all levels.

 

Kev

[Aman619]

Progress has been made, and perhaps the pendulum has even swung too far. What scared me in your and the other response was how it plays out in corporate America. I may be speaking from some "lofty tower" in that I dont not work in the Fortune 500 or mainstream business world. If those of you are TRULY being passed over for less qualified candidates "by law" that is wrong IMO, or soon should be.

 

But just how objective can anyone be who makes that statement about their own job frustrations? I would think that employers can and always will take advantage of every loophole aailable. If they can pay less to a minority AND score quota points, theyll do it every time, Just as theyll 'conspire' to take advantage of EVERY law passed that seeks to address a problem of access. Thats human nature (sadly)

 

As for schools being 'equal opportunities" since 1980?? Come on. You go to public HS in Manhattan, or in any poor suburb or medium size downtown city neighborhood. Are these schools even remotely equal (even while desegregated) to the rich suburban schools which are still 90% white? And remain so because housing is so expensive as to create defacto segregation? It will only be when blacks and others have access to earning power (outside of pro sports) to buy homes in these communities that all schools education will be equal. Then it will time for purely economic affirmative action.

 

...or is that Socialism?

 

Anyway, I believe in the efforts to make the playing field fair for all. There will be and have been abuses and mistakes...and all are regrettable and should be addressed.... but the goal has been worth it. IMO. Maybe its time to scale back in proportion to the progress made.

[Kevin Boyd]

Certainly from Sim's position we went too far a long time ago. He's basically a conservative, and has the conservative's p.o.v. (change is not good, traditional is better) but I don't think he's a racist as he's gone to great lengths to discuss that the emancipation of the black man in north america is probably the 20th century's greatest achievement.

 

Where he has great concerns is with women's issues and the feminist perspective as defined by a narrow group of intellectuals, which is basically marxist (in that it is encourages the creation and defense of community over individual standards and relies on government as the enforcer of these community standards - hence a statement like "we need more people of color in this position" and that the employer should have the legal support of the government to act in such a manner is inherently feminist-Marxist).

 

He doesn't say that all women are feminists, and I think he's learned the hard way that not all feminists are women.

 

So back to whether or not I agree with Sim depends on how far I am willing to accept that the feminist-Marxist perspective is wrong or "evil"... as opposed to simply misguided. I don't think that the intention is to do harm to society, but the end result is the breakdown of institutions like marriage and family.

 

I certainly think that, in the examples that he has discussed at great lengths, that the "marxist-feminist" doctrine he argues against is very confused and definitely not built on the cornerstones of reason and logic that founded the United States and to a lesser extent the Dominion of Canada. Reason and logic have guided us to achieve great things (like the abolition of slavery, striving to eliminate racism, widening of economic opportunity, for the most part peace). Irrationality and illogic led to the creation of the things that reason and logic eliminated so to allow new systems not based on logic and reason to overwhelm the ones that were you end up with chaos and you are stepping back rather than forward.

 

Thus, to use an unreasable and illogical system like quotas to achieve a reasonable end ends up backfiring and merely creates the opposite of what was intended, which to a certain extent, it has.

 

Problem is (his p.o.v.) that the western media have so embraced the doctrines of "marxist-feminism" as truth that it ostracizes and belittles those that speak out against it. They (f-m) use illogic against those that might argue logically against them. Quotas are wrong gets countered by (the f-m) "since quotas are meant to help women advance then you must be against women advancing" - or quite simply you don't support women's issues you must therefore hate women - you are thus a misogynist.

 

Kev

[valiantman]

As for schools being 'equal opportunities" since 1980?? Come on. You go to public HS in Manhattan, or in any poor suburb or medium size downtown city neighborhood. Are these schools even remotely equal (even while desegregated) to the rich suburban schools which are still 90% white?

That sounds like a problem with geography rather than race.

The races have received the exact same education for decades in other geographies.

 

In my hometown of 10,000... the public schools are absolutely equal for all students

because there's only one school.

When applying to college after attending that same school all our lives,

suddenly, race mattered and benefits were unequal for the same performance.

[localshop]

Talking of Cerebus, is it me, or is this not Dave Sim's autograph?

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2231567448&category=12589