So I just started reading Cerebus the Aardvark

So I just started reading Cerebus the Aardvark.

When does it get good?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=tx7RUcwAQ3E
youtube.com/watch?v=qUhHfF0u6vg
youtu.be/j13oJajXx0M
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

It turns into what it is known for around the High Society arc. That's about a phonebook in?

Approx 23 issues.

Should I just skip the first 23 issues?

I'm at issue 19 right now, and even though it's not some incredible supercomic like people say it turns into, it's entertaining by itself. The character of Cerebus is absolutely hilarious.

Craft wise High Society/Church and State.
Some of the early stuff is referenced later on.

It starts getting good after issue #20, "Mind Game".

Only reason to read Cerebus now is to gradually, deliberately view the mental breakdown of Dave Sim, knowing the outcome and knowing you can't do anything about it. Its like reading Anne Frank's diary

Come on, Anne Frank's diary doesn't have anywhere near the artistic merit of Cerebus at its peak.

In fact it's only the really bad issues that are like "Dave Sim's diary" but now that I think about it, they almost literally are.

The great issues are unintentionally The Diary of Dave Sim. The bad issues are intentionally so.

W-what happens after #280?

The comic turns into Dave Sim's political screeds during a mental breakdown.

The sad thing is that people still treat Sim like he believes all the things he wrote then, he doesn't. He does still have some controversial opinions, but he seems like a pretty reasonable person now.

Cerebus, Woody Allen and Cerebus' final wife (who is actually evil, just like all women) team up to read The Bible, and they discover that it ACTUALLY tells the story of the struggle between G-d (the good male deity) and YHWH (the evil female deity).

And it's barely a comic, it's almost entirely prose with the occasional illustration.

For ten issues.

Dave Sim really does practice his own bizarre mash-up religion though. I don't know if it's exactly the same as the religion that he presents in the comic, but you can bet that there are a lot of similarities.

>The sad thing is that people still treat Sim like he believes all the things he wrote then, he doesn't. He does still have some controversial opinions, but he seems like a pretty reasonable person now.
Until Dave Sim actually acknowledges that he was wrong, and that housepets won't lead to the fall of human civilization, I will continue to assume that Dave Sim believes that housepets will lead to the downfall of human civilization.

>housepets will lead to the downfall of human civilization.
Did he really say this?
He would be right.

...

>super comic
The "hydrogen of comic books" doesn't really kick in until near the end of High Society imo. Church and State through Women is amazing. Reads is half of the best comic ever and half of Dave Sim's diary. see , Guys is fun. Everything after that is a little too idiosyncratic and self-absorbed to be properly entertaining. It's a fine intellectual exercise, but it's nothing close to the tone of the first ~200 issues.

>Cerebus, Woody Allen and Cerebus' final wife
this is not a joke. I'm not a huge fan of 201+ honestly.

>housepets leading to the fall of civilization
Yes, that is the most absurd part of the Tangent essays, but you're also oversimplifying the position and the rhetoric its built with. He was treating "letting animals in to the house" as a microcosm of the decay of rules and expectations in modern society.

He used "But daddy, why can't fluffy come inside tonight?.....But daddy, why can't fluffy eat at the table...etc" as an analogue to feminist desires. It reeks of "my last girlfriend had a dog and I hated it." It's easily the worst part of the Tangent essay, but it's also not him literally saying that pets would ruin civilization.

I always found this one confusing because in my experience women tend to dislike animals while men pamper them.

Fuck skipping faggots
If you're gonna skip don't even read you little bitch.
One person on the internet tells you that it gets good at issue 23 and you wanna just jump right there? What a little shit you are.

I fucking hate women so god damned much

>reads
>good
Sim's prose is fucking awful, and his imitation of Oscar Wild's style is worse.

Being the most absurd part of Tangents means that the pet problem is also his easiest issue to go back on. Just a simple "I was wrong about pets" would help me believe that Dave is on the road to recovery.

But if he won't admit that he was wrong about pets, then I don't believe he will ever acknowledge that he might be wrong about _anything_ from that era, and so he's still trapped in his heartbreaking schizophrenic psychosis.

>tfw the ascension was pointless

>2/2 - because I'm Dave's own little retarded Scott Adams analogue
I think the opinion pieces, specifically Tangent, should be read as "in kind responses" to the belligerent and unapologetic tone of most feminist rhetoric. I think there's a heavy subtext of "you tolerate this kind of analysis of men" throughout his comments on women. Remember, you own a truck because you're ashamed of your small penis, but her massive purse that she constantly stuffs with useless shit has no sexual implications at all.

That's one of Dave's problems, but mainly because it's a problem that lots of people have.
>I date women
>these women have dogs
>therefore pets are "feminine"
or
>my last boyfriend cheated on me
>therefore men are liars
Dave isn't trying to fuck men, so he's not ever in a situation where he's dealing with a man's pet. It's easy to forget how narrow your focus can be when you're considering these things. I don't think about the fact that men probably cheat as much as women because I am in no way, shape or form concerned about a man cheating on me.

i don't know if your quote is meant to disagree with me or not, since I didn't say reads was good...and in fact stated the text parts were awful. Are you just making sure people understood that part?

Some people have better stuff to do than fight through 23 dense, lengthy issues of stuff they don't like because someone promised them it gets good eventually.

Post your reading list, and I'll tell you whether or not you really do have better things to do or if you're only deluding yourself.

Didn't he accurately predict multi-gender nonsense?

Around issue 20 is when it starting clicking up it was always improving with those first issues

And Conan style shit never really clicks with me so

Except
1) they're not bad by a huge stretch, the art is great and the character of Cerebusbis always entertaining. Talking about reading sword and sorcery parodies like its having your teeth pulled is hilariously pathetic
2) characters from the start become crucial later on

the question should not be "what issue should i skip to?" the question should be "what issue should i stop at?" stop after the Church and State arc. there is still some value in the issues after that but you get very diminishing returns on your time. it's kind of like trying to identify when Zombie Simpsons begins.

i mostly agree with the graph
except that i think the decline after Church and State was much more steep and I don't think that it ever recovered near the end.

Lol whut. How would the entire toy dog subset of the pet industry exist if this were remotely true?

How long ago was that avclub interview he did? Cause it really undercuts the idea he could've lightened up over time

Fucking native Americans had trans people and multiple genders dude. It's not new

Non-binary genders are a concept that have existed for thousands of years across many cultures.

You can believe that there is a rational basis for them, or you can believe that they're an irrational mental illness, but for fuck's sake, don't believe that they're new or that someone could "predict" them.

Not reading the entire thing, so you can understand why people don't like certain parts rather than taking some internet chucklefuck's word that most of the comic is shit is probably what you should actually do.
And seriously? Church and State? You have garbage taste. Recommending someone not see the Cirin/Cerebus fight? Blow it out your ass faggot.

>stopping before Jaka's Story
You what.

Since these threads always inevitably attract people who'll brand Sim an insane misogynist, a more contemporary look at where his thoughts and beliefs are now:

youtube.com/watch?v=tx7RUcwAQ3E

youtube.com/watch?v=qUhHfF0u6vg

His video blog is actually pretty comfy to listen to. I might disagree with some of the things he says (I still think his "petition" as a pre-condition for talking to him is pretty retarded, but at least he's filtering out people who don't want to engage in reasonable two-way discussion and debate with him) but he's clearly not the frothing lunatic a lot of his critics make him out to be.

>Ever the oblique leftist. I don't "feel." If I "felt," I would never have gotten the book done. I'd be off "feeling" somewhere.
Wew.

It's from 2004, right when he finished the comic.

But still, it's crazy to think that Cerebus ended only 12 years ago.

Has he ever said "I was wrong" about anything from that era?

Or does he merely express himself more calmly now?

The latter, but I feel like he's more aware now that a lot of his thoughts are down to who he is as a person, rather than the fault of anyone else.

Most of all he just seems kinda disappointed that few people want to engage with him and discuss his beliefs as an equal, just talk down to him like he's scum. And in that he certainly has a point, a lot of people demand you accept certain "truths" which are (currently) accepted in society or they aren't willing to consider your ideas at all. Which isn't very open minded.

let's really nosedive this thread, shall we?

youtu.be/j13oJajXx0M

...

what the fuck is that version of you're so vain I posted.....good lord. I guess that's what I get for posting a shit song in the first place.

...

...

...

...

...

Am I supposed to be disagreeing with this? Is it going to get worse? Because at the end of this page it actually seems pretty spot-on.

>mfw he's redpilled
Now I want to read this comic

How do you feel about housepets?

my friends......welcome. Other than Dave's tone, which if he was as rigidly fucking logical as he claims he is would be a lot more measured, tangent is a pretty decent read.

I'm approaching the point where the emotional response to his screed on pets is only proving his point to me even more. "Why does the mean man hate house pets?!?"

...

Marriage is not a car. It's not just his tone which is illogical.

What emotion do you see in that comment about pets? I think that you're projecting your own emotions, to be honest.

I agree. The things that resonate with me about Tangent are the "emotional badminton" pages. The "engaging the intellectual part of my brain with women" frustrations he expresses are almost word for word some of the things I've expressed to friends.

>my problem with Dave
Dave is an autodidact and a self-mad man. He's well-read, but he lacks the socializing experience of higher level education and as such is wrapped up far too tightly in his own little safety blanket of ideas. I happen to think a number of his ideas are correct, but I also understand the needy, emotional tone in his writing. "Why aren't I being recognized as the genius that I am?!?"

...

>emotional response to his screed on pets

It's not an emotional response about pets; it's a response to how ridiculous the argument sounds.

If it's not an explanation of WHY you think it's ridiculous, it can't really be classed as anything but an emotional response.

"It's ridiculous" is not an argument.

...

...

What rulebook are you getting this from?

do you not understand rhetoric and argument? A single unjustified claim is not an argument.

The pet section is silly. But if you engage with it with an open mind and ask yourself "what is Dave trying to say?" instead of "How wrong is this?" you'll get a lot farther. It's clearly intended to be an "example of how these kinds of male v female battles work out in the personal/domestic sphere," not some kind of pet-apocalypse hysteria. Do I think it's a bad example? I do, and particularly because he doesn't give any further context to his views on domestication and pet-ownership in general. To me, it's obvious that his issue is with the degradation of the established order, namely that man and beast *do* interact, but through a strict hierarchy, and not with "merely owning animals."

Your posts indicate none of that though; No ability to engage with material that contradicts your opinions about the subjects being discussed and no baseline of intellectual good-will when reading OPINION pieces.

Anyway, here's the page again.

>>Am I supposed to be disagreeing with this? Is it going to get worse?
>How do you feel about housepets?
Where is the emotion in that response?

The rulebook of any reasonable debate. You have to explain what it is you disagree with about your opponent's position and how your opinion differs. Comments like "that's ridiculous" or "you're insane" are not arguments, they're ad-hominems and appeals to emotion.

Disagreeing with you does not make other people with different opinions from your own ridiculous or insane - A major point in Dave's criticism of feminism is its inability to function as a solid theory because few of its tenets are able to be argued on anything other than emotional grounds. The majority of the "fifteen impossible things" hold true, it is impossible for anyone willing to think critically to believe them.

What are we discussing? Whether "it's ridiculous" is a solid argument? Or whether or not you're being honest about your intentions to provoke an emotional response with your "but the housepets?" single sentence comment.

...

You claimed that the comment in question was emotional. You claimed that the comment in question was making claims. I'm claiming that you're projecting.

I don't see emotion in that comment. I don't see a claim in that comment. I see you exemplifying the behavior that you criticize in others.

Maybe you were thinking of some other comment, and you replied to that one out of convenience. Maybe you didn't read the comment, or you did read it and you forgot what it said. I don't know, I'm not a mind-reader.

Just like Dave Sim though, you can't ever admit that you were wrong.

This ending section used to be my personal "what the fuck is he talking about?" but given the current leadership and positions of BLM......

this is Dave Sim's intro to Puma Blues. I liked Puma Blues.

Cerebus wasn't that great after Cirin leaves the series. it becomes very tedious and the artwork vastly overtakes the writing.

...

he's just talking and saying nothing. the latter half of the cerebus run seems like this to me. i didn't care for it

Puma Blues did not need this intro. at all.

>muh gender is binary. here let me explain it just badly as an sjw then twist it in to an astrology rant

...

finally it's over

Ok 1. what am I projecting? that I love pets and can't own one because of big evil Dave? Or that I hate them and don't want you to have one so I'm imagining that you actually hate them? Which configuration of emotions that I can't deal with explicitly am I projecting on to you? If my statements to you are a manifestation of my inner most desires, the things my ego won't allow me to own, then....what exactly are they? Can you tell me? Because I'm confused.

Oh....you're just throwing around some bullshit.

2. I had typed out a response to you in an earlier post but scrapped it when someone else jumped in. There's a strong possibility I could have misread the intentions of your initial comment, but as the conversation escalated, none of how you conducted yourself illustrated that you were here to have a reasonable discussion. You're not contributing anything to the discussion that a sullen teenager couldn't.

3. There's also a possibility that I'm confusing two different anons as the same person.

So now that I've "admitted I'm wrong," commence gloating and contributing nothing and being an overall bucket of shit.

Sim dies and Cerebus falls under the public domain.
Comic book movies are still popular and Hollywood notices how big Cerebus was for its time.
What's the worst that can happen?

I'm not that guy, I'm not talking about myself. Just 'some people'.

"abridged" versions being released to tie-in with other media projects.

Hollywood would do what it always does with anything remotely challenging or thought provoking - Remove everything challenging and thought provoking and replace it with flashy action and a soundtrack.

As already mentioned, #5 is fucking stupid. There are just as many processes that require two or more people, or multiple sets of input, or in which a system of checks and balances (what a term!) mitigates the influence of individuals in favor of the group. There's no reason to use a car analogy, and he should have spent an extra hour to come up with a way to express "The buck can't stop at two different 'heres'. "

High Society is laugh out loud funny in some parts, it's like watching a Marx Brothers movie.

>Hollywood Producer walks in to the Studio Exec.

>Prod:"I got this great new thing, it's like "Shrek" meets "Game of Thrones".

>Exec:I'm interested.

>Prod:It's a cartoon Aardvark in a Medieval Fantasy world. There's a lot of parodies of Conan the Barbarian, Red Sonya and Canadian Politics. Also, some stuff later on about feminism is controversial

>Exec: Canadian politics is boring. Controversy sells tickets. Lose the Conan stuff though, people wouldn't get that.

>Prod:We need someone to voice Cerebus that is down to earth drunk guy funny, but also kind of Canadian sounding because he's talks in the third person like a forgiver like a dump barbarian.

>Exec:John C. Reilly?

>Prod:Bingo.

At a minimum, Jaka's Story is beautiful and needs to be read by almost anyone who cares about comics.

Jaka's Story is, imo, the best entry point to Cerebus. Even though it "spoils" some stuff, it's a great stand alone story, and is a much better introduction in to what Cerebus actually is than the first 20 issues.

I also think Melmoth is unfairly overlooked. If you've ever tended to a dying person...the rhythms of that story are pretty spot-on.

>"Shrek" meets "Game of Thrones".
sold

I had a debate about Cerebus in Hell with a fellow Cerebus fan friend of mine.

Is it funny?

...

I disagree. Jaka's Story is Cerebus at it's best. Though my personal favorite is Melmont, simply because it feels so dream-like and deals so heavily with grief. Even the Mother & Daughters sage, where Sim's bizarre ideas start to creep out (especially in Reads), has perhaps some of the best art and action scenes ever. It also gives Astoria and Cirin a near-perfect finish to their stories. With Astoria giving up the "gender war" while Cirin falls into madness.

...

as an amoc regular lurker that kind of hates the "gaggle of men with step-dad names" that orbit around Dave, this one IS funny.

Is Cerebus the Evangelion of comics?

it most certainly is

(serious spoiler warning. this is one of the last pages. even though it's not really a spoiler, it is.)

High Society through Church and State II are a good arc, mostly about really heady philosophical stuff about the flaws in the electoral system the nature of the Universe.

Jaka's Story and Melmoth are a good little arc showcasing the internal life of two characters where Cerebus is in the background.

The "Mothers and Daughters" arc Flight, Women, Reads, Minds, is interesting and all experiment with the form of comics in a way, Flight with the trippy panels and changing narrative serpectives, Reads with the two narratives: one is text only and the other visual only, and Minds being the best example of a fictional character meeting their author since Grant Morrison.

I was gonna give Cerebus a look soon but knowing that this is the """comic""" with about 50 issues left to go I'm not so sure.

Cerebus isn't popular enough
I'd say the closest would be Watchmen

>"Shrek" meets "Game of Thrones".
I'd unironically watch that if it had nothing to do with Cerebus

Probably not. Cerebus is not a universally known comic like Watchmen or any number of any other comic book charcter. They might do a movie, but I doubt it. I think anyone presenting Cerebus to a producer would know that it's better suited to TV.

You can stop at 200. The last hundred issues are literally "Dave is going to have Cerebus interact with whatever book he's reading at the time." The main narrative thrust wraps up with Minds anyway.

That's also not the comic proper, that's the back matter. There were twenty pages of comic before this, and the back matter is not included in the TPBs. This chart is pretty accurate. Church and State through Minds (50 - 200 pretty much) is arguably the peak of the series.

>a page and a half of publicized masturbation over unsubstantiated personal biases
>people have read 300+ issues written by this guy

I don't get it, he seems like any other fedora-tipping autist with a hard-on for floweriness.

Because it's almost universally acknowledged that the vast majority of those 300 issues are excellent, and reasonable people don't judge someone's entire work output based on seeing one thing they wrote during a difficult period in their life / possible mental breakdown?