He’s in a team-up with Captain Hall, clearly.
Anyone here going to the Portsmouth Comic Con this weekend?
Well, this bit from the article is encouraging:
It’s worth noting that whatever his detractors may think of his politics, Miller still happily inveighs against “white, heterosexual family values” and has no interest in defending his views on Occupy Wall Street. “I wasn’t thinking clearly,” he confesses.
I don’t expect his more general views to change - they have been very present in his work for decades now, with the Ayn-Rand-ian “Martha Washington Goes to War” and 300’s erotic admiration of military fascism being the most obvious examples - but if he comes back from radicalisation and works with a clearer mind again, I would love to see a few more DC universe stories from him again, or maybe even another Sin City.
I think he always was a bit radical. Not sure if he falls under right wing or left. In the 80s,he clearly was anti-Regan. Still, surprises me this statement…
…which is another minus I give to him.
Thanks for the link. A couple of bits jumped out at me:
And his latest graphic novel is already underway: Xerxes, a prequel to 300, his tale of the ancient battle of Thermopylae, adapted for film by Zack Snyder in 2006. The new series is set to span the rise and fall of the Persian empire: from before the birth of the ambitious and bloodthirsty titular king, to the life of his son and the rise of Alexander. Miller is fascinated by the period. “The Spartans were strange catalysts of democracy,” he says. “They were utter fascists. They had the best land in Greece, and it was tilled by slaves and the citizens were all soldiers to defend the territory. The Athenians were the ones who gave birth to democracy, but the Spartans made it all possible.”
It’s a more nuanced take than might be expected from him.
“My stuff always represents what I’m going through,” Miller says today. “Whenever I look at any of my work I can feel what my mindset was and I remember who I was with at the time. When I look at Holy Terror, which I really don’t do all that often, I can really feel the anger ripple out of the pages. There are places where it is bloodthirsty beyond belief.”
Does he have any regrets? “I don’t want to go back and start erasing books I did,” he replies. “I don’t want to wipe out chapters of my own biography. But I’m not capable of that book again.”
This is an interesting take on it all.
Whereas for me it’s a big plus. That’s probably where in the interview/article he won me back.
I was still buying his work, even Holy Terror, but I felt a bit icky about some of it.
I think that was the way Moore described him somewhere in the early nineties, as someone who falls outside of that conventional left-right-spectrum. Although I suspect that these days, he’d be seen pretty much as a libertarian - not in the Tea Party sense necessarily, since they’re part of the Republican machine, but in a more pure way. He’s definitely Randian in his view of the world, I would say. (Martha Washington GtW is a very direct Atlas Shrugged reference, and the role of the crippled Spartan in 300 also suggests little empathy for the “weak”. As does most of his work really.) There have always been interpretations of libertarianism that run more to the left of the spectrum, the kind that Hagbard Celine and his Discordian Anarchists represent in the Illuminatus! novels.
Saying he is against white, heterosexual values, where he is white heterosexual is quite phony and prickish to me.
@Christian - if anything, I don’t think he is religious type. His DD Born Again is rife with Christian references, but still… I don’t think his source of hatred toward the muslims are because they are devoted to islam, but more as a group of people.
It’s interesting you mention Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand if I may, I’d call that work and work of Rand in general as a conservative pamphlet.
It depends on what you see as conservative. Libertarianism in the Ayn-Rand kind of way is a radical capitalist approach to life that believes that if the stupid and weak didn’t hold back the brilliant and strong (so, without a cooperative society, basically), we’d be living in a utopia (based on the invisible hand of capitalism working out for everyone). That is pretty close to some brands of American Republicanism, but on the other hand Libertarianism is very focused on personal liberty, so it doesn’t care about what you do in your private life, your sexuality, your faith, your moral values or your stance on family. This is where it goes against most forms of conservatism. The same goes for the anarchist streak in Libertarianism - Libertarians tend to reject any kind of authority, and in spite of the anti-federal-government stance of American Republicans, in the end most conservative political groups tend to adhere to hierarchies.
You can see how these aspects can be applied to Miller’s world-view. I think he is a classic Libertarian in many ways, but that is something that can range from the far left to the far right, depending on issues, so it’s quite logical that Miller was critical of Reagan but at the same time comes off as a right-wing hardliner.
I interpreted it to mean that he is against those values when they operate to the exclusion of all others.
That might not have been the intended meaning admittedly, but it’s the one that made most sense to me.
Well, I read Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead a quite some time ago. I’d reread soon if I find time. Those books got me near Objectivism, actually it wasn’t those, but Mr. A and Steve Ditko. Who was influenced by Ayn Rand and her works. I know I read somewhere those books are favorite conservative read, how much conservative, isn’t said. It’s peculiar how much of Rand’s personal views is projected onto those, as she, for instance, was openly anti-homosexual and anti-feminist. And I think that part of her was authoritarian. But, we are off-topic now.
Now, I am pretty sure Miller doesn’t fall under conservatist territory (though his Occupy Wall Street comment is very much right wing), like Chuck Dixon or Orson Scott Card. Instead, he is defined by his views, not influenced by anyone in particular, so I agree with you.
I didn’t know about these early British translations of Astérix.
Some interesting details about Goscinny’s attempts to find success in the US, too.
Some may heard of it, or already share it here (in the latter case, tell me)…
If you feel generous…
(Btw, Chuch Dixon gave his support to Jawbreakers yesterday on his fb page)
We’ve been talking about it over in the Comics Everyone Else thread.
Thanks. Sometimes is hard to handle myself here:grin: