Who is the better magician?

Attached: Neil-Gaiman.jpg (727x1092, 139K)

please keep the kids in the playground for their own sake

Is Gaiman sick or has he just aged like milk?

He ages like any other Englishman does.

Fair call, but Gaiman wasn't a bad looking guy in his youth, which puts him above the overwhelming majority of English men.

Attached: DlUEqYMU0AAVMNX.jpg (468x580, 50K)

Morrison is a hack

This is what Moore and Morrison think they have been doing with each other for the past couple decades

youtu.be/cnvNNpyXW2c
Forgot the damn link. Maybe their magic is real after all

It's very weird because both are failing and succeeding at what they're trying to do, very often at the same time, so it's very hard to decide if it's working or not.
At the same time, I think Morrison is somewhat less salty than Moore.

Frank Miller looking good

Morrison is less salty because he's not anautistic artist like Moore. Moore has this huge bug up his butt about art and integrity which, while I can understand it and even have it to a degree, doesn't allow one to live in harmony with reality.
Morrison is just more practical when it comes to making art.

Morrison, very much like Gaiman or I don't know, Peter Milligan, realized that being an artist is being a product. For all the rep Moore gets for bringing post-modernism to comics he's still very much a modernist, he thinks the strenght of his pen is all he needs to change the word but the sad truth is that we all know you also gotta know how to sell the strenght of your pen.
And he's not even bad at selling his own stuff and being pragmatic about shit, he just seems very naive about a lot of things (maybe because he got enough money and good will out of being fucked over by DC that it allowed him to remain naive, which is the hypothesis I work with these days).

I only partially agree with your hypothesis. I think the source of his idealism (not naivete) is a combination of unbridled success, fame, as well as that old-school 60s liberalism which focused on sentimental ideals rather than practical results. Thatcher didn't help him shed that either. While he lives in his small English working-man town, I get the feeling he is disconnected from the working man's life and all the sacrifices and compromises such a life entails. He can maybe write about it with accuracy on an intellectual level, but he'd view it as a Greek tragedy that such things must occur, and would never dare to apply those sacrifices and compromises to his own life. Why would he? He's an artist.

Milligan is the real enigma

If you read the intro to Twilight of the Superheroes, you can see that, at least in 1987, he was aware of the importance of marketing his ideas, and he even provides some thoughts on how to make money off his proposal. It was later, after they fucked him over Watchmen, that he became a cynical asshat.

He's just doing his best Moore impression

The other is Michael Moore

>vain attempt to save
It was saved. Not sure you know what the expression "in vain" means.

Wrong Moore.

Morrison has (sometimes) great ideas, but his writing lacks the complexity and 'nuanced-ness' Moore commands.