CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

This is considered to be the best Western comic-book series of the 1990s. Has anyone ever read it? If so, what did you think of it?

I have read a fair amount of it (though more of the individually published books than those in the numbered series). Overall, I was impressed by the general depth of story and occasionally characterization. If you're looking for action, this isn't the comic to look in, but if you want to think, this might be a good place. All in all, I've enjoyed what I read of it but never felt the need to pursue the rest of the series.

A word should be said about his theology: Gaiman is certainly not a Christian, and this shows in his pantheon that includes Yhwh. He seems to subscribe to the "dieties exist only when people believe in them" thought, or at least uses it in this series, but ultimately isn't attacking (as opposed to, say, His Dark Materials).

If you're looking for action, this isn't the comic to look in, but if you want to think, this might be a good place.

I don't care always for action. I prefer story and writing above action.

He seems to subscribe to the "dieties exist only when people believe in them" thought, or at least uses it in this series, but ultimately isn't attacking.

I wonder if anyone really do believe that?

I know though that Gaiman has nothing against Christianity and really loves CS Lewis and GK Chesterton, two explicitly Christian authors although paradoxically he has a dislike of the Narnian Chronicles having a hidden Christian allegory (source: here) despite citing them amongst his favourite and most influential books. I haven't read much (to be honest...NOTHING) by Gaiman so I'm thinking of trying this. I have seen some of the graphic volumes in the stores here (a rare find) so I'll try them and see if they appeal.

bigsleepj wrote:I don't care always for action. I prefer story and writing above action.

That will serve you well with this series. I will note there is some action, merely of a surreal sort.

bigsleepj wrote:I wonder if anyone really do believe that?

Considering that many of my friends do, yes.

bigsleepj wrote:I know though that Gaiman has nothing against Christianity and really loves CS Lewis and GK Chesterton, two explicitly Christian authors although paradoxically he has a dislike of the Narnian Chronicles having a hidden Christian allegory (source: here) despite citing them amongst his favourite and most influential books.

Thank you very much for that article]Still, the lessons of Narnia sank deep. Aslan telling the Tash worshippers that the prayers he had given to Tash were actually prayers to Him was something I believed then, and ultimately still believe.[/quote]

I doubt that he means what Lewis meant by that. More likely more of an all-accepting religious viewpoint. However, perhaps I am being too skeptical; it is possible that the author infused his work with philosophy different from his own.

Thanks Bigsleep, for posting that article; as a firmly rooted Gaiman fan I much appreciate it.

The theological/ mythological aspects of Sandman have already been touched here.
I like various mythologies such as Greek and Norse, and while Judeo-Christianity was added to the mix, I still very much enjoyed it--I took it merely as part of the story. There is so much going on in the story, and how Gaiman navigates through all these story threads is incredible. Also, great characters and character development.

The tone is dark yet quirky, another reason why I enjoy it so much. Some sex, violence, and cussing--if you can't tolerate that sort of thing, hate confusing dark fantasy, and are still rather iffy about the religious/mythology thing, you might want to skip it. All in all, however, I'd still consider it a great piece of literature.

*end review*

Hmm. I read his "Coralina" (quote in my sig), but that was a book, not a comic. I don't read many American comics; maybe I'll look into this.

uc pseudonym wrote:That will serve you well with this series. I will note there is some action, merely of a surreal sort.

I can handle that.

uc pseudonym wrote:Considering that many of my friends do, yes.

Oh. Really? Hmmm, just out of curiosity what exactly do you call such a religious philosophy (if that is even the correct term to apply)?

uc pseudonym wrote:However, perhaps I am being too skeptical]

It's hard to say. Not all authors who write about gods and God believe what they write and are able to seperate their view-points from their literature. Terry Pratchett's Discworld also holds that "If you believe in gods it will make them true" but never does he says that he actually believes it.

SirThink2Much wrote:The tone is dark yet quirky, another reason why I enjoy it so much. Some sex, violence, and cussing--if you can't tolerate that sort of thing, hate confusing dark fantasy, and are still rather iffy about the religious/mythology thing, you might want to skip it. All in all, however, I'd still consider it a great piece of literature.

Thanks for your review, SirThink. I can tolerate all that, especially the dark fantasy elements (I have read my Lovecraft and Stephen King). As I said I'll try it and see if it fits.

One of my friends is a big fan of the series, though i've never really had the interest to read it myself.

bigsleepj wrote:Oh. Really? Hmmm, just out of curiosity what exactly do you call such a religious philosophy (if that is even the correct term to apply)?

I am inclined to say that there is not any specific term for it]It's hard to say. Not all authors who write about gods and God believe what they write and are able to seperate their view-points from their literature. Terry Pratchett's Discworld also holds that "If you believe in gods it will make them true" but never does he says that he actually believes it.[/quote]

Right; I generally assume that an author uses some of his or her own beliefs, but a good author's characters will have beliefs of their own.

I've only skimmed through a few stories in there, but SirThinks2Much has summed it up for me. I like Death. She's funny and cute.

I'm reading the first Book (volumes 1-8) and the story is pretty good but the art is hideous! It's so badly drawn and most of the time really anatomically incorrect.
The writing is great though. Kudos to Gaiman, thumbs down to the artists.
The Sandman covers are great art though.

Warrior 4 Jesus, remember it's an 80s comic and be nice to the artists! By first book, you mean Preludes and Nocturnes, right? There are many artists who work on Sandman over the course of ten volumes. Be patient. (Kindly Ones happens to have my favorite art. Or The Wake, but that one's SO good it almost doesn't count.)

The art isn't good, even by 80s standards, but yes, the stories are excellent. But it should be pointed out that in Preludes and Nocturnes both Gaiman and the artists were still "finding their feet" with the material (Gaiman admits as much).

No, I find Gaiman's storytelling still very good in this, but the art is really bad!
Animus, it being an 80's comic has nothing to do with it (some of the finest art came from that period) and yes it is the Preludes and Nocturnes book.
I'm really enjoying the comic, it's very odd and dark at times but also quite funny at times. Unlike Frank Miller's The Watchmen, I don't feel like I'm reading trashy softcore porn comics. Gaiman is really trying to tell a good story and I appreciate that.

Wow, I just glanced back at one page and it mentions Adelaide, Australia! That is completely weird (I mean most have never even heard of us!)

...BLACK SHE-LAMB is more difficult, but one DANCES in the dreams of a child in ADELAIDE, Australia. I take it to the next scene... (bottom of page 71)

I always assumed the art was just heavily stylized. Fortunately with Gaiman's writing style it didn't matter too much.

Warrior 4 Jesus wrote:Unlike Frank Miller's The Watchmen, I don't feel like I'm reading trashy softcore porn comics.

You disliked Watchmen? I think it is excellent graphic literature, myself. Though the story takes a while, it has a surprising amount of depth and it ends up being complex in a very good way.

I just feel Frank Miller likes lots of sex and graphic violence in his novels for the heck of it, in the Sandman the sex and violence are definetly there but not focused on wholey and they are more central to the story I feel. Just my opinion.

First, let me clarify: I didn't mean 80s art was bad. Just that the common style of comics was different. And I think the last chapter of Preludes and Nocturnes, "The Sound of Her Wings," is very much typical of the era.

And again, the art style of Sandman changes dramatically depending on what Gaiman wants. Just compare these images from Kindly Ones and The Wake (technically spoilers, but I don't think you can tell what's going on unless you've already read these anyways)

More from The Wake (Spoilers)

Warrior 4 Jesus wrote:I just feel Frank Miller likes lots of sex and graphic violence in his novels for the heck of it, in the Sandman the sex and violence are definetly there but not focused on wholey and they are more central to the story I feel. Just my opinion.

Uh, Alan Moore did Watchmen.

*ducks behind his chair*

Uh, sorry. I meant Alan Moore.

Animus, that art is infinetly better than the drivel in most of book one!

Sandman is my absolute favourite comic book. I got the first volume as a birthday gift a long time ago, and by now I've read most of them.

True, the first arc, drawn by Sam Keith, has some very bad art, but the last few issues collected in the volume have a different, much more talented artist. Each arc itself, and the one-shots, are all drawn by separate artists with separate styles. Marc Hempel's Kindly Ones is an absolute contrast to Jill Thompson's Brief Lives.

Now, the early stories are much, much more horror-themed, as the series will eventually evolve into a very elaborate fantasy. Personally, after the first volume, I'd recommend picking up volume 4, Seasons of Mists, and then volume 7, Brief Lives. You can fill in the others after that.

As far as the religious content, honestly, just don't take it too seriously. Sandman is a fantasy story, and it's obvious that Neil Gaiman doesn't actually believe in all of that. The point is, Sandman is technically in the DC universe, and in the DC universe, all of the pantheons exist. Sandman's about dreams and stories, and mythologies, so it only makes sense that Gaiman incorporates all of these things into the story. Just take it like you would Greek mythology.

As far as Gaiman's own religious background goes, he is not a Christian. However, he does seem to believe in some sort of concept of God, as I've read him say he's not an Atheist. Also, GK Chesterton has said that he believes Neil definitely believes in God, even though he's not a Christian.

When once asked if Neil had any personal religious beliefs, his entire response was: "Yes."

Oh, if I took all the occult stuff seriously, I would have put it down a long time ago.
It seemed quite Lovecraftian in parts.
Joshua, are you suggesting I skip volumes 2, 3 and 5, 6 entirely?

Thanks for that bit of info. It's very interesting.

I began reading at volume 2 which some believe is a good place to start with the series. Since then I've read Volume 1, Volume 3 and Volume 7. When I have a little more money I'l move over to volume 4, 5 and the rest.

Warrior 4 Jesus wrote:Joshua, are you suggesting I skip volumes 2, 3 and 5, 6 entirely?

No, not at all. I was simply suggesting that, after reading volume 1, reading 4, and then 7. You can read the others after that, I just--personally--think those two work the best in fleshing out everything.

Volume 1 sets up all of the background information
Volume 4 sets up all of the Endless, and is a pretty good read since by now we've shifted away from the horror
Volume 7 is the best arc of the series, in my opinion

The others are great, too, I just feel like those two, four and seven, are the best for starting out.

So it's not vital to read them in order? Interesting...

Well, I think the last two volumes should be kept at arms length, though that's just a guess from my part since I haven't read 'em.

I read Sandman very much out of order. Ultimately I think I would have enjoyed them more if I had read them in some semblence of chronological order but that this isn't terribly necessary. It isn't essential to read the last two in order but that might be better.

Warrior 4 Jesus wrote:Uh, sorry. I meant Alan Moore.

So you are still referring to Watchmen? It's a shame we feel differently, then. I often mention it in the same breath as Sandman when speaking of serious graphic literature.

I made a big mistake. I was talking about 'The League of Extraordinary Men and other such comics (while great ideas, he infused to many taboo items for the heck of it).
Watchmen was alright. Artistically it was better drawn than the first volume of The Sandman but I've never been a fan of the Marvel/DC Style of art. The story premise was very interesting but I felt the pseudo science and metaphysical elements were more confusing than enlightening, or even interesting.

I'm not discounting the impact Watchmen had on comics (flawed superheros/etc) but I just found it confusing. My apologies for confusing Frank Miller with Alan Moore.
Watchmen was good but not great, I much prefer The Sandman so far. But that's probably just me.

That's alright. I was wondering if that hadn't happend, and I don't blame you. I didn't even notice when you attached the wrong author to Watchmen. Now that we're clear the earth can return to its normal orbit.

Not to go too off topic...

Warrior 4 Jesus wrote:Watchmen was good but not great, I much prefer The Sandman so far. But that's probably just me.

I think it has significant literary merit. The storyline is about as dense/complex as I feel one can be without being poorly written. Also, the level of sophistication with which it takes its subjects generally impressed me. What makes me call it great instead of merely competant is the ending. Going beyond traditional story archetypes in that way is something I always appreciate, and this is also part of why I enjoyed Sandman.

I actually enjoyed the ending very much, it's just other sections didn't impress me much. Thanks for being so understanding.