Is Frank Miller as Great a Writer as He is An Artist?

[QUOTE=BeastieRunner;5090338]Moore and Miller tend to write women rather poorly.

Is there a story where Frank didn't make the lead female a sex worker sans Elektra? And wrote them strong? I can think of 2, maybe 3 for Moore ...

That being said, his artwork is hit and miss for me. Same with his writing. They usually save one another when one is poor.



I would say his writing is his best creative facility, second to his ability to generate new ideas. His art is a bit of an acquired taste I think, a bit like Corben (whom I love and l have met a lot that don't).

But when he is on fire with both, he is one of the greats.[/QUOTE]

I don't know about Moore writing women poorly. No one had any issues until Morrison made a snarky remark about him being obsessed with rape. But no one had a problem with his Halo Jones or Promethea...

[QUOTE=Joker;5090938]Exclude Sin City, and let’s get into all the whores.

You can also just call them prostitutes, or sex workers. Whores is super derogatory.

And did he retcon prostitution into Catwoman? Was it ever stated she was an actual prostitute? It’s been a while...[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ed2962;5091839]I think it's pretty fair to say that the implication in Batman: Year One was that Kyle and Holly were hookers. They couldn't state it out right because I'm pretty sure it was still a code approved comic.[/QUOTE]

All the relevant details on the Miller retcon, and the later fallout where writers would emphasize or de-emphasize it, covered by CBR's own super-mod, Brian Cronin:

[url]https://www.cbr.com/the-abandoned-an-forsaked-catwoman-was-a-prostitute/[/url]

[QUOTE=ed2962;5091839]Plus, I agree with with your other point...people who go on about Frank and his whores conveniently leave out Electra, Martha Washington and Casey from Ronin.[/QUOTE]

You forgot his greatest creation - a new Robin, Carrie Kelley.

Gonna go with writing, because his takes on characters tend to be so memorable. His art has been all over the place - my favorite stuff was in Daredevil.

Ed was agreeing with me, and I mentioned Carrie.

One thing to remember is Miller was never really writing about the savory parts of society. He was also living in NY in the '70s and '80s. He was drawing what he saw outside his window. Prostitution is a part of that.

And again, he never treated the prostitutes with the same disrespect his critics do. For whatever reason, Miller was actually pretty progressive about sex work.

But people like to shit on Miller for various reasons (some of them fair) and yell about the "whores."

[QUOTE=Joker;5090359]Martha Washington would be the main one. Wonder Woman. WW and Supes daughter. Lara? Carrie Kelly. Of course Elektra.

Catwoman is the only superhero character he did that to.

I’m reticent to even include Sin City. No one in those books is exactly on the right side of the law. It’s right there in the title.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the info, my question was largely informational.

I'm not very familiar with his mainstream superhero work. I tend to avoid those by most authors. I really only know his Daredevil and Year One. I read Dark Knight and some other super stuff but didn't like them. I wouldn't call his female Robin a particularly strong character or the lead female, though. Notable perhaps.

That's why I asked.

Familiar with Sin City, 300, and lots of his other work, which is why I asked. It is his trope to make females "whores," which is why he gets the jokes. Didn't he joke about it before, too?
[QUOTE=ed2962;5091843]I don't know about Moore writing women poorly. No one had any issues until Morrison made a snarky remark about him being obsessed with rape. But no one had a problem with his Halo Jones or Promethea...[/QUOTE]

Both Miller and Alan Moore came to prominence in the 70s and 80s, when what they did was edgy and progressive. Using the modern lens, which I am doing, most of their women leave a lot to be desired. And sex and sex working was often employed by both. When you have contemporaries like Gaiman, Wolfman, Eastman/Laird and several others churning out strong females with little to no sex or sex work involved (not saying those authors never did that), Moore and Miller could definitely do better.

Moore's better women didn't really start appearing till the 90s and 2000s, but still often employed sex and/or sex work. Evey wasn't very stong, most of his Watchmen women were but he still used sex. Same with LoEG women up until Nemo's daughter and Mina's 1st and 3rd romps. They're not characters lots of women find strong or admirable ...

I think it is a product of the times they were working in, which was avant garde and revolutionary.

But this could be a whole new debate, which was not my intention as this is a Frank Miller thread. I did not intend to derail it. But it is a valid critique of Miller's work.

Does not make it bad, per se ...

I think [I]when[/I] they were doing the work is definitely important. It's pretty unfortunate that rape was ever considered "edgy."

[QUOTE=Joker;5094772]I think [I]when[/I] they were doing the work is definitely important. It's pretty unfortunate that rape was ever considered "edgy."[/QUOTE]

Indeed to both statements.

I may not be the biggest Miller fan but his impact on creators and the industry is undeniable.

[QUOTE=Joker;5093095]Ed was agreeing with me, and I mentioned Carrie.

One thing to remember is Miller was never really writing about the savory parts of society. He was also living in NY in the '70s and '80s. He was drawing what he saw outside his window. Prostitution is a part of that.

And again, he never treated the prostitutes with the same disrespect his critics do. For whatever reason, Miller was actually pretty progressive about sex work. [/QUOTE]

Except when the sex work involved Karen Page becoming a heroin addict doing porn who sold out Matt Murdock.

Suffice to say, I think his legacy of writing women is at times, admirable (Gail, Martha Washington, Carrie Kelly), and at other moments, well... less so.

Look, I'm not defending Karen Page here, but I think it was more the drugs that were the issue there. Drug addicts turning tricks, or turning to porn isn't a brave, controversial concept. It's an all around awful thing to do to Karen, but I still don't think it was looking down on the sex work, so much as the drugs.

Splittin hairs, maybe...

[QUOTE=Joker;5095031]Look, I'm not defending Karen Page here, but I think it was more the drugs that were the issue there. Drug addicts turning tricks, or turning to porn isn't a brave, controversial concept. It's an all around awful thing to do to Karen, but I still don't think it was looking down on the sex work, so much as the drugs.

Splittin hairs, maybe...[/QUOTE]

Maybe. I mean, that Daredevil arc is still one of the best. But that's mostly for the tone shift to make it seem more modern noir than kitsch.

That's just how I take Miller's work. Take the good with the bad, but acknowledge that he's got some tropes he goes to pretty heavily.

Oh absolutely. I think Miller is great at what he does, but nuance isn't what he does.

[QUOTE=worstblogever;5094962]Except when the sex work involved Karen Page becoming a heroin addict doing porn who sold out Matt Murdock.

Suffice to say, I think his legacy of writing women is at times, admirable (Gail, Martha Washington, Carrie Kelly), and at other moments, well... less so.[/QUOTE]

Oddly enough, his Karen Page is one to which I did not object. First, as others have mentioned, context of the time matters. Second, her descent was not about her weakness or objectifying women, it was about what a cruel and crushing world can do to good people as a vehicle to posing the question of "how might an archvillian penetrate a superhero's secret identity?" Third, the entire Born Again arc was about recovering from catastrophe, dents, dings and all, and Karen recovered too. In fact, in some ways her arc was Daredevil's, just running a bit earlier than his.

I can't call myself a Miller Fan, but Born Again - including Karens story - is my favorite Miller work.

Going back to the OP, people tend to forget Miller had a pretty large impact on Wolverine. Logan was already a rising fan-fav, but Miller's 4-issue mini-series sold him far and wide. Even outside the X-Fan Club.

Miller's newer stuff (i.e since 2001) has been absolute garbage.

Bigoted nonsense that's born out of a mind that's out of its time.

[B]Narration:[/B] I stand in the corner of this thread. A corner as dark and desolate as an old midwife’s snatch. The coffee-swilling college brats above gab away about Frank Miller and his legacy. I chuckle and think to myself sometimes that the only reason cancer hasn’t ended that man’s life yet is that the malformed cells in his body found the acidic bitterness running through his veins too damned corrosive to leech off of. Heh. Stubborn bastard. Holding onto the ghost tighter than a homeless person’s lips when giving a yuppie some business in an alleyway - all for the sake of a goddamned 2-day old sandwich. I thumb my cell phone with all the delicacy and precision of a dog’s nose awkwardly trying to pinpoint his own balls so he can clean them. God, when did hell on earth go digital? <swigs bourbon; coughs> Ol’ Frankie’s artwork I can only describe as the kind of shitfaced wonderland this bottle nuzzled up to me is about to send me to. Scribbled lines; human faces that look like pockmarked concrete trying to look presentable for a potluck dinner; the most cynical “modern art” you’ve seen since Warhol got big enough to where he could smear his grandma’s ashes and cigarette butts on canvas and be called brilliant for it. An acquired taste, I suppose. An acquired habit like alcohol. Like alcohol you swiped from a church pantry during a funeral.


That’s kind of what I get from Miller’s writing. Depressing or Freudian metaphors, an element of sneering dry humor throughout, and an alienated attitude towards more modern trends and attitudes. He’s kind of like an 80s Robert E. Howard if he had veered away from fantasy and dedicated himself full time to pulp noir.

[QUOTE=Ragged Maw;5102020][B]Narration:[/B] I stand in the corner of this thread. A corner as dark and desolate as an old midwife’s snatch. The coffee-swilling college brats above gab away about Frank Miller and his legacy. I chuckle and think to myself sometimes that the only reason cancer hasn’t ended that man’s life yet is that the malformed cells in his body found the acidic bitterness running through his veins too damned corrosive to leech off of. Heh. Stubborn bastard. Holding onto the ghost tighter than a homeless person’s lips when giving a yuppie some business in an alleyway - all for the sake of a goddamned 2-day old sandwich. I thumb my cell phone with all the delicacy and precision of a dog’s nose awkwardly trying to pinpoint his own balls so he can clean them. God, when did hell on earth go digital? <swigs bourbon; coughs> Ol’ Frankie’s artwork I can only describe as the kind of shitfaced wonderland this bottle nuzzled up to me is about to send me to. Scribbled lines; human faces that look like pockmarked concrete trying to look presentable for a potluck dinner; the most cynical “modern art” you’ve seen since Warhol got big enough to where he could smear his grandma’s ashes and cigarette butts on canvas and be called brilliant for it. An acquired taste, I suppose. An acquired habit like alcohol. Like alcohol you swiped from a church pantry during a funeral.


That’s kind of what I get from Miller’s writing. Depressing or Freudian metaphors, an element of sneering dry humor throughout, and an alienated attitude towards more modern trends and attitudes. He’s kind of like an 80s Robert E. Howard if he had veered away from fantasy and dedicated himself full time to pulp noir.[/QUOTE]

[IMG]https://i.gifer.com/origin/8f/8f36ea03e6b3d8a62d5a372d149664f6_w200.gif[/IMG]