Talk:Cerebus the Aardvark

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cerebus #1[edit]

Wow, I owned #1, but I had to sell it several years back when I grew desparate for money. Never got what I thought it was worth. RickK 00:36, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Keep Plot Summary brief and factual[edit]

I pulled some misogyny comments out of the plot summaries since they're commentary, not summaries of the plots. I tried to move the commentary (since it's widely believed) to other appropriate places.

I'd like to keep the summaries are brief and to the point as possible. Commentary (or more accurately, reporting on commentary) belong elsewhere, either in other sections on the page, or in sub-pages (probably on a per-book basis).

Similarlly, I'm not happy with the comments "Enjoyed by a number of fans as a return to the "earlier, funnier" Cerebus." in the summary of Guys. However, it might be a valid statement and might belong somewhere, just not in the summary.

Another option would be to massively expand the Plot Summaries section and have both a "Summary" entry for each book and a "Critical Reception". Or something. If we did that, we could integrate the ISBNs and issue numbers from the "Cerebus Collection" section. I'm not real fond of this, I like the terseness of the summaries, nice and to the point for people who need it, and easy to skip for people who already know.

Alan De Smet 19:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I expanded the summaries of the first four book summaries somewhat ... I hope this doesn't violate the guideline on keeping the plot summary short, but I thought these sections are key to everything else so it was necessary to set up an understanding of all of what follows for readers who are looking to this section to understand the whole plotline. I have also cleaned them up a bit for clarity and if anyone else feels the need to cut them down for brevity I hope the key content elements can be kept.

Schnell (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebus didn't rape Astoria--she removed her panties and pulled up her skirt and OFFERED herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.241.136 (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flight summary added[edit]

Added a summary of Flight while flipping through my own copy to refresh my memory. I now understand why no one else had summarized. By all that is good, it's a boring freaking book... *sigh* Anyway, Women is next. Alan De Smet 02:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deleted something ...[edit]

I took out "and perhaps the longest published work of fiction in the English language." I'm sorry, but the only person who's made that claim is Sim himself, and it's just obviously false. (Sim actually calls it the longest in human history, which is even more obviously false.) Just off the top of my head, Anthony Powell's "A Dance to the Music of Time" is more than 8,000 pages long. Of course, comparing page counts for prose and comics is kind of absurd, but without making that kind of comparison the 'longest ever' claim is meaningless.

Cerebus is a remarkable work in many ways, but that doesn't justify taking the author's braggadoccio at face value. 64.121.199.5

It's not even the longest work in comics. I think Lone Wolf and Cub runs over 9,000 pages---though less happens on each, since the format is much smaller. Other long prose works could include the Aubrey-Maturin series, which, if each book is 400 pages (an estimate based on a single sample point), makes 8,000 pages of prose. The mentally ill have written longer works; Henry Darger wrote an epic of 15,000 pages; Adolf Wölfli, 25,000. Still, Sim has, I think, created the longest single, cohesive work of comics in the English language written and illustrated by the same team, and certainly one of the most literate works in comics. Nothing to be sneezed at. (Oh, and you can sign your comments with ~~~~; I did it for you above.) grendel|khan 14:46, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

I deleted the recently added "with the intention of an epic tale ending with the death of the title character" from the opening paragraph. Sim did NOT begin with the intention of doing 300 issues. He didn't really have a long-term plan, although he has said that the possibility of doing something long-term was in the back of his mind. He has said that he didn't expect to be successful, but he knew he could do three issues and that would make a good "resume." His original announcement that he would do Cerebus for 26 years was made in 1979 after almost 2 full years of doing the comic bi-monthly, and even then he spoke of 152 issues. It wasn't until he went monthly in 1980 he settled on the 300 number. Steve Bolhafner 21:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schizophrenia[edit]

I removed this verging-on-libelous sentence:

(He was also, around this time, reportedly diagnosed with borderline schizophrenia.)

I've never heard or read that anywhere. It wasn't added by a registered user. Please do not put back unless you can provide a source (even then, it should probably go under Dave Sim instead). —Chowbok 02:33, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I did not add the sentence you quote above, but Dave was indeed diagnosed with borderline schizophrenia, he said so himself in his "Getting Riel" discussion with Chester Brown.:

"When I had my breakdown in ’79—when I was diagnosed as a borderline schizophrenic..."

As you state above, it should go under Dave Sim and not the Cerebus entry. —Meowwcat 18:55, September 3, 2005

Why was this removed?[edit]

"*The titles of books 8 through 11 could be read as a sentence (i.e., "women read minds, guys" - the concept of women reading minds is a key plot point)." Is this an inaccurate summary of Sim's intentions with his titles? Proteus71 15:24, November 1, 2005

Without a factual reference that says it was Sim's intention, it's just speculation. Wikipedia isn't a place for people to present their clever insights. Tverbeek 18:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to just do it, but I think we should consider putting this back in -- Sim's intention is really beside the point. Both of the facts in the removed sentence are absolutely true: books 8 through 11 are titled "Women Reads Minds Guys" and the concept of women reading minds *is* a key plot point, particularly in those books (the "real" Cirin, whose identity we don't yet know, reveals this to Cerebus in "Women" and the Norman Mailer character brings it up again in "Guys"). Whether Sim did it by a process of conscious deliberation or unconscious artistic choice or (if you must) it's a bizarre coincidence, it really is still relevant to a discussion of the work. Steve Bolhafner 22:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it was intentional, it's relevant. If it was subconscious, that may be relevant but it's unverifiable. If it's just a coincidence (and no, I don't find it all that "bizarre"), it's no more relevant than any other random happenstance that someone tries to staple some kind of meaning to. Include it if it's relevant and verifiable. Tverbeek 03:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In Feature magazine winter 1997 interview with Dave Sim, Dave is quoted "Okay, it's now a day later and I'm compelled to confess an even larger example of adopting unbecoming tactics: to wit, The Flat Assertion Pregnant With Poisonous Implication. . .My reply was "Women Read Minds" which I choose to make a centerpiece of Mothers & Daughters..." (p. 19) Margaret 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which confirms that "women read minds" was a key plot point, but doesn't establish that this is why he titled those three or four books the way he did. Tverbeek 11:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're reaching. "I choose to make a centerpiece" -- I again assert that this makes the titles relevant even if they were UNCONSCIOUS on Sim's part. Surely you're not still maintaining that this might be a "coincidence." Three of the four titles that make up "Mothers and Daughters" comprise a phrase that Sim "chose to make a centerpiece" of that very novel (it's four books, but it's one novel). That is not a coincidence. Even unconscious and "accidental" moves by an artist that fit so perfectly with his expressed conscious intention must be considered relevant. Personally, I think it's absurd to continue to maintain that the absence of Dave Sim actually stating "Yes, I meant for the reader to look on his bookshelf and see that phrase" means that the above quote doesn't mean that that's exactly what he did. It certainly sounds to me like that's what he's talking about. But you have staked out a position, and refuse to budge. I actually believe he has said it that baldly somewhere, but I haven't found it yet.Steve Bolhafner 00:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I assert"? "It sounds to me"? Well there's your problem right there. Wikipedia is not a place for you to assert your opinions or impressions. The only "position" I've taken here is that Wikipedia content must be verifiable and factual. Which happens to be an official policy. If there's a source out there which states that Sim did this intentionally, or an independent analysis that argues that it's a meaningful, then put that fact in, with the appropriate reference (e.g. "Sim says..." or "noted Cerebus scholar So-And-So argues that...") But if the sole argument for including this clever bit of fan insight is the self-evident obviousness of it... then it doesn't need to be stated, does it? Tverbeek 02:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why discuss it ourselves when we can ask the man that knows? When I sent the Cerebus notebooks back to Dave, I asked him in a letter: "The titles to phonebooks 8 to 11 can be read together “Women Reads Minds Guys”. Was this done on purpose to emphasize your “The Flat Assertion Pregnant With Poisonous Implication” that was one of the center pieces of Mothers & Daughters or a “happy accident” (for lack of a better term)." His response: " "Women Reads Minds, Guys" was indeed the Flat Assertion Pregnant With Poisonous Implication that you suspected. A kind of billboard in the middle of the mammoth project hiding in plain sight. I'm surprised more people haven't caught that one." Margaret 23:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Sim/Cerebus[edit]

I think that this article contains too much gossipy talk about Sim. There is an entry for Sim and pertinent information can go there. I think that the 'Cerebus' article should be more about the comics rather than the author. There may be a place for some mentions of Sim here, but I don't think it ought to be as much about Sim as it currently is. Gregory Shantz 01:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree and disagree. The information that's here is pertinent since so much of Sim's personal beliefs and views are integral to the content of Cerebus, but it needs to be re-written in a way that focuses on the comic rather than Sim himself. If I get time, I may take a stab at a major revision, but if someone beats me to it that's fine. Willbyr 12:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to how Robert A. Heinlein's Lazarus Long and related works were more tied in to his personal life and philosophy than, say, The Star Beast or Starman Jones. Understanding the author is, in the case of Sim and Cerebus, more important than in some less personal work. This is considered true of many other artists and their more famous works, such as Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged, Andy Warhol and his Campbell's Soup Can, or Frank Lloyd Wright and his buildings. Interestingly, this is also true of the real-life artists with cameos in Cerebus.
...and to a degree, The Marx Brothers, Keith Richards, and Mick Jagger. --BlueNight 07:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beanhead[edit]

There was a note to the effect that Beanhead was borrowed by Bob Burden from Cerebus. Beanhead originates with Burden, although "Limbo" did appear in Cerebus magazines as a back-up feature. Added a note about the appearance of the Carrot in #108. 24.33.28.52 12:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longest running series by single creative team?[edit]

While Cerebus is the longest running series by a single creative team, Larson's Savage Dragon is not #2. Stan Sakai's Usagi Yojimbo has been running non-stop since 1987. Though it's switched publishers (and therefore reset numbering) twice, there were no substantial gaps in publication and distribution. By the end of 2007 there have been 166 issues published to date (38 by Fantagraphics, 16 by Mirage and 108 by Dark Horse - along with four separate issue colour specials), and the comic continues to be published 10 times per year.

There are several Japanese comics from one author that are longer: Mitsuteru Yokoyama's "Three Kingdoms" which is 47 volumes long. Takao Saito's "Golgo-13" which is around 140 volumes long, also "This Is the Police Station in Front of Kameari Park in Katsushika Ward" is 130 volumes long. Let's just say the longest running English comic and leave it at that. - Cooper Holmes
Lone Wolf & Cub is over 8700 pages long and by a single team. And it is available in English. --Lalli 14:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think manga usually is done with several (more or less) anonymous assistans, though... 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 22:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Aardvark Who Could...[edit]

I added a link to this massive online essay about Cerebus to the reviews section. I'm not sure what criteria is being used for adding links here, but I happen to know this work took about 18 months for the writer to put together (no it wasn't me) and it is equivalent of about 200 printed pages, covering every one of the major storylines with some interesting points of view. 23skidoo 13:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The magnifier[edit]

I've added in a bit about Cerebus's magnifier quality, but it's been too long since I've read the books to say exactly what it does aside from the info I've given. Please correct and expand as necessary. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather (original research!) as a reader and fan, Cerebus seems to act as a luck charm, affecting others' probability toward an extreme rather than an average. Victories are more tremendous, and defeats are more total. Cerebus himself is the plot device, the McGuffin.
After working with Weisshaupt, the Feldwar States are a potent political entity -- until Cerebus, as pope, turns against him for power and gold. He is a major threat to Cirin -- until his absence allows her to take over lower Estarcion. He amplifies the chauvinism (a word lacking in the article) of the men he gathers to take it back from the Cirinists -- until New Joanne finds her way into his bed, and his palace becomes an isolated fortress of impotent manhood. (Excuse the purple prose, talking about Sim does that to me.)
This effect also impacts the lives and careers of most people he comes into contact with. Astoria's political machinations are first enhanced, then crushed, then enhanced, then crushed. Rick Nash's schizoid break results in a Cerebus fixation that makes him first a prophet of Cerebus, and then a prophet of the heretofore-unmentioned God. His Jaka look-a-like lover, later known as New Joanne, and their son, Sheshep, build an empire, which is probably fated to rise to great prominence, and fall just as hard and fast.
Only Lord Julius seems unaffected by this. This is possibly a metaphor for money and bureaucracy winning out over might and magic, a variation on the tragedy of "the mundane over the sublime" symbology Sim claims (through Weisshaupt) is the overarching theme of the entire run. However, this could be the ultimate magnification, amplifying the tragedy of the mundane over the sublime to a national scale.
Overall, the magnification seems to be both a plot device to make interesting situations move much faster than they historically do, and a reflection on Sim's personal worldview on fate vs choice. --BlueNight 07:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading my earlier essay on the subject, I have only one point to add: the magnifier quality seems to be a reflection on Sim's personal worldview on fate, choice, and the will of God. --BlueNight (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Larsen's "The Savage Dragon"[edit]

The article says that, as of 2005, Cerebus leads Erik Larsen's "The Savage Dragon" by 170 issues. Well, it's 2007--anybody know what the deal with Savage Dragon is? If it's still running, somebody ought to update the claim. Buck Mulligan 16:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy up[edit]

After a request, I have decided to say why I put that tag up. Mainly it's because I think that the format of the article could do with vast improvement, particularly after the introductory sections. --MacRusgail 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What changes do you have in mind? Right now, the biggest change I see that needs to be made is that a lot of the material in the History section that pertains specifically to Sim should be stricken in favor of the material in Cerebus that reflects his beliefs and politics. Other than that, I'm not sure what else could be done. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

misplaced and uncited[edit]

The ¶ about Sim's preference for limo rides and his marketing strategy is more apropos of an article about Sim, and needs to be cited. I'm not going to delete it, 'cause I aint bold enough and I don't know how to edit yet. Djcbuffum 23:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I slapped some {{fact}}-check requests on the "spending money" sentence in question. It can be deleted at any time, but I think it's only polite to give people some time to look for a cite. If it can be cited, I think it's relevant; it illustrates that Sim came into a great deal of money as a result of Cerebus's success. As for the "marketing strategy", I assume you're talking about the decision to self publish Cerebus. How Cerebus is published and sold seems very relevant to this article. It's a well known fact that he self publishes, and doesn't need a citation. (That said, it's so well known, that tracking down a citation should be easy and probably a good idea.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was unclear -- by "marketing strategy" I meant his decision to sell TPBs by direct mail, the financial windfall, and his relations with local retailers (all in the same ¶ as the limo rides). I looked at how you added the "cite needed" links and added a few of my own. If I'm wrong, don't hesitate to remove them, but please explain why I'm wrong.
Though I know you're right that it's a "well known fact that he self publishes" why does that mean that no citation is necessary? Nobody in the know will dispute it, but someone who knows nothing might doubt the unsupported statement.
I still think it's more appropriate in an article about Sim than about Cerebus. Perhaps the success of the book is relevant, and the marketing strategies, but Sim's spending habits are not. Moreover, the tone of the "illustration" seems more to the point of "Dave Sim became an ostentatious braggart," than "Cerebus was a very successful book."
In fact, a whole lot of this article is about Sim (an admittedly colorful character) and not about Cerebus: for example, the ¶ about Sim's support for independent comics, the ¶ about his fallings out with Terry Moore and others, the ¶ about his religious beliefs, and others as well. While some of these topics are relevant to Cerebus (in particular the religion), the text never explains how. What is it about Sim's religiosity that is manifest in Cerebus? Or, put another way, what is it in Cerebus that is informed by Sim's religiosity. I don't dispute that it's there (seen it myself), but this article tells me about SIm and not about the religious content of Cerebus.
Djcbuffum 23:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are only needed for facts likely to be challenged. However, if you think it needs citing, that suggests the need for a citation. :-) As for the about limo rides, I really don't care that much. Regarding support for independent comics being off topic; I agree. The first sentence (about using the Cerebus editorial pages) is relevant and I'd leave that, but the rest really isn't. The bits about his fallings out are uneven; where the comic is referenced it's reasonable. The first sentence is absolutely relavent, and that he challenged someone to a boxing match in the comic is loosely relevant. The mentions of Moore and Groth seem absolutely irrelevant. (I'm guessing Groth might be relevant because of Groth's coverage of Cerebus, but absent details/cite I can't defend it.) The paragraph about religion looks reasonable to me, it all ties back to the comics, both how the comics influenced Sim's beliefs (his research for Rick's Story) and Sim's religion influencing the comic (through content and editorial writing). — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eerie arne resemblance.[edit]

I came across this page and realized that the style of this character is the same style of the hidden aardvark character in quest for glory 3 named Arne. I'd like to provide a picture for proof but unfortunately google has come up short with QFG3 pictures.

Anyways I thought it might be a good bit of trivia but unfortunately I've got no pictoral or written proof of this, anyone who does should add it to the trivia section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.53.217 (talk) 21:03, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are frowned upon by the Wikipedia powers that be. Lots42 (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouncing Cerebus[edit]

How is Cerebus pronounced. The article claims Sare-uh-buss. An anonymous editor suggested Ser-uh-bus, which is slightly different. I could see either option. (And I can even see "Ker-uh-bus", although it seems unlikely.) As such, we really need a citation. It's a minor point, but it's important to be as certain of possible about even the most minor points. — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we cite a video with Dave Sim pronouncing Cerebus? See this YouTube Video at approximately 2:20 into it. Sounds like Sar-ah-Bus to me, but I can't "translate" that into phonetic "spelling" as well as someone else prolly can. Margaret 20:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nearest phonetic pronunciation scheme that I can come up with is: SEHR-uh-bus (rhymes with "There, a bus"). I don't know how to write that in the correct phonetic symbols, but the YouTube video is a great source since it's straight from Dave's mouth. I'm going to go ahead and put the link in the article as a reference. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 01:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find, Margaret! — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S'ym[edit]

S'ym is supposed to be a parody of Cerebus? Really? Are we sure this isn't just a big ol' coincidence? Lots42 (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the character? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.116.100 (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video links[edit]

I have removed the YouTube video per violating WP:EXTERNAL and WP:RELIABLE. However, since these are guidelines and not official policies, community consensus must be reached in order to combat these. And can anyone prove to me that the link isn't violating copyright in the first place? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that this video is uncopyrighted since it was a live interview taken at a comic convention...there are a lot of interview clips of Sim on YouTube at various comic-related events, this is only one of them. Meowwcat or another user who's more connected to Sim can probably verify for sure whether or not there's any copyright issues with this kind of thing. Also, since it's Sim himself doing the talking, I don't see where an issue of verifiability could be come in. As far as being a viable external link, I think this is a case where YouTube can actually be trusted. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does anyone have to prove to you that the link isn't violating copyright? Is it even possible to prove that a given piece of content isn't infringing copyright? The video is pretty clearly amateur work; it seems entirely likely to me that "maknbacon" recorded the video and had every right to upload it. If maknbacon didn't record it, who did? Absent an competing claim for copyright on the work, it seems inappropriate for us to be labeling it as infringement. The prohibition on linking to copyright infringement is for situations where you knowingly do so, not just where you have a suspicion. I'm not sure why you brought up WP:RELIABLE; if the author himself pronouncing the word isn't reliable, I have no idea what could meet the standard. Ultimately it's a good citation that backs up a claim. Removing it makes the article worse, not better. (A suggestion: you might want to be more specific than just saying something goes against the WP:EXTERNAL guidelines. There are about six printed pages of guidelines there, and it's not obvious which you think it relevant. I'm guessing you're referring to the copyright infringment situation.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was referring to copyright infringement. So what have we agreed on? How can you tell the name is pronounced "Sehr-uh-bus" without subtitles? This was one of my main points. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I picked that specific youtube video, it was just the first one that popped up. This youtube video is indeed a fan interview done by the Yahoo!Group, which we can use if anyone is afraid of copyright infringement. Dave says Cerebus at 3 min 58 sec into the interview. As far as no subtitles, how about if I vouch I was there and the word said at that time is indeed "Cerebus"? Margaret (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. We need a source saying how the pronunciation came to be spelt. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I don't understand what you're asking for. Dave originally made the character for a fanzine logo, the fanzine in question being called "Cerebus" - which we all know is a misspelling of the three headed dog from Hades. The fanzine never got started, so the name was given to the character in the logo. Am I understanding you want us to ask Dave Sim how he came to pronounce Cerebus as he does from the misspelling? Margaret (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the source for the pronounciation spelling of "Sehr-uh-bus"? I didn't see that texted in the YouTube video. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I understand. I don't know where that came from. To me it sounds like Sara-bus. Perhaps we can just reword it to say, for pronunciation of the title character's name, see this video of Dave Sim saying it? Margaret (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better now than providing a guesstimation. The video never confirmed that anyway but it does feature words coming from the creator himself. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the whole issue has been about the note of how to pronounce his name? Wow, it would've been a lot easier to just start a topic here asking to reword that instead of throwing around Wiki policy like a pickaxe. I agree with the proposed change and will make that correction later, unless someone beats me to the punch. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the change; feel free to rewrite if it's clunky. I also didn't give any details about the date or nature of the interview, so if someone wants to put those in the ref, that would probably be good. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a little wierd. Why not follow Margaret's suggestion? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that, but it just didn't sound right ...I actually spent about 10 minutes trying to think of a way to write it that didn't sound clunky or over-explanatory. That was the best I could come up with for conciseness' sake. Like I said, if someone's got a better way to do it that a consensus agreeement can be reached on, more power to 'em. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's her idea: "For pronunciation of the title character's name, see this video of Dave Sim saying it". Something like that though. Who can do this? It would take me a while as well. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fictional rapists[edit]

Rsand21266 added this article to Category:Fictional rapists. It was soon removed by Willbyr. Why remove it. I don't like the category; I think it adds nothing. Who really thinks, "Gosh, I really need a list of fictional rapists?" (The same goes for Category:Fictional aardvarks.) But the category should be challenged, not individual entries, assuming they're accurate. As best I can tell, Cerebus applies. I'd just re-add it, but admittedly the category rubs me wrong, so I'm more than happy to consider counter arguments. — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your initially raised points are more than enough justification for me on the revert. It's a pointless category that IMO adds nothing of substance to Wikipedia. However, if the majority say let it be, then it can be replaced. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 11:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I find value in that information. Just like the plot summary, it helps me decide whether I'd like to delve deeper into a given work. But yeah, I guess that particular discussion doesn't belong on this article. Azundris (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me that of someone wants to see just how pervasive the idea of rape is in society as reflected in "artistic" media, then a list would be not just appropriate, but helpful. FlaviaR (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bigger issue—Q: Is this article about the series entitled Cerebus, or the character named Cerebus? A: The series. A series cannot be a rapist. An article about Cerebus the character would be an appropriate place have the category. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Type of publication[edit]

Removed the word "finite" as all works of human art are finite by denfinition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.214.240 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear God, don't tell me this is a serious attempt at justification for that edit...I'll admit that "finite ongoing" is a bit of an oxymoron, but until someone thinks of a better way to word it, it should stay. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you google for "Finite ongoing series" you'll find that every result is a wikipedia comic boook page. This is not a real classification unlike "ongoing series". Wikipedia is not a place where people should be making up information. If you want to invent a phrase do it elsewhere. Check it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongoing_series

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=finite+ongoing+series&go=Go

bitch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.214.240 (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, that's real mature. Switching term to limited series...I knew there had to be a better way to say it. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 01:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic Novel or Comic Book?[edit]

I'm in favor of Graphic Novel (in serial form), but the lead has had "Comic Book" from day 1. Thoughts? - Richfife (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By common definition, a graphic novel is a self-contained book. To call a comic-book series "a 6,000-page graphic novel" stretches the definition of "graphic novel" to the breaking point. By that standard, one could call the runs of Preacher, Sandman or even Fantastic Four a graphic novel, since they all have serialized stories, as opposed to, say, the first few decades of Superman. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So David Copperfield (novel) is a newspaper series then? - Richfife (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges. The novel form had barely been invented then and was still struggling to be defined. Moreover, David Copperfield fits between two covers. Again I'd have to suggest that under this extraordinary definition, would you call the runs of Preacher, Sandman and Fantastic Four graphic novels? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sim himself (granted, while really, really stoned) envisioned it as a story arc with a particular progression, length and known ending, which is not true of the above (with the possible exception of Preacher, not sure). Sandman and Fantastic Four were never approached that way. - Richfife (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, fans of Jane Austen and Herman Melville and numerous other authors going back hundreds of years might take exception to the idea that the novel form was still in its infancy in the mid 1800's. - Richfife (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's true that the definition of novel varies; I've taken it to mean the form began around 1750. In any case, Sim himself apparently has said a lot of things about Cerebus; the Sim article, for instance, reads, that the "comic book series [Cerebus] began as a parodic cross between Conan the Barbarian and Howard the Duck. Progressively, Sim shifted his narrative style from story arcs of a few issues' length to longer, far more complex 'novels', beginning with the storyline known as High Society". So is this one graphic novel? Graphic novels plural?
I dunno. Something like the 20-hour miniseries Taken or the however-many-hours miniseries Roots tell a single story in an expansive narrative, but nobody calls them movies. And while it'd be interesting and of note if Spielberg, say, insisted that Taken be called a movie, it really isn't. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sim published 300 little staple bound booklets, each 32ish pages long, on a frequent schedule. Looks like comic books to me. Rather unhelpfully, I would describe the collections as graphic novels. The exact same goes for, say, Sandman. That Sims decided up front to have a finite length of 300 issues seems irrelevant to me; doubly so since he obviously didn't have a terribly concrete plan. As noted above, it's clear he didn't really have a clear vision for the comic as a whole until High Society. Ultimately graphic novel doesn't have a terribly clear definition. I'd be prone to stick with comic book; there is no shame in the term. If there is evidence that Sim himself or a number of critics view it as a graphic novel instead of a comic book, I would find that moderately convincing. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of brings us back to my original point: Almost all of Charles Dickens novels were originally published as series' of regularly spaced newspaper articles. Should they then be reclassified as "newspaper series" instead of novels. Also, a large number of novels begin with or encapsulate existing shorter works (I'm specifically not counting novels like Orson Scott Card's "Lost Boys", which is an expanded short story). Just off the top of my head Star Smashers of the Galaxy Rangers and Snow Crash come to mind, but I'm sure there are many more. - Richfife (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:Dave Sim[edit]

There are a number of sources which describe Cerebus as a single graphic novel. What that does to our definitions of te phrase is somewhat irrelevant. In Invaders from the North: How Canada Conquered the Comic Book Universe it is described as a "300-issue graphic novel", Graphic Novels: Stories to Change Your Life describes it as "a massive and massively daring novel mapped out over 6000 pages", indeed according to Kelly Rothenberg in Cerebus: An Aardvark on the Edge (A Brief History of Dave Sim and His Independent Comic Book) in 1979 "Sim proclaimed that Cerebus would be a 300 issue graphic novel with a definite beginning and ending". Dissent is voiced from Charles Hatfield, who notes in Alternative Comics: An Emerging Literature that Sim's "books are at best problematic examples of the 'graphic novel'". So, how to proceed, since ignoring these sources because of what they might do to a perceived definition of the graphic novel isn't really within our remit, is it? Hiding T 18:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As in any field of art, a creator self-proclaiming that his comic-book series is a graphic novel doesn't make it so. James Frey called his autobiographical novel a memoir, for example, but that doesn't change the objective fact (as he, Oprah, and a highly embarrassed publishing company found out). Our definition of graphic novel at Graphic novel isn't so much the issue; it's how the publishing industry and general usage define it. And with all respect to John Bell and the over quarter-century old Dundurn Press, and to Paul Gravett and the even more distinguished publisher HarperCollins, these seem very much to be minority views.
My suggestion, for what it's worth: Put this information in a footnote. I, for one, certainly think it's worth noting that Sim has said this and that two books report his doing so, because it adds to our understanding of the author/artist. But I don't believe Sim's saying so changes the fact of what was physically published. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be curious as to why you state these are minority views. And it isn't two books reporting him as saying so, it is two books describing it as so. There is one journal paper recording him having said so. How we proceed from here probably needs more editors, but I'm happy to let the facts speak for themselves. If we have sources which state the single body of work itself isn't a single graphic novel, fine. But using our definition of graphic novel or somebody else's definition to decide what it is or isn't is prohibited per no original research. Hiding T 19:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely with you that this information should go into the article. I'd like to see the context of the two books' mention; given all the similar single-narrative, multiple-issue series out there, it's remarkable that two books independently called Ceberus a 300-issue, 6,000-page graphic novel. I'd assumed they were reporting Sim's suggestion, and I shouldn't have assumed, but I'd like to know more since this is, we can all agree, an extraordinary claim. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Frey, etc. issues you raised related to people making statements that were demonstrably false, as opposed to an author or critic's statements on how something should be classified. If Sim said Cerebus was a memoir, I certainly wouldn't support changing the classification to please him. - Richfife (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creators, as many an aesthetics professor and professional critic has rightly noted, are not the best judges of their own work. And many are prone to grandiose self-assessments. Sim's opinion is not disinterested. Again, Steven Spielberg could call Taken a 20-hour movie — does that make it so? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to forfeit. I assume there's some sort of shot clock for wikipedia discussions and I've kind of got my hands full IRL. Comic book series it is. - Richfife (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review issues[edit]

Some of the points that need addressing from the peer review:

The article needs a separate section detailing the various awards that Cerebus won during its run, partly to beef up the content and partly to justify the claim in the lead.
Some of the material needs references. I've adding cite templates to items which need backing from material in the comic or from Sim.
The characters section needs to be reworked (already took care of this, but other ideas are appreciated)

Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-adding "Citation needed" requests.[edit]

I've re-added the citation requests Kenhullett removed. If the facts are so obvious, it should be easy to find a citation. Kenhullett objected "then every sentence in that paragraph would need a cite, which would be silly". It wouldn't be silly, it would be exceptionally well cited. Take a tour of Wikipedia:Featured_articles. They are what we should ideally be striving for, and most of them are almost glutted with citations. Wikipedia:BURDEN is pretty clear, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Someone (I don't actually know who), has challenged these claims. They get the benefit of the doubt. Absent evidence that someone was trolling, we must assume that they genuinely doubt the claim. We now need to back them up. — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to take care of those citations ever since I put in the templates, I just haven't done it yet. If I get time tonight, I'll try to take care of them. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 22:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sim's LSD use[edit]

Regarding the section regarding Sim's LSD use that was deleted...it says on his own Facebook page that he was hospitalized for his LSD use. Also, there's this Q&A session with Sim and this one too in which he confirms it. Good enough to put the info back in? -- Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that Dave Sim had a cite for the claim. I've copied the citation over and re-added the claim. For future reference, none of the above are reliable sources. His Facebook page might be, if there was evidence that it was his own page. Odd that his Facebook page would consist of a copy of Dave Sim. I suspect someone else put up the page. The other two sources aren't really ideal Wikipedia quality. They might get by for a lesser claim, but for drug use we need better. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links section[edit]

So as not to get into an edit war: Is there some Wikipedia policy against having a large external links section, especially when most of the links are directly related to the content of the comic in one fashion or another? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 22:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Wikipedia policy on external links and it gives help on what should be linked, suggested links and links to be avoided. Perhaps if we go through the list with that in mind, it would satisfy the recent edits? Margaret (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Storylines" Section[edit]

The "Storylines" section is somewhat misleading as it breaks the book up into the published collections rather than by actual storyline. For example, we are given Church & State I and Church & State II, but Church & State was one storyline with no logical break in the middle. It was only published as two books because otherwise the book would have been 1200 pages long. I think they should probably be merged into one subsection. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkConTribs 03:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section is really about the collected volumes rather than the various ongoing storylines. I've changed the header to reflect that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you scroll down the page, there's a table I added with volume information. It would be much more helpful if the "Storylines" section was redone following the "storylines" rather than the volumes. One of the things on my to-do list, although if you or anyone else wanted to do that, it would be much appreciated.
I'm actually in the process of doing separate pages for each storyline (not volume), but it'll take some time. Again if you or anyone else wanted to chip in it'd be extremely helpful (especially since I'm much more interested in cleaning/beefing up Chester Brown-related pages at the moment):
I think it would be a good idea to have a "Cerebus characters" page as well. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkConTribs 14:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be difficult to establish the independent notability of each volume/storyline/whatever term you want to use for them, so you might want to discuss this grand plan before putting any more work into it. (An earlier separate article for Jaka's Story was redirected back to here.) In any case, these article names don't follow Wikipedia naming standards. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's well documented in the comic and elsewhere---this is why Church & State is called Church & State Vol I and Church & State Vol II. When critics talk about Church & State, they generally talk about the storyline (as in "the storyline where Cerebus becomes the Pope") unless they have a reason to refer to the volumes. The division into two volumes is one of convenience---one 1200-page volume would've strained the cheap glued binding that Sim chose to use (this is documented somewhere in Notes from the President or in Aardvark Comment, I believe that's all online at Cerebus Fangirl's site, don't have the time to hunt it out now).
Talking about Church & State Vol II as a separate story from Church & State Vol I would be along the lines of Ted Rall calling Maus Vol II a "sequel" to Maus Vol I---the comment got him in hot water and permanently tarnished his reputation. Sim has laid out the plan for the storylines in the book itself any number of times, and it can be verified at this site (which I used as a citation on the Church and State (Cerebus storyline) page---I'll add the ref to the Cerebus page now), and at Cerebus Wiki. Seriously, this stuff is well-documented and has been well-known for over twenty years---Dave wasn't exactly keeping this stuff a secret.
If an earlier article on Jaka's Story was redirected back to here, I imagine it was because a) it was a stub or poorly written, and/or b) it was the only of the Cerebus storylines to have been given a separate page, which would have been strange indeed, and inconsistent. Was that not the case?
If the pages don't follow Wikipedia's naming conditions, of course you are free to change them to names that conform. WP:BOLD and all that. Or at least let us know what would conform to the naming conventions so that I or someone else could fix the article names. I'll hold off trying to start the articles on the final four volumes until we come to a consensus on what to call them.
Given how infrequently this page seems to get touched, "discussing" it here, I figured, would have been rather one-sided. It took a month and a half for you to respond to my March 18th comment, after all. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkConTribs 00:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another source referring to Church & State as one story.
Another which emphasises that, while Mothers & Daughters was published as four collections, they are really "sub-stories" of "Mothers & Daughters", and that "Mothers & Daughters" was clearly printed on all 50 covers of the issues they appeared in, not Flight, Women, Reads and Minds. You had to actually read the books to get those titles. Besides, Church & State was broken up into seven separate substories as well, and so was Jaka's Story.
This page says "The third and forth volumes, Church and State I & II (52 to 111, July 1983 to June 1988), constitute the longest storyline in comic book history."
This is incredibly long, and Church and State Vols I & II are divided into separate sections, but when Dave talks, he refers exclusively to Church and State, sans volume numbers.
Here's a site that clearly puts Church & State, Mothers & Daughters into their own categories.
Another that calls Mothers & Daughters a "storyline".
And another that uses the phrases "Church and State story" and "Church and State storyline".
This page calls Church & State Vol II "the second collection of the Church and State storyline".
The author of this page says that Church & State is "self-contained within the larger framework".
I get a lot more hits from Google than that, but seriously, I think I've proved my point. The "storylines" have been established and accepted by critics and fans for an awful long time. If you need more proof than that, please let me know. Really, I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything---if I'm missing something important here, please let me know. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkConTribs 00:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you call it a storyline/collection/volume/phonebook/whatever isn't the main thing I was questioning. My point is that I don't see a need to create all these articles, and the fact that in the past a few were created but then folded back into this article, is reason enough to seek a consensus before doing it (again). (I see even less need for a separate article about the characters. Do they really get discussed outside of the context of the books themselves?) If you don't get enough input about these questions here, try posing the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. My second point was that if they're going to exist, Wikipedia has standards for naming articles, and (for example) "Melmoth (Cerebus storyline)" doesn't follow them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The characters may not get discussed outside of the book itself, but a list of major characters in Cerebus, I thought, would be too long for the main article and best spun off into a list. As far as I can tell, that's not against any convention.
Reading through standards for naming articles, I can't see where "Melmoth (Cerebus storyline)" is against any standard. It calls for consistency, so what would you name something as generic as High Society or Guys?
I'll post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics to get a consensus, though. Your resistance, though, I find puzzling. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went and checked the history of the Jaka's Story page. Apparently it was tagged for citing no references or sources for over two and a half years before being turned into a redirect. It pretty much gave a plot summary and not much else: no publication date, even. It was also tagged as an orphan for a year and a half before being changed into a redirect. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article names[edit]

Let's start the discussion on the names of the articles here. Dave referred to the storylines as "novels", but he also referred to the whole of Cerebus as a "novel", which muddies the waters a bit. I thought "(Cerebus storyline)" was nice and neutral and didn't expect someone to take issue with it. What would be better? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkConTribs 00:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone and slapped "(comics)" on the end of all of them. Nobody's bothered to respond here, and nobody's bothered to object to what I did all those months ago. Is that consensus, or is it that nobody cares? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 02:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top Importance?[edit]

There's a discussion on which comic-related articles should be listed as "Top Importance" on the importance scale, and I feel this article should not be included. If any user disagrees or wishes to contribute, please do so there. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I might agree, it was important for the self-publishing movement, but less important for the medium as a whole, I'd go for "high importance". How would I go ahead for discussing it? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've downgraded it to "high" based on this conversation as well as the standards listed at the Importance Scale. Opencooper (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cerebus the Aardvark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cerebus the Aardvark. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cerebus the Aardvark/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
# Referencing and citation: There are several {{Fact}} templates on the page, indicating a need for citation. There are also areas that should have citation, don't, and aren't marked with the {{Fact}} template.
  1. Coverage and accuracy: There are large areas outside of the plot that are not covered in the article, most notably awards and critical reception.
  2. Structure: There are several structure faults present, but most notable is that the characters are separated into two sections not placed together (Title Character and Supporting Characters).
  3. Grammar: While marked as met, this article could still use a clean-up especially concerning awkward phrasing.
  4. Supporting materials: Completely met; it contains an infobox and a single cover illustration. Enough to convey the subject matter without exceeding fair use.
For a more explicit detailing of my commentary, please see my peer review. hornoir (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 18:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 11:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cerebus the Aardvark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More Kickstarters[edit]

Sim has gotten a bit further than just the first two phonebooks by now, see [1]. --79.242.222.61 (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cerebus the Aardvark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cerebus the Aardvark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited material in need of citations[edit]

I am moving the following material here until it can be properly supported with reliable, secondary citations, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Much of this material has been uncited or tagged for over a decade. Others were supported by self-published sources, including fan sites and crowdsourcing sites like Kickstarter, which are not reliable sources, per WP:SPS. Nightscream (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history[edit]

Inspired in some ways by the Steve Gerber character Howard the Duck, the earliest issues of Cerebus took the form of a parody of the sword and sorcery genre, particularly Conan the Barbarian. The series developed artistic sophistication and originality very quickly. Citing as his self-originated commandment, "Thou shall break every law in the book",[citation needed] Sim's experiments included flipping the page from horizontal to vertical, alternating comics with prose narrative, and including real dead or living people (himself included) in the storyline, all in an effort to explode the conventions of the North American comic book in every conceivable way.

The episodic adventures strayed further and further from heroic fantasy, and the twenty five-issue graphic novel High Society segued the narrative into a complex political satire and drama. With issue #65 Sim was joined by Gerhard; Gerhard's intricately rendered backgrounds became a visual hallmark of the comic.

By the end of the 1980s, Sim became an outspoken advocate of creators' rights in comics, and used the editorial pages of Cerebus to promote self-publishing and greater artist activism. Sim was also the biggest individual supporter of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund;

During this same period he started publishing his and others' experiments with 24-hour comics in the back of his issues, which created greater awareness of this challenge,[citation needed] now the subject of an annual event for creating them.

A writer entering his own fictional universe is not an original idea either in comics or conventional writing (see Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in Fantastic Four, Kurt Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions, Paul Auster's New York Trilogy, and Grant Morrison's comic Animal Man for other examples of this type of metafiction), although he claims to have planned the encounter as early as 1979, more than a decade before it actually took place.[citation needed]

Sim reportedly cut all ties with his family and virtually all of his industry colleagues apart from Gerhard in order to finish the work. He has had very public fallings-out with both Terry Moore and Jeff Smith, the latter of whom Sim challenged to a boxing match in an editorial published in the comic. Sim claimed Smith lied about an argument the two had had over the notorious essay in issue #186, during which he allegedly threatened to give Sim a "fat lip". Sim also developed an adversarial relationship with Gary Groth, the publisher of The Comics Journal, a comics magazine published by Fantagraphics Books.[citation needed]

In March 2004 the publication of Cerebus #300 was met with a muted, rather than celebratory, response from the comics industry.[citation needed] Though Sim reports the print run for #300 was doubled from that of recent issues, that would still only total approximately 16,000 copies,[citation needed]

In March 2004 the publication of Cerebus #300 was met with a muted, rather than celebratory, response from the comics industry.[citation needed] Though Sim reports the print run for #300 was doubled from that of recent issues, that would still only total approximately 16,000 copies,[citation needed] a far cry from the series' high of 37,000 copies. However it should be noted that the aforementioned 37K circulation figure was that of issue #100, recorded at the absolute peak of the 1986–87 speculation boom. In the comics market of 2004, a circulation of 16,000 was quite impressive for a black-and-white independent comic.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://spiltink.dreamhost.com/blogs/sequentialimages/sim/siminsatnightpg4.gif |title=Web.archive.org |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110722133331/http://spiltink.dreamhost.com/blogs/sequentialimages/sim/siminsatnightpg4.gif |archivedate=July 22, 2011|date=2003|page=4}}</ref>

...having just broken the 200 issue barrier, Sim mentioned his wishes regarding Cerebus, should he be prevented somehow from finishing his goal: "If something like that happens and I'm at mid-issue, the instructions are that the comic book gets printed with the rest of the pages blank. Look at the last page I drew because that's probably where the gods went 'No, I think we've just about had enough of this guy'."

Despite the title, Cerebus Archive is primarily a retrospective on Sim's non-Cerebus work prior to and concurrent with the Cerebus series. According to a note in the first issue, however, the inclusion of "Cerebus" in the title requires him to include the character in some way, so the front covers of the first two issues published as of July 2009 feature Cerebus.

After refusing for years to allow it to be translated (because he could not be sure of the accuracy of translations into languages he could not read),[citation needed] with Sim's permission several European publishers are now translating Cerebus. In 2010, High Society was published in Spanish, French...

Characters[edit]

Cerebus[edit]

A running gag in the early storylines was that when Cerebus' fur got wet it gave off a horrible stench, which even he could barely tolerate.

Collections[edit]

So far six successful Kickstarter campaigns have been run to help restore and preserve Cerebus volumes with a seventh one for Flight just begun as of November 2017. The first one was for Cerebus Volume 1 and the second one for High Society.

Missing fund name[edit]

In the section Publication History, there is this sentence: "When Sim guest-wrote the 10th issue of Todd McFarlane's comics series Spawn, he donated his entire fee—over $100,000—to the fund.[12]" But which fund is meant? I have a hunch that it might be the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund because of its link with Peter Davis, who is mentioned in the reference, but how to find out for sure?--Geke (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cerebus_the_Aardvark&oldid=1200749620"