banner slice

CONTRARIAN FANBOY: Frank Miller Has Always Been A Sexist, Fascist, Racist Prick


Say the name Frank Miller to a comics fan and you’re likely to get some version of the same myth.

It always starts the same. Frank Miller used to be a genius.

Remember when you first saw this?

He’s the guy that rescued Daredevil from irrelevance and wrote the definitive Wolverine story before he single-handedly changed the face of comics with The Dark Knight Returns. His work was so influential that it is accepted as truth that he alone brought on the wave of “grim and gritty” comics of the 1990s.

But then the story gets to Miller’s The Dark Knight Strikes Again and everything changes. Miller has gone from genius to crank. His new work (particularly All-Star Batman and Holy Terror) is so bad, so amateurish and slapdash, that the usual qualitative signifiers just don’t hold up. This is the platonic ideal of bad comics. His once evocative pencils are now cringe-worthy (when they’re not outright laughable).

This is Frank Miller attempting to draw a human woman’s body.

And his dialogue seems almost designed to be insulting to the collective intelligence of his readers. Frank Miller on Batman: “I basically just right down what an alcoholic abusive uncle would say.”  Remember this infamous scene?

Miller’s artistic downturn also coincides with what many see as a shift in his personality. The once astute social observer has been replaced by a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, paranoid nutcase.

Stripping a woman before you behead her? What are you, in a Frank Miller comic?

In short, everything about Frank Miller now makes it hard to believe that he ever had a career in the first place.

But there’s a problem here and the problem is this:

Miller’s work was always kinda shitty.

In fact, Miller’s work has always been uneven and sometimes laughable, and there have been more than a few hints at the fascist, misogynist, bigot he eventually became publicly.

Let’s take the book credited as being one of the finest Batman stories ever written, The Dark Knight Returns. I won’t get in to the hyperbolic praise DKR has gotten since being published because you’re probably heard it. Most of it credits Miller with returning Batman to his “dark” and “brooding” roots. But this is not technically true. Denny O’Neil rescued Batman from the camp ghetto years before DKR came out. If anything Miller traded O’Neil’s moodiness for a vision of “reality” so cliché and paranoid that it almost comes off as a kind of reverse-camp.

For all the praise it’s gotten for being the Batman story, DKR manages to paint an extremely out of character Batman. If people thought Miller’s depiction of Batman as an abusive and thuggish prick in All-Star Batman is off base, they should look back into DKR because he’s essentially the same creature. Miller’s Batman does not think; he punches. He’s not a detective; he’s a brawler. His solution to every problem, from gang violence to political corruption, is violence.

Here’s Batman “thinking”

Compare the violent thug in DKR to the Grant Morrison’s paranoid planner or Scott Snyder’s brilliant tactician to see how one-dimensional and off-character Miller’s take on Batman is (and this is aside from the fact that Miller’s Batman kills and uses guns).

You can see a similar tendency in every one of Miller’s works. He doesn’t “do” character. His characters are all basically variations on the same macho power fantasy. They pose. They talk to themselves in a hard-boiled monotone lifted straight out of Spilane and Chandler. Their only tools are violence and their only goals are well, usually nothing more than their own whims (even Batman’s goals in DKR are essentially non-existent).

But this is not Miller making a critique of this kind of empty violence. No, this is Miller celebrating it. In Miller-world power is what separates right from wrong, men are judged on how much they effect their own will and women, are either victims in need of saving, over-sexualized whores, or scheming she-bitches (In DKR, Catwoman is an aging sex-worker, Carrie Kelly is a sexless child, and the new commissioner Yindel is the woman attempting to neuter Batman).

None of this is particularly more “adult” or “sophisticated”. Miller’s works don’t investigate moral problems or examine characters or even ask particularly difficult questions. Instead, Miller’s work depicts such investigations as symptoms of a morally bankrupt and indulgent society.

For every panel like this in DKR…

Adult work is work that escapes the moral black hole of “good and evil” that superhero comics have been stuck in for decades. Miller didn’t transcend the idea of good vs evil at all. He doubled down on it and insisted that those who boldy follow their own will are the true moral actors. Not those people who stand on principles like “thinking,” “caring,” and “talking”.

And let’s not forget the art. Miller’s recent art is consistently and uniformly bad. But his earlier art was often just as rushed and sloppy as his current work. Over the course of DKR’s run, Batman goes from being an actual human with something resembling a human shape… to a hulking grotesque.

…there are two like this one in which a bag of potatoes wears a Batman costume and dances limply in front of a fire.

Okay, credit where credit is due. Miller worked on some amazing stuff. His collaborations with David Mazzucchelli, Bill Sienkiewicz, and Geoff Darrow are brilliant. Batman: Year One in particular deserves almost all of the praise its received and Elektra: Assassin is amazing in spite of being unreadable. But I’m beginning to think that these works succeed in spite of, rather than because of, Miller’s involvement.

And, yes, Miller is entitled to his opinions about whatever he happens to have opinions about even when he supports said opinions with “facts” that are simply not true. But when you declare that all Muslims are genital mutilating, scientifically incapable, barbaric crypto-terrorists, and then proceed to write a book based on the idea, then you’ve officially jumped the shark and landed squarely in crazy old man land.

The sad part of all of this is that it is now impossible to look at his early work and not see the signs of the artist, and person, Miller later became. When you look underneath the layers of nostalgia and reverence, what you see is the same misogyny, the same asinine paranoia, and the same fascistic beliefthat power is its own justification. Maybe it’s a little less pronounced, maybe a little less blatant, but it’s there just the same.

Again, here Miller is attempting to depict a human being.

S#!T Talking Central

  • Noel Thorne

    Few points:
    – DKR is an Elseworlds book so Batman is intentionally a bit off kilter character-wise – that’s just the nature of the series. Also, when does Batman kill in DKR?
    – Batman’s goals in DKR are very clear – clean up the city.
    – Carrie Kelly and Commissioner Yindel don’t fit in with your view of Miller’s female characters. They’re neither victims nor over-sexualised whores.

    Your argument that Frank Miller has always been a “fascist, sexist, racist” prick boils down to looking at the DKR and finding out:
    – Batman fights and is violent
    – Catwoman is a sexworker
    – Some vague notion that his work is neither “adult” nor “sophisticated” – examples would be good.

    Note: no solid arguments for Miller as racist, and unconvincing, poorly made arguments for Miller as a fascist and sexist man.

    • Simon Saunders

      Um… the review directly addresses the roles of both the Kelly and Yindel characters, and references specific lines by Miller pointing to his racism. Also in DKR alone did the unbelievably ham-fisted “feminazi” role of Bruno pass you by or something? Or the way in which he turns Joker into an effete gender-bender? Or how Batman becomes the strong man of Gotham and keeps order where liberal America has failed by rounding up a gang of thugs to take control of the streets because Obviously if a right-thinking conservative billiionaire doesn’t militarise the streets it’ll just be chaos?

      • Jason Kauppinen

        “Or how Batman becomes the strong man of Gotham and keeps order where liberal America has failed by rounding up a gang of thugs to take control of the streets because Obviously if a right-thinking conservative billiionaire doesn’t militarise the streets it’ll just be chaos?”

        Nice strawman argument there.

        • Simon Saunders

          I’m not sure you’re using the word “strawman” correctly there Jason, it would imply that fascism was not in fact founded on the principle of a rightwing strongman rounding up a gang of thugs to militarise the streets using the argument that government has failed to keep order.

          • Jason Kauppinen

            Fascism was and is in fact left wing. Its economics are socialist and it’s philosophy is collectivist.

          • Simon Saunders

            In that case you don’t know what socialism or collectivism are either.

            Fascism calls for a cross-class collaboration in a nationalist cause. Socialism calls for international collaboration in the cause of class war.

            They are diametrically opposing ideologies, which is why socialists and fascists don’t tend to hang out much.

            Collectivism meanwhile is a vague term promoting the concept of large groups working in their own interests as a superior mode of organisation to individualism. I mean I suppose elements of collectivist theory could be applied to either, but the same is true of conservativism, religion, liberalism…

          • Jason Kauppinen

            “They are diametrically opposing ideologies”

            No, they just compete with each other. The rhetoric they use to justify their violence is somewhat different but the results are the same.

            “Collectivism meanwhile is a vague term promoting the concept of large groups working in their own interests as a superior mode of organisation to individualism”

            Not vague at all, just broad. The fascists call their large group a “nation” while de-legitimizing and destroying individual rights while the socialists call their large group a “class” while de-legitimizing and destroying individual rights. Thus both are left-wing.

          • Simon Saunders

            “No, they just compete with each other. The rhetoric they use to justify their violence is somewhat different but the results are the same.”

            So you’re now arguing that they’re the same because both creeds have rhetoric and violence in their histories? Presumably this means Christianity, Islam and indeed good old fashioned capitalism are all the same thing as well.

            I mean all three have copious numbers of examples of rhetoric identifying a given social group as superior being used to send people off to war – capitalists “civilising” China, India, the americas etc, the Crusaders massacring upwards of a million people in the middle east… then there’s feudalism, tribal warfare – all left-wing movements using this logic.

            Fascism and Socialism are different words identifying different ideological beliefs which desire different outcomes (fascism wanting a unified minority defined by race dominating all those around them, socialism wanting the working class to form a global brotherhood which abolishes itself once it has eliminated capitalist relations). Calling them the same thing is nonsensical, and squirming around because you don’t like being proved wrong is pathetic.

          • Jason Kauppinen

            “Calling them the same thing is nonsensical, and squirming around because you don’t like being proved wrong is pathetic.”

            Personal insults? Seriously?

            “So you’re now arguing that they’re the same because both creeds have rhetoric and violence in their histories? ”

            No, I did not claim that.

            ” Calling them the same thing is nonsensical”

            I also didn’t claim that either.

            You seem to be having trouble understanding what I’m writing so I’ll restate:

            Fascism call their large group a “nation” or a “race”. Socialists call their large group a “class”. Both claim their own group of thugs represent the interests of these ideological constructs. Both de-legitimize and destroy individual rights–that would be the “same results” that they deliver, even though they’re competing ideologies. Both political philosophies are collectivist in that, in your own words, promote: “the concept of large groups working in their own interests as a superior mode of organisation to individualism” that’s why they’re not diametrically opposed: neither one emphasizes individualsim.

            So, collectivism:a broad category, that includes both Fascism and Socialism.

          • Simon Saunders

            Trying to get out of it by claiming you’re being personally insulted? Really?

            “No, I did not claim that.”

            You said “The rhetoric they use to justify their violence is somewhat different but the results are the same.” Pretending this doesn’t in fact mean you were trying to say they were the same by dismissing everything bar the “they produce violence” bit wastes both your and my time.

            “I’ll restate”

            Using different words doesn’t make what you’re saying any more correct. When you say “both are left-wing” and “the results are the same” because they consist of people arguing for the supremacy of one group or another and the removal of individual rights* this still equally applies to any number of creeds. It’s not specific to left-wing ideologies and applies equally well to the actions of the East India Company, Columbus, the Crusaders etc. Therefore it’s utterly nonsensical to say they’re particularly marked out or linked by it. It’d be like saying mankind and monkeys are the same species because they both have opposable thumbs.

            “neither one emphasizes individualsim”

            Neither do feudalism or theocracy, I suppose those are also left wing? And frankly other than Ayn “I went on the dole when I ran out of money” Rand types and few other gits who mistakenly think individualism is some sort of totem to worship above all common sense, neither does capitalism.

            ===
            * Also inaccurate btw, socialists don’t argue for militia tactics – they work via the ballot box. You may be thinking of Marxist-Leninsm and its “dictatorship of the proletariat” model, which is a different kettle of fish entirely. As for “they destroy individual rights” that’s a ridiculously sweeping statement, in fact most of the laws which give me rights at work as an individual, and indeed most of freedoms I might have to say, have sex with a man or be black without facing legal segregation in the US or South Africa have been as a direct result of left-wing pressure, usually led by socialist figures – MLK, Mandela, Harry Hay, the trade union movement… You’d have to go a long way to get a fascist willing to endorse any such rights – because the creed of extreme nationalism directly bars acknowledging equality across races, or even national boundaries for that matter.

          • Jason Kauppinen

            Trying to get out of what? I never did what you claimed I did. You did use the word “pathetic” as a personal attack though.

            ” Pretending this doesn’t in fact mean you were trying to say they were the same”

            lol there you go again. Do you understand that you don’t get to redefine my positions for your benefit? That’s the very definition of the strawman fallacy. Nowhere did I claim that they were the same. You writing that I did doesn’t make it true.

            “this still equally applies to any number of creeds”

            Yes it does. Just because a category is broad, as I’ve stated, doesn’t disprove it’s existence. The category “green” exists, even though multiple shades of non-identical green exist. Saying that two different shades of green belong in the category of green doesn’t mean that they’re the same shade of green, and recognizing that there are many shades of green doesn’t disprove the concept of “green”.

            The actions of the East India Company, Columbus, the Crusaders etc. all violated individual rights in the name of various collectivist constructs, whether they be empires or christendom or dar-al-islam. Providing additional examples that fit into the category doesn’t disprove the category.

            “frankly other than Ayn “I went on the dole when I ran out of money” Rand”

            Is social security a voluntary program? Nope.

            And Capitalism does, in fact, rest upon individual rights.

            “socialists don’t argue for militia tactics – they work via the ballot box”

            MLK used boycotts and an appeal to the original individual rights enunciated in the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, Mandela used violence, and trade unions use the state to violate individuals’ freedom of association.

            A democratic vote via ballot box in no way legitimizes a systemic destruction of individual rights. Outsourcing violence to state enforcers doesn’t de-link the use of violence to enforce socialist goals either.

          • Lex

            you backpedaling moron. you turned this into a weird individualist rant by trying to say fascists and socialists are the same thing, and when proven wrong, still continue to move the goalposts so you’re right. you’re a really bad and dumb person.

          • Jason Kauppinen

            “you turned this into a weird individualist rant by trying to say fascists and socialists are the same thing”

            Nope, never wrote that. All of my posts are still up there and *nowhere* did I ever write that. That just leaves you with personal insults. Sad.

          • JuneTiger

            The butt-hurt truly is strong with this one. It doesn’t surprise anyone that true-believer Frank Miller fans tend to “double down,” as this article so keenly observes, in favor of confused arguments over factually-based, rational arguments firmly planted in anything resembling the real world. In other words, you BELIEVE you’re right and any statements countering yours must be destroyed because discussions are WAR, DAMMIT! No, Jason, you didn’t move the goal posts. You systematically aided in their destruction and then built new ones in plain sight hoping one would notice. I would like to take this opportunity to insult you now, seeing as your final recourse in response to everyone here seems to be to end on the victim card, so I’ll cut to the chase… to quote Frank Miller’s elegant writing, “What are you dense? Are you retarded or something?” Yeah, Miller’s every bit as good as Raymond Chandler, all right. If Chandler had suffered a traumatic brain injury.

          • Jason Kauppinen

            I point out strawman arguments. The strawman arguments are repeated, then I get accused of doubling down? Hilarious.

            JuneTiger, if you’re really interested in discussion, then please try to succeed where these other guys have failed. Please show how, when I wrote:

            “No, they just compete with each other. The rhetoric they use to justify their violence is somewhat different but the results are the same.”

            Same results, and belonging to the same category “left wing”. That’s it. NOWHERE did I write that they’re “the same”.

            As I explained: “Just because a category is broad, as I’ve stated, doesn’t disprove it’s existence.”

            An example: A person travels from their home to the coffee shop via bike.

            The next day she travels from her home to the coffee shop via car.

            Both days she’s reached the same destination. She’s used methods of transportation. Saying that both the bike and the car are part of the category of “transportation” in no way states that the bike and the car are the same.

            That’s recognizing that categories exist, and that differences within a category also exist.

            If you think that is “moving” or “destroying” goalposts.. then go ahead and show why.

          • Todd Ferguson

            Your claim that fascism is left-wing is, quite simply, false. Fascism has a great many right-wing elements, embracing ideals like nationalism, religious conservatism and the confluence of religion and state (do you think it was just a coincidence that many in the Vatican supported Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco?), notions of racial purity, extreme opposition to homosexuality, opposition to women’s rights (in particular, strong stances against abortion and birth control), support of traditional gender roles, etc.

            Some point to Mussolini and try to claim that fascism is left-wing because of economic practices in fascist Italy; however, Hitler’s economic regime in Nazi Germany was far more moderate; furthermore, one prime example of a modern fascist state in the west, Pinochet’s regime in Chile, was supported by the US as a right-wing, capitalist bulwark against the socialism of the greater part of South America.

          • http://philiparbon.bandcamp.com/ Stepstone

            Socialism – a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

            Fascism – a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

            I think you’re confusing fascism with dictatorships, fascism particularly describes Mussolini, as well as the Nazis, not all dictatorships.

            National Socialism is interesting, it used the organisation of socialism, with the control of a dictatorship, it is fascism, but fascism itself with some socialist aspects.

            Nothing in life is defined as clearly as you guys seem to think.

            You really think every single method of rule throughout all of mankinds history is either “Left” or “right” wing?

            You really think that right always = bad? That left always = good?

            “Black and white are all I see in my infancy”

          • http://philiparbon.bandcamp.com/ Stepstone

            So how did National Socialism exist?

            This left = good and right = bad view you have is very childish my friend.

            The world is not black and white.

          • Simon Saunders

            And yet in your other posts you insist that the Nazis were actually socialists, as though it’s an important distinction. You seem confused, Phil. Not only that, but extraordinarily lacking in understanding about the differences between fascism and socialism as creeds, to the point that I can only imagine it’s wilful.

          • http://philiparbon.bandcamp.com/ Phil Airborn

            National Socialism.

            Yes.

            A simple google search will lead you to this wiki:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

            “Following World War II, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The terms neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideological similarities to, or roots in, 20th century fascist movements. “

          • http://philiparbon.bandcamp.com/ Phil Airborn

            Another one for you, as you seem unable to get off your high horse.

            Socialism:

            Another wiki, not exactly deep study:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

            Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[3][4] “Social ownership” may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[

            STATE ownership being the key part that may aid in your understanding.

            I’ll let you work the rest out yourself.

            You seem like a clever fellow, lose the arrogance and you may start learning from debate instead of just spouting popular opinion as truth.

          • Simon Saunders

            It’s frankly a bit gobsmacking that you, clearly a political illiterate yet acting as though your viewpoint is sacrosanct, would have the front to call others arrogant. Your own quote notes that state control is not the only method of social organisation advocated by socialists for goodness’ sake, you can’t even do the first line of your “debunking” without undermining your own point.

            In the cause of learning just a little bit before holding forth on subjects you clearly know sod-all about, you might want to go one step further and read a little on the economics of fascism from that very same website:

            “Fascist economics supported a state-controlled economy that accepted a mix of private and public ownership over the means of production.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Economy

            which clearly doesn’t fit your ridiculous pet theory of “STATE ownership” being the sum total of socialist theory.

            Now please, before you embarrass yourself further, read at the very least Peter Kropotkin’s theory of anarcho-communism, Makhno’s Platformist Manifesto, some Marx or course, maybe Proudhon as a reasonable backgrounder to the broad themes of early Mutualism, Zcommunications on Parecon, then there’s council communism so maybe Workers’ Councils by Anton Pannekoek, Murray Bookchin’s a decent primer on the libertarian municipalism currently favoured by secular Kurdish leftists fighting on the Syria/Iraq border… and once you’ve read all those, come back and we can have a chat about what socialism is and isn’t.

          • http://philiparbon.bandcamp.com/ Stepstone

            Fascists don’t exist anymore.

            Do some reading before you continue to dribble shit please.

          • Simon Saunders
          • http://philiparbon.bandcamp.com/ Stepstone

            Fascism is in fact referring to a specific era in time and space, not dictatorships as a whole.

            You don’t know everything, get off that high horse.

          • http://philiparbon.bandcamp.com/ Stepstone

            He is right by the way, its economics were entirely socialist.

  • http://www.facebook.com/reptilian.demon Reptilian Demon

    good article but i had one small unrelated question which stemmed from this; how is scott snyder’s version of batman a brilliant tactician? i feel as though in his stories batman gets away more by luck than planning. i know its a foolish question and completely unrelated but can you please humor me with this point?

    • Kevin

      Sure: Fair question. Here’s how I see Snyder’s take on Batman in the two major arcs he’s done so far (I won’t talk about his Grayson Batman arc). Batty got caught unawares by the Court of Owls/Thinly Veiled Evil Batmen. Even in moments in which he gets his ass handed to him (thrown out a window, trapped in a crazy underground maze/psych out machine) he’s always planning. Always observing. When he got tossed out the window he was saved by dumb luck. But when he got out of the Owl’s maze, it was tactical. He amassed data (whoa, the stones here are chemically volatile!) and used it. Those are tactics.

      Tactics are not strategy (which I think you guys are rightly dinging me on). Snyder’s Batman RE-acts. He’s not a planner. He’s not strategic. That would be Morrison’s Batman who anticipated a mental attack and planned for it WELL in advance. This is strategy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.carlin Matthew Carlin

    This take on Frank Miller has been very clear to me ever since 300. That book was a great leap forward into Facism.

    • Toki Nakamura

      that’s why I’m worried about Batman v Superman, which is supposedly based on the Dark Knight Returns

  • Greg Capullo

    I lol’d at Snyder and brilliant tactician. Whatever you say about Miller I would always rather read his Elseworlds take on Batman than Snyder’s incompetent fool in a Batsuit

    • Nick

      Heheh I’m guessing you aren’t the namesake there.

      Agreed though, Snyder’s Batman is basically the same as Miller’s Batman Punches a lot without thinking or solving crimes and melodramatically monologuing.

      • http://philiparbon.bandcamp.com/ Stepstone

        But Snyder isn’t publicly derided, the sheep need to hate who they’re told to hate leave them alone!

  • Anthony Salvador

    I have to agree with you on all of this. Take Daredevil for example: His father goes from being a man who supports his son and wants him to become something better than he became, to being an abusive drunk, and Karen Page goes from being a sound-minded secretary to his law firm and then actress to becoming a heroin addicted porn star. Frank Miller has done a lot more harm to all of these characters than good.

    • a person

      I agree on everything except when we look at born again. Miller didn’t destroy Karen, that had happened before. Despite what she does she is painted as good in the end, in’t she? And Matt’s dad is sorry about what he did, it is clearly a one-time thing.

  • ArmymanZ

    Has this guy even heard of Martha Washington or does he only get his info from Linkara?

  • Joe Leicht

    Frank Miller was a “slap dash,” sloppy, lousy comic artists even back in his 80s “glory days” when everyone was having orgasms over him. And as a writer, his twisted “realism” is exactly the kind of thing that has ruined comics. But as far as his politics, I wish he were sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office instead of the current idiot we have.

    • http://philiparbon.bandcamp.com/ Stepstone

      Mysterious that nobody noticed until public consensus changed huh?

      Almost like you let others do your thinking for you!

      You’re pretending not to like things you’ve liked for years because the guy who made them is getting old and senile?

      Silly silly people.

      • futurestoryteller

        I have no earthly idea why you seem to think this defense is so clever. Consensus changes over time, that’s a fact of life, and so is “hindsight is 20/20.” Are you going to tell me people were *NOT* more fascist in the 80’s, when Miller made his version of Batman famous? Are you going around to everyone, in their stores, with their all-persons drinking fountains and going on about how “Oh, so now all of a sudden you like black people?” Or “So now all of a sudden you’re against slavery? Hypocrites!”

        People are less racist, and misogynistic, and homophobic – in the western world – than they were 30 years ago, all of the negative qualities Miller has more of, and so they look on his revered works and go “Yeah. That is that guy – I can see it” he didn’t have to be as blatant about it back then, because he could be sure that more of the world was on his side than he can be now. Not to mention that refusing to admit that someone is bad at their job to avoid being a follower, when you think he’s a genius because everyone else used to think so, is crushingly ironic. That’s not thinking for yourself. It’s glamorizing the past. Clinging to outdated notions.

        If you have a defense of Miller’s work beyond letting it speak for itself, by all means present it, but saying “Everyone use to like him now they don’t… Sheople!” Is not an argument. It’s an observation, one that misses the path that brought us to this conversation in the first place, in favor of yelling loudly and waving a stick around.

  • Stewe Sundin

    Ever read Give Me Liberty?
    I agree that Millers later works is terrible, but it wasn´t always like that. Your “facts” sounds to me both ignorant and unfair.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Washington_%28comics%29

    • http://philiparbon.bandcamp.com/ Stepstone

      Yup, its a hatred bandwagon, tall poppy syndrome.

      Now that miller is popular he’s not hip.

  • http://mojlaboratorij.wordpress.com/ Santa

    “But there’s a problem here and the problem is this:
    Miller’s work was always kinda shitty.
    In fact, Miller’s work has always been uneven and sometimes
    laughable, and there have been more than a few hints at the fascist,
    misogynist, bigot he eventually became publicly.”

    Well, good morning sunshine !

    • http://philiparbon.bandcamp.com/ Stepstone

      Yet you folks only noticed it was shit at the same exact time as everyone else?

      Mysterious!!!!

      Baaaaaa Baaaa Baaaa

  • jaykayDX

    The lame stream media just LOVES to describe Miller as a racist, fascist and sexist pr*ck – but nobody has the balls to call him out by his TRUE association – Zionism. I guess telling the truth about these ‘semites’ and the fact that they behave more like a criminal organization than a belief system will get you banned right? I mean, if Miller was any OTHER ethnicity or religious denomination, he’d be out of a job and blacklisted by the industry he works for. I guess freedom of speech has it’s limits in the so-called “free’ world, doesn’t it?