Talk:The Sandman (comic book)

Stupid Idea

I just want to say this comic is a stupid idea because how can a "Dream" exist for billions of years when human beings have only been around for an estimated 33,000 (and at the very most, 90,000 in the light of new evidence).

You do realize that by saying this, you're going against your own NPOV tag? Pentasyllabic 19:15, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

There are a few plotholes in the Sandman, yes, though that hardly makes it a bad series on its own. This is not one of those plotholes, though. First of all, how many of the supernatural details in the Sandman are actually intended to be taken as literally true even within the story-world is quite open to interpretation. There is evidence supporting the idea that the Endless are nothing but an elaborate metaphor or thought-construct with which to analyze the human condition. However, since you asked, I'll answer your question directly, with the explanation given in the series itself (in Endless Nights, in which the Endless are shown to exist long before life exists on earth): In the world of The Sandman (and the DC Comics cosmos in general!), there are numerous alien civilizations which predate human life, and even all life on earth, by a huge span of time. Dream is as old as the oldest dream, not necessarily the oldest human dream. So, there you go.

In response to your claims about the comic's level of quality: Have you actually read the series, or are you just basing your opinion on the summary currently on this page? Because one thing I've learned is that no work, no matter how amazing, sounds great in concept or summary alone, and many fantastic works, in fact, have pretty cruddy concepts if you try to isolate the basic idea from the actual telling of the story. I Don't mean to sound condescending, but you'll be able to much more effectively criticize this series after having read at least part of it - the Sandman does have genuine flaws; nothing is perfect. But a summary alone can won't tell you much about its strengths or its weaknesses.

Hope I didn't come across as too zealousy defending Sandman there, but I wanted to answer your question entirely. La. -Silence 23:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Added NPOV

There is heavy editorializing on this page. It's like a fan write-up. Get some sources for the praise or exclude it.

I've read and re-read the article, and I don't see anything that was opinion rather than fact, except for "Fans disagree about the quality and legitimacy of these volumes, and most agree that while a few approach The Sandman in quality, the majority are of a decidedly lesser quality," and even that is clearly labeled as such. Until you point out where the editorializing is, I'm removing the NPOV tag. Pentasyllabic 19:37, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Collection pages

I have a few questions about the ten Sandman collection pages (The Sandman: Preludes and Nocturnes, etc.):

1. How does my reorganization of the first couple of those pages look? Any ideas for how to improve them further?
2. Do the new, heavily-shortened summaries of the collections on this page look OK? I think they could definitely use some improvement, I had trouble adequately explaining a lot of the collections.
3. The sequence infobox was in the middle of each page, which I thought was the worst place for it, so I moved it to the bottom. Would it be better if it was on the top, though?
4. I noticed that The Sandman: Fables and Reflections is organized in an interesting way: there are distinct subsections for each issue in the collection. Should we (a) change that article to not be so subdivided, (b) change every Sandman collection article to be sudvided in the same way, or (c) use those subdivisions only for the collections with largely unrelated one-shots (rather than a continuous plotline) - and if c, what qualifies (does The Sandman: Worlds' End?).
5. I was considering what images we could use to spice up the Sandman pages a bit without wading into any trouble or annoyances (does anyone know the copyright status of [1]?), and it occurs to me that one thing that might help is if I uploaded the covers of the ten Sandman collections and put each one in its appropriate page? Or would that be redundant or excessive?
6. Should we generally use "Morpheus" or "Dream"? I've been using "Dream," but I expect some people would favor Morpheus... Thoughts?
7. Can you think of any categories the Sandman collections would fit into? I tried searching through the comics categories, but I didn't find anything for "collections of comic books" or anything like that. The closest I came was a "DC Comics storylines" category, but the collections aren't all neatly divided by storyline...

Thanks for yer time. -Silence 19:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Answering your questions in the order asked:

1. Can I assume it's you that's been moving non-spoiler material from the introduction into an "Analysis" section after the spoilers? Surely it makes more sense to include non-spoiler analysis in the intro, noting artist details, character appearances, matters of style and anything else notable that doesn't spoil the story before the spoilers, for the convenience of the general reader who hasn't read the book? Spoilers should come last.
2. I think this, too, should come before the spoilers, so the general reader can click from book to book without having to scroll through the spoilers.
3. Each book should be subdivided in a way which suits the book. Collections of short stories should be considered as collections of short stories and treat each story separately, but I don't see any benefit in breaking down a continuous storyline issue by issue. World's End is slightly problematical that way, but I'm sure a well-written article could surmount any problems.
4. I expect a panel or two could probably be included in an article, with a copyright notice of course, under "fair use". Book covers are generally fair use, but how informative would they be about the content or character of the individual books to a general reader?
5. I'd stick with Dream for the most part, but explain that he has other names where necessary.
6. How about creating a "Sandman" category and putting that under "DC Comics titles" or "Vertigo titles"?

And one I'd like to ask:

• Are separate pages for the likes of Rose Walker, Alex Burgess etc really necessary? Characters like Cain and Abel who have appeared outside Sandman can usefully have separate pages, but how informative is a page about a character who's only appeared in Sandman which simply summarises their appearance in Sandman?

--Nicknack009 10:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Yes, I'm the one who created the "Analysis" section because it worried me that some fairly POV (though quite interesting) comments were too integrated with directly factual information like release dates and storyline information. I didn't want to spend too much time trying to reword them to be neutral with obnoxious things like "Some people think..." or "Many agree that..." or whatever, so I decided to clarify it all in one swift blow by putting it a section that explicitly states their nature. I'm fine with basic information about the story being noted at the top of the page, brief noteworthy aspects of the issues and such. However, when it gets too long (and many of the Analysis sections are getting there...), it's simply a boon to anyone reading the page to put it in a category. And I disagree that spoilers should go at the end, especially in a page which is 90% about spoilers. I could see it for a page that's centrally about something that isn't spoiler-related, hiding the spoilers at the end to protect wary readers, but when more than 3/4 of the article is spoiler, to try to hide it is just silly.
2. Er, they can, and they do. Via the The Sandman (DC Comics Modern Age) page. I could see including a template at the top of each page with a list of all 10 Sandman collections on it, since that would make navigation easier than the current template (which only lists the collection before and after the one you're on), but wouldn't it be a waste of space to also include a description for every collection on every page? If that's what you're suggesting. Or maybe you're just saying we should have each collection's summary at the top of that collection's page. Still a little redundant though, but something like that could work..
3. -
4. Alright. I'm still far from convinced that dividing the non-short-story-based collections by issue would be a bad idea, though. It would help divide up and organize the text, making it easier to read and add to, and would make it clear where each issue begins and ends in regards to the plot. Plus there are some storylines where most of the storyline is continuous, but there's one or two one-shots thrown in which would be easier to deal with if we divided the synopsis by issue..
5. OK. I agree. Perhaps we could start a little talk on each collection's discussion page about which panel(s)/cover(s) we should pick for each article...
6. OK, glad we agree again.
7. Sounds good. "Sandman Characters" could be a subcategory in that. (Oh, thought of one problem: unlike characters and titles with their own categories like Superman, Sandman is an ambiguous name with many different possible subjects, even within Comics. Should we merely name the category "Category:Sandman" or should we go to some length to ensure that it's not confused with the many other Sandmen?)
8. Almost all Sandman characters have appearead outside of Sandman by now, simply because of the ridiculous number of spin-offs that's come out for so many of them, even a great number of very minor ones. :) Perhaps you mean "outside of the Sandman mythos" or something... But as for your question: What do you mean "how informative is a page about a character who's only appeared in Sandman"? As informative as if it weren't on its own page, or as the summaries and synopses of the Sandman collections! I don't understand why "appearing outside of the Sandman should be a large factor in whether or not a Sandman character gets a page (though if that appearance is especially significant, e.g. Prez)... Instead, the biggest factor should be how important that character is to the Sandman. Rose is one of the more major characters, so I can understand her having her own page. Alex Burgess is mainly noteworthy for being a key player in the first Sandman issue and in that turning point in Dream's life, even though he doesn't appear as often throughout the series as Rose, Hob Gadling, etc. I'm surprised by the existence of some of the Sandman articles (for example, Bast (DC Comics), and that we had such long and involved articles for both Roderick Burgess and Alex Burgess), but others, and in some cases I was surprised that there aren't yet articles for certain key characters! (I'm thinking of The Three, Loki, Puck...) I've also been working myself on dealing with some of the character pages for too-minor chars, especially the really short ones. I've merged Remiel (Sandman) and Remiel (archangel) into Remiel, I've created a new article at Cluricaun for The Cluracan, and I've encouraged not making articles for every single insignificant character by turning former broken links into mere bold text for characters like Ishtar and The Fashion Thing. I agree with you that some reform of the Sandman character pages is necessary, but I disagree that a character of enormous appointance to The Sandman who doesn't appear outside of The Sandman doesn't merit its own article (if any character does - we always have the option of going crazy and annihilating all Sandman character articles, turning them into Headings on one or two gathered pages). But maybe we should handle this in an organized way. Why don't you list which Sandman characters you think are worthy of having their own pages? Based solely on their significance to Sandman and other series, not on the current content of their pages (since I can easily expand or create a Sandman page if there's a consensus that it should exist).

-Silence 10:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Title

It occurs to me that the title of this article probably isn't the best. "The Sandman (DC Comics Modern Age)" is too long and convoluted. If you're going to qualify a title with a bit in brackets, as we obviously need to do as there's so many Sandmen in comics and outside, it's better if it's short. Besides, the so-called "ages" of comics are a bit insular and self-aggrandising, and calling anything the "modern age" in such an ephemeral medium risks dating very quickly. Problem is, I can't think of anything better, so - how about a debate? Anyone have any suggestions? --Nicknack009 07:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about "The Sandman (Vertigo)" or something like that? – Seancdaug 02:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'd support such a move if there were only two DC Sandmen to worry about. Then I could see I see this page being "The Sandman (Vertigo)" and the original DC Sandman being "The Sandman (DC Comics)". But the Silver Age one complicates matters more. I agree that the current page title should be shortened (possibly to "The Sandman (DC Comics 1990s)" or "The Sandman (Endless)"?) if possible, but any suggestions on this matter should take into account the other two articles. For now, anyway, these page titles work. -Silence 03:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Would the storyline section be better organized into subsections based on the graphic novels? --zandperl 23:38, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Word balloon styles

Removed this:

Less importantly, Sandman popularized individual typescripts for the word balloons of certain characters. For example, Morpheus’ word balloons were black with white lettering and Delirium’s were wavy and rainbow-colored. After Sandman became popular, this technique was often imitated in other comic books.

The technique has been used in Cerebus the Aardvark, as well as for the Marvel Universe character of Thanos, who was definitely around prior to 1988. Also for the character of Mr Gone in The Maxx, though I don't know when the initial publication was for that. grendel|khan 06:26, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

Why was it removed? "popularized" does not require "invented"...

The Maxx ran from 1993 to 1998, and considering that it drew from The Sandman in many other ways, it's not much of a stretch to imagine Mr. Gone's lettering being somehow inspired by The Sandman. But regardless, the fact that Sandman was not the first to use individualized word balloons does not mean that it is irrelevant that the Sandman used individualized word balloons. It's at least an important feature throughout the series, regardless of its impact on later comics, so it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. I'm putting it back with a few changes, like mentioning Cerebus. -Silence 19:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Sandman Inspiring Vertigo

"In 1993, the success of Sandman inspired DC comics to launch the Vertigo imprint, which specialized in this genre and published some of the most acclaimed series of the 1990s including Preacher and Animal Man."

The Vertigo article states,

"Vertigo was founded in the wake of DC's successful "mature" comics of the late 1980s, beginning with Saga of the Swamp Thing and continuing with Watchmen and The Sandman."

Now, as this article currently holds it seems as if Sandman was alone in giving birth to the Vertigo line. Whether this is true or not I have no idea, but as long as the Vertigo article holds differently it would seem in good taste to include these additional comics in the Sandman article.

I propose,

"In 1993, the success of Sandman (together with Saga of the Swamp Thing and Watchmen) inspired DC comics to launch the Vertigo imprint, which specialized in this genre and published some of the most acclaimed series of the 1990s including Preacher and Animal Man." --Sentius

---

It seems there are 3 separate articles for DC's Sandman Character. This one the 40's incarnation and the 70's incarnation. Up till this moment i've never seen this. Every single other superhero has all their incarnations contained on one page, however disparate those incarnations are. Frankly i'd say they all need to be merged. Frankly its just a bad way to do things. You go to a wikipedia article about the sandman and expect to get a run down of the character starting with his original appearances and moving toward neil gaiman's reinvention. Not 3 articles about 3 different runs.

It would be a tough merge, as the Golden Age, Silver Age, and Modern Sandmen are almost completely unrelated (well, Gaiman tried to tie the predecessors in with Preludes & Nocturnes and The Doll's House, but the tie to Wesley Dodds is tenuous at best and the connection to the Silver Age Sandman is a major retcon of that character). Are you volunteering? — Gwalla | Talk 05:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I would oppose merging them. They're not the same character. They're three different characters with the same name. --Nicknack009 12:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Possibly "Murder Mysteries by P. Craig Russell, Neil Gaiman" should be mentioned under "Other Books and Series" ? Also, wasn't there one or two miniseries about Destiny (similar to the Death ones) ? --StefanLjungstrand

Completely new to Wikipedia and needing help

Would be very interested in putting some research I have done on the Sandman's narrative structure (using Hy Bender's book, interviews and other sources) but unsure as to what is 'fact' and what may be sen as praise - if I put it on, will people be kind enough to be 'gentle' but firm with it? Was introduced to W by someone close and want to share in this experience...! Crescent 06:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

If by "gentle" you mean "not being too hard on you regardless of whether your contributions will end up being kept around" and by "firm" you mean "honestly and thoroughly going through and editing your contributions to improve them in any ways possible" (or something like that, anyway), then: Of course!

One of the policies of Wikipedia is "be bold" - don't be reckless, but don't be scared to contribute just because you think it might be removed; we'll gladly look over any contributons you add, and if it does turn out to be unencyclopedic or otherwise not appropriate here, we can easily remove portions of it with no harm done. I also have the Hy Brener book, and think it's a fantastic resource, especially as a place to draw insightful Sandman-related Neil Gaiman quotes (or paraphrases) from.

Also, welcome to Wikipedia! If you have any other questions regarding getting acquainted with this site, I and others would be glad to assist you. -Silence 17:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

to Pentasyllabic-if youd read carefully youd understand that Dream is lord of ALL dreams,not only Human (the Martian manhunter bowes to him in the first trade,as the god of sleep,so that means,he is also a god of Aliens dreams,and so,without saying it out full,Gaiman tells,taht Aliens also have dreams,and lives,and it is more directly indicated in the second trade,in witch Dream explains to Rose of the dream vortex,and says that "eons ago and half the universe further"(i have the Czech trade,so i dont know the text exactly),about a world,that was destroyed through another vortex-and as the vortex is conected to dreams,this must mean that dreams are normal to other races.David Kartaš