• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

xxx hardcore Bible

I happened to catch an Illustrated Bible by Robert Crumb on an edition of the New Yorker. However, it wasn't the same. Apparently mr Crumb is having fun recreating the Bible several times from different points of view :)

sounds like hes a proper christian now then
:p
 
Damn, he stole my idea!

I've always wanted to do something like that, an illustrated book of Genesis, true to the story but also in graphic detail. Of course, what I'm really aiming for is the movie. I'd love to see a true-to-the-story movie made of Genesis. And that means, before the fall, lots of nudity. None of this fig-leaf crap, and no hiding anything behind Eve's hair. Remember, before the fall there was no shame, so a movie that tries to hide bits and pieces is going to not be true to the story. There is no need to grandoise it, just tell the story as it is in the bible. EXACTLY as it is in the bible.

I have been wanting to see something like this ever since The Passion of the Christ. For that, Christians were willing to accept the terrible violence because, "That is what he went through." Let's see how willing they are to accept full nudity in the Garden of Eden. I suspect the response would be similar to that for this book.
 
Maybe it was mean of me, but I posted a link to this on my facebook feed because of all the "Daily scripture" type stuff I get from other people on my list.
 
Still, the Bible? That's a stretch, especially for an artist such as Crumb, who has been accused of trafficking in racist and sexist stereotypes. Certainly, he's licentious, dirty even, his comics littered with big-boned women, busty and curvaceous, dominated by smaller, less-powerful men. But that's the beauty of "The Book of Genesis Illustrated," how perfectly Crumb's style fits the material, which is a narrative (or a set of narratives) about human passion, after all. This is rough stuff, full of lust and jealousy, in which Jacob steals his brother's birthright, and later, his sons kill a town full of men to avenge the defiling of their sister, Dinah. God is here, but he is mercurial, pitiless, willing to wipe out creation with a flood to purge the world of wickedness, yet somehow powerless to stop wickedness from reemerging once the Earth repopulates. Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac, even Jacob wrestling with the angel: The point of these episodes is awe, in the most terrifying sense of the word -- awe at a universe that defies our reason and in which we must continually make adjustments to survive
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-r-crumb11-2009oct11,0,6955001.story

I'm going to have to make it to a bookstore this weekend. This looks awesome!
 
In the introduction to "The Book of Genesis Illustrated," R. Crumb writes that he "approached this as a straight illustration job, with no intention to ridicule or make visual jokes." (R. Crumb, W.W. Norton & Co.)

So why bother? If it has little in the way of amusement or irreverence, why would an atheist buy it? Surely not just because of a name?
 
So why bother? If it has little in the way of amusement or irreverence, why would an atheist buy it? Surely not just because of a name?

Some atheists enjoy comics. Some atheists enjoy reading the myths and legends of ancient peoples. There might be a cross over in those two sub groups of atheists.
 
I understand that. it seems however to be nothing more than an illustrated book of Genesis. Illustrated as a 'straight job' so why the rush? It just doesn't strike me as something that should make an atheist get a hard on for?
 
I understand that. it seems however to be nothing more than an illustrated book of Genesis. Illustrated as a 'straight job' so why the rush? It just doesn't strike me as something that should make an atheist get a hard on for?

Ah I see. More so I think no expects Crumb to hold back as most who illustrate Biblical works in the modern age would likely do. Does Genesis really need anything extra to be up to Crumb's usual standards?
 
I understand that. it seems however to be nothing more than an illustrated book of Genesis. Illustrated as a 'straight job' so why the rush? It just doesn't strike me as something that should make an atheist get a hard on for?

Ah, so that's what atheists think with.

263894af576298da8b.jpg
 
I still fail to see the attraction. Just because its a name of renown isnt going to make it a good read.
 
Last edited:
For those who are in Los Angeles, the originals (and some of the research materials) are on display through February in the Hammer Museum at UCLA.
 
I was just leafing through this in my local Waterstones. It looked good to me. Reminded me of the comics in the middle of the Epix trials in Sweden in the late 80's. I don't remember who the artist was, but the publisher (Horst Schröder) was put to trial under the brand new (1986) law against any form of sexual violence on film, which in 1989 was amended to include printed media, and so Medusa publishing were prosecuted by the Chancellor of Justice at the time (Hans Stark). It turned out that a Mary Whitehousesque group had started monitoring adult comics (very new at the time, and Medusa was the only publisher) in order to find something, anything, to prosecute for. The original accusation was of child pronography and breach of the above mentioned paragraph, which up until then had not been tried.

The Chancellor of Justice immediately dismissed the charge of child pornography, as the quoted comic did not include any children, only a doll and some assorted toys, but he upheld the other charge.

The comics that were on trial was an S&M story by Dori Seda, about a submissive office worker who spent the weekends as the dominatrix of her boss. The frame on which the charge rested was her shoving a bunch of freshly sharpened pencils up her bosses bum. (Although you don't actually see this due to the angle and dialogue covering parts of the scene.

There were a couple of other comics included in the charge, but most infamously a Neil Gaiman/Steve Gibson/Mike Mathews comic: the illustrated chapters nineteen through twentyone of Deuteronomy. This was also true to the original, and did not add anything for shock effect. The artists were not on charge, it was a matter of publishing, but some of them chose to appear as witness for the defence.

In the end the publisher, Horst Schröder, was aquitted but this whole trial means that in effect, the bible - or at least Deuteronomy - has been on trial for lewd content in Sweden.
 
I was just leafing through this in my local Waterstones. It looked good to me. Reminded me of the comics in the middle of the Epix trials in Sweden in the late 80's. I don't remember who the artist was, but the publisher (Horst Schröder) was put to trial under the brand new (1986) law against any form of sexual violence on film, which in 1989 was amended to include printed media, and so Medusa publishing were prosecuted by the Chancellor of Justice at the time (Hans Stark). It turned out that a Mary Whitehousesque group had started monitoring adult comics (very new at the time, and Medusa was the only publisher) in order to find something, anything, to prosecute for. The original accusation was of child pronography and breach of the above mentioned paragraph, which up until then had not been tried.

The Chancellor of Justice immediately dismissed the charge of child pornography, as the quoted comic did not include any children, only a doll and some assorted toys, but he upheld the other charge.

The comics that were on trial was an S&M story by Dori Seda, about a submissive office worker who spent the weekends as the dominatrix of her boss. The frame on which the charge rested was her shoving a bunch of freshly sharpened pencils up her bosses bum. (Although you don't actually see this due to the angle and dialogue covering parts of the scene.

There were a couple of other comics included in the charge, but most infamously a Neil Gaiman/Steve Gibson/Mike Mathews comic: the illustrated chapters nineteen through twentyone of Deuteronomy. This was also true to the original, and did not add anything for shock effect. The artists were not on charge, it was a matter of publishing, but some of them chose to appear as witness for the defence.

In the end the publisher, Horst Schröder, was aquitted but this whole trial means that in effect, the bible - or at least Deuteronomy - has been on trial for lewd content in Sweden.

The Swedish reflex of legislating morality disturbs me.

I like the country, but after a few days it gets all Brave New World for me.

Too clean, too nice, too controlled. I just want to get away, smoke cigarettes, smoke dope, drink too much, not separate my garbage, stroll through the red light district to buy a really greasy shoarma, use bad language. Have a beer on park bench.

Holland, it ain't that bad.
 
Last edited:
The Swedish reflex of legislating morality disturbs me.

I like the country, but after a few days it gets all Brave New World for me.

Too clean, too nice, too controlled. I just want to get away, smoke cigarettes, smoke dope, drink too much, not separate my garbage, stroll through the red light district to buy a really greasy shoarma, use bad language. Have a beer on park bench.

Holland, it ain't that bad.

So THAT'S why you like Gothenburg! ;)

ETA: People tend to believe that Sweden is very permissive. It always surprises people that this kind of thing used to go on as late as the eighties. Swedish courts are not ruled by the law, but by populism. Just look at the 2001 Gothenburg Riots aftermath and the Pirate Bay ruling. In the Riot trials there were so many miscarriages of justice we've stopped counting. People were convicted despite not even having been properly identified as the suspects. And as for Pirate Bay - a lot of people have moral issues with Pirate Bay, but there was actually no legal room to convict in the Swedish law, still there was a conviction. I.e. the conviction was against both the letter and the spirit of the law. Pirate Bat thought they were upa against the law so they felt rather safe. Turned out, the court was quite happy to break the law to get a conviction. It was a political conviction and not a legal one.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom