Clarifying "realism in comics" for Pat
Outpost2
The argument about "realism in comics", mostly between Pat O'Neill and
everyone else, has been raging on for a few weeks now so I thought I'd
take a shot at clarifying for Pat what I think we all mean by "realism".
Every fictional world in literature is crafted by its creator with
certain parameters, parameters which define what is and is not possible
given the framework of that fictional reality. What determines the
realism of a story is whether or not the characters within act as one
would imagine real people would act *in* such a world. The whole premise
of "Watchmen" was based on this concept: How would *real* people act in
a world of costumed heroes and villains, nuclear men, and genetically-
engineered "aliens"? The question is *not* "are such things as super-
heroes unrealisitic", but rather "do the characters within act like real
people act". For instance, a man from another planet who can fly under
his own power wouldn't be at all unrealistic in a Batman movie because
such things are possible in Batman's fictional world, however that
same flying man *would* be unrealistic in an Indiana Jones movie because
such things are *not* possible in Indy's reality. However, the use of
the Ark of the Covenant in an Indiana Jones movie *is* realistic because
the supernatural is an established part of Indy's world.
Look at it another way. Let's say a Jewish man decided he was going to
write a comic book about the horrors his father suffered at the hands of
the Nazis during World War II. Every word of it would be based on fact.
But, for whatever reason, he decided to depict the Nazis and Jews as
cats and mice. Would the story suddenly become unrealistic? A story
based on fact?! Would Pat say that Archie is more realistic that Maus?
After all, Archie has teen-agers in high school and Maus has talking
rodents! Again, the question is *not* "are such things as anthropomorphic
animals unrealisitic", but rather "do the characters within act like real
people act".
Pat, no one is asking you to *agree* with this definition of "realism",
just to acknowledge that you understand the subtle difference between
you definition and ours.
While I should stop here, let me just throw out a few examples of what
I consider "realistic" and "unrealistic" is both super-hero and Archie
comics. Examples of realism in super-hero comics: Roy Harper getting
hooked on drugs; Batgirl getting crippled; Jason Todd getting killed;
Wesley Dodds having a heart attack; the original Teen Titans growing up;
Clark Kent and Lois Lane getting married. Unrealistic: Friends of
Clark Kent not recognizing him as Superman; World War II characters with
teen-aged or twenty-something children; Rip Hunter utilizing a number
of different forms of time travel in "Time Masters" while Brainiac 5,
the most intelligent member of the most intelligent race in the galaxy,
is unable to do the same in "Legion of Super-Heroes". Things that are
*not* unrealistic (for the reasons explained above): Super-humans;
aliens; supernatural forces; psychics; hyperspace; time travel. Now,
examples of realism in Archie comics: Teen-agers going to high school;
teen-agers hanging out after school; teen-agers having fights.
Unrealistic: A high school full of teen-agers who don't smoke, drink,
or have sex; characters who don't age; characters who never grow from
their experiences. Things that are *not* unrealistic (for the reasons
explained above): Teen-age witches. Now compare my examples in the
super-hero comics to those in the Archie comics. Both are realistic,
but which is *more* realistic? That is a matter of opinion. But
hopefully, Pat, you can now at least see what we mean by "realism", even
if it doesn't match your own definition of the term.
Whew.