Comics a Literary Genre!
Warren
similar to the novel and poetry in literature.The additional advantage
of the Comic book is the fact that it depends on graphic art, which
includes characters, plots and themes as well.
Kate the Short --- Spamblocked!
That wouldn't be a literary genre. Genres are things like science fiction,
fantasy, historical fiction, realistic fiction, etc. Comics could cover
any of those genres.
Comics could be considered a literary *form*, along the lines of poetry,
epic poetry, narrative poetry novel, short story, novella, novel, etc.
kate.
| Kate the Short - http://www.enteract.com/~katew/ - ICQ# 8375030 |
| X-Men and Comic Book FAQs: http://www.enteract.com/~katew/faqs/ |
| Dungeons & Dragons rgfdFAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/faq/ |
| Alpha Delta Pi Sorority page: http://www.geocities.com/adpi-vu/ |
____________________________________________________________________
Would someone please explain to me why the triumph of Evil is
always accompanied by ugly, skimpy and non-functional clothing,
an exponential increase in power, and a total failure of intellect?
-- Dani Zweig
Menshevik
>>similar to the novel and poetry in literature.The additional advantage
>>of the Comic book is the fact that it depends on graphic art, which
>>includes characters, plots and themes as well.
>
>That wouldn't be a literary genre. Genres are things like science fiction,
>fantasy, historical fiction, realistic fiction, etc. Comics could cover
>any of those genres.
>
>Comics could be considered a literary *form*, along the lines of poetry,
>epic poetry, narrative poetry novel, short story, novella, novel, etc.
Or you could do what the French do, consider comics
a separate art form (the ninth art), on par with e.g. drama
and cinema (which it would perhaps resemble most through
its combination of words and pictures).
Tilman
"Who wants to read something about this subject will find it in a book, the
title of which I've forgotten. But it's the 42nd chapter."
Professor Johann Georg August Galletti (1750-1828)
Ginru
> >epic poetry, narrative poetry novel, short story, novella, novel, etc.
>
> Or you could do what the French do, consider comics
> a separate art form (the ninth art), on par with e.g. drama
> and cinema (which it would perhaps resemble most through
> its combination of words and pictures).
>
I fear that it will be a while before the comic industry is respected on
that level in the US. I still believe it's the continued dominance of the
superhero genre as well as the lack of progressive ideas that has kept the
mainstream view of comics from evolving. The western genre no longer
dominates the American film industry, and the samurai genre doesn't dominate
Japanese cinema so why are we stuck with traditional superheroes still being
the most popular genre in our comic industry?? It shows the degree of stale
creativity that has turned many people off to the art form.
I'd love to see the day when comics are treated with the same widespread
respect and critical consideration that is given to acclaimed works of
literature, fine arts, and film. But I don't think it is possible so long as
the public's main exposure to this art comes in the form of juvenile costume
designs, scantly dressed female characters in soft porn, and overly recycled
ideas from decades ago.
THE BISHOP
Literature" for three years now (with, of course, plenty of attention to
the artistic side, but it's offered under an English department's
curriculum), and love the opportunity to help foster the understanding
that comics are a literary and artistic form worthy of the same critical
analysis and academic examination as so-called "classic" literature,
film, etc.
Arnold
Menshevik
>> a separate art form (the ninth art), on par with e.g. drama
>> and cinema (which it would perhaps resemble most through
>> its combination of words and pictures).
>>
>
>I fear that it will be a while before the comic industry is respected on
>that level in the US. I still believe it's the continued dominance of the
>superhero genre as well as the lack of progressive ideas that has kept the
>mainstream view of comics from evolving. The western genre no longer
>dominates the American film industry, and the samurai genre doesn't dominate
>Japanese cinema so why are we stuck with traditional superheroes still being
>the most popular genre in our comic industry?? It shows the degree of stale
>creativity that has turned many people off to the art form.
>
>I'd love to see the day when comics are treated with the same widespread
>respect and critical consideration that is given to acclaimed works of
>literature, fine arts, and film. But I don't think it is possible so long as
>the public's main exposure to this art comes in the form of juvenile costume
>designs, scantly dressed female characters in soft porn, and overly recycled
>ideas from decades ago.
No, I don't think so at all.
I was arguing that comics should be treated as a separate art
form as opposed to classifying them as a genre or form
of a different art, viz. literary texts. Although you can treat
comics as literature, you then leave out important other
aspects (as you would, e.g. by looking at an opera as only
literature, ignoring the musical score, to say nothing of
the way that score is performed, the way the stage is set and the
way the singers act, sing and possibly dance their parts in a
given performance).
The problem with the low general esteem of comics in America
I think has to do with a widespread reluctance to treat popular forms
of entertainment as art. For instance, for the longest time most US
film directors (discounting immigrants from European countries)
simply refused to admit they were creating art (John Ford is a
famous example of this) and from my far from perfect knowledge
of the subject it seems to me that most of the important writing
on film theory and esthetics was written abroad (isn't it
remarkable, for instance, that one supremely American genre of
film is known by a French name -- film noir?).
As for the general perception of comics -- critics in America
(outside comics fandom, that is) only rarely seem to have had
much interest in comics, one of the few times seems to have been
in the early 1970s, when they were reacting to the 'Marvel Revolution'
and the then-current "relevance". But on the whole it seems to me
that the general failure to appreciate comics as an art form
is not primarily the fault of those who produce comics. So a lot of
the stuff being put out today is not very good, so what?
Why should comics be exempt from Sturgeon's Law
(90 percent of everything is crap)? The problem is not that
so much of the current comic production is bad, or juvenile
(juvenile literature and movies seem to be treated with more
respect than comics sometimes) or that they could be described
as soft porn (some literary classics and famous works of art can
and have been described as worse), but that people will ignore
the great works of the comics art form, whether or not
they are using the crappy stuff as a pretext.
A few other points:
The western no longer dominates the American film industry,
but then I am not sure if it in fact ever did. Still, people have
written histories of western movies, usually focusing on the
American ones.
Samurai movies may no longer dominate the Japanese cinema, but
Japanese cinema achieved its high world-wide esteem
mainly because of its samurai films (how many of us could list
as many as ten or even six great Japanese films that could
not be described as samurai movies? Sure, some of
Gojira/Godzilla's successors were commercially successful
abroad, but could you in all honesty describe them as great movies?)
So the perceived genre "samurai movie" does not seem to
have hurt the reputation of Japanese cinema, nor, in some
cases, did recycled plots (e.g. Throne of Blood and Ran are
recognized as great films even though Kurosawa took their
plots from Shakespeare).
Grant Enfield
"Kate the Short --- Spamblocked!" <ka...@enteract.com.invalid> wrote in
message news:oftq5u8o6tt98pdqt...@4ax.com...
> Comics could be considered a literary *form*, along the lines of poetry,
> epic poetry, narrative poetry novel, short story, novella, novel, etc.
I'd refine this a bit more and say that comics is a *medium* like print
text, film, or oil on canvass. The forms for comics would be things like
short single-issue story, short serial, long serial, long story (or novel),
ongoing serial, and that sort of thing.
grant
Grant Enfield
"Ginru" <gi...@lycos.com> wrote in message news:a3k2o2$n...@portal.gmu.edu...
> I'd love to see the day when comics are treated with the same widespread
> respect and critical consideration that is given to acclaimed works of
> literature, fine arts, and film.
Flim studies as a discipline is only about thirty or so years old judging by
the age of its journals, with Literature/Film Quarterly being around volume
28 or 30. And I don't think many American universities have Film studies
departments, though many are offering graduate degrees or certificates in
film or media studies.
However, getting critical consideration in the academy doesn't correlate
with "widespread respect"--American cinema is still seen as pretty much
lowbrow entertainment. (And I don't think that it's either the duty or the
inclination of scholars to teach comics "appreciation.")
> But I don't think it is possible so long as
> the public's main exposure to this art comes in the form of juvenile
costume
> designs, scantly dressed female characters in soft porn, and overly
recycled
> ideas from decades ago.
Well, subject matter and execution don't necessarily correlate with critical
attention.
Critical attention to comics will come the same way that it did for film,
with critics writing articles about comics. That's likely to happen first
with comics adaptations of "literary" material because those articles will
have a much better chance of seeing print in the existing journals.
grant
John Savard
part:
>Or you could do what the French do, consider comics
>a separate art form (the ninth art), on par with e.g. drama
>and cinema (which it would perhaps resemble most through
>its combination of words and pictures).
Yes, it is related to film or drama.
To call it the ninth art, however, invites one to ask - is it trivial,
or quadrivial?
Menshevik
>or quadrivial?
Duovial (i.e. belonging to the two that make up the
difference between the sum of the trivial (3) and quadrivial (4)
and the total of nine). ;-)
Ginru
> form as opposed to classifying them as a genre or form
> of a different art, viz. literary texts.
I already see it as a seperate art form and I bet others who appreciate
comics see it that way as well. I was commenting on how the general public
continues to look at it as a simple and immature form of literature. We may
treat it differently but the majority outweighs us.
> Although you can treat
> comics as literature, you then leave out important other
> aspects (as you would, e.g. by looking at an opera as only
> literature, ignoring the musical score, to say nothing of
> the way that score is performed, the way the stage is set and the
> way the singers act, sing and possibly dance their parts in a
> given performance).
I totally agree.
>
> The problem with the low general esteem of comics in America
> I think has to do with a widespread reluctance to treat popular forms
> of entertainment as art. For instance, for the longest time most US
> film directors (discounting immigrants from European countries)
> simply refused to admit they were creating art (John Ford is a
> famous example of this) and from my far from perfect knowledge
> of the subject it seems to me that most of the important writing
> on film theory and esthetics was written abroad (isn't it
> remarkable, for instance, that one supremely American genre of
> film is known by a French name -- film noir?).
You have a good point. Indeed there is often an elitist resistance to
respecting anything popular as art. At one time the American film industry
may have been under-appreciated but general opinion on it has evolved since
then. People have grown to distinguish between thoughtful film art and
shallow pop-entertainment (except in the cases of Titanic and Gladiator).
I'm hoping a similar evolution in appreciation will occur for the comic
industry.
>
> As for the general perception of comics -- critics in America
> (outside comics fandom, that is) only rarely seem to have had
> much interest in comics, one of the few times seems to have been
> in the early 1970s, when they were reacting to the 'Marvel Revolution'
> and the then-current "relevance". But on the whole it seems to me
> that the general failure to appreciate comics as an art form
> is not primarily the fault of those who produce comics. So a lot of
> the stuff being put out today is not very good, so what?
> Why should comics be exempt from Sturgeon's Law
> (90 percent of everything is crap)? The problem is not that
> so much of the current comic production is bad, or juvenile
> (juvenile literature and movies seem to be treated with more
> respect than comics sometimes) or that they could be described
> as soft porn (some literary classics and famous works of art can
> and have been described as worse), but that people will ignore
> the great works of the comics art form, whether or not
> they are using the crappy stuff as a pretext.
Another good point. But isn't it strange that the general perception has not
changed over the years like it has for the film industry? The 10 percent of
non-crap (Maus, Sin City, Sandman, etc.) should have been enough to make up
for the 90% of trash (as it has for TV, film, music, and other entertainment
industries). Perhaps it's because of the subject matter of those classics.
Maybe we need more breakthrough comics...something that has the depth to
attract intellectual critics, the style to attract the mainstream comic
collectors, and the social relevance to attract the general public.
>
> A few other points:
> The western no longer dominates the American film industry,
> but then I am not sure if it in fact ever did. Still, people have
> written histories of western movies, usually focusing on the
> American ones.
I think this is because western movies were such a popular reflection of
mainstream american culture in the past. I suppose this explains why many
foreigners once referred to us as "John Wayne cowboys" when Americans went
to war.
> Samurai movies may no longer dominate the Japanese cinema, but
> Japanese cinema achieved its high world-wide esteem
> mainly because of its samurai films (how many of us could list
> as many as ten or even six great Japanese films that could
> not be described as samurai movies?
That depends on if we disregard anime. Miyazaki's storytelling genius should
never be overlooked. And no one here has argued against the PAST influence
of samurai movies, but the thing to remember is that they moved forward from
that.
Sure, some of
> Gojira/Godzilla's successors were commercially successful
> abroad, but could you in all honesty describe them as great movies?)
> So the perceived genre "samurai movie" does not seem to
> have hurt the reputation of Japanese cinema, nor, in some
> cases, did recycled plots (e.g. Throne of Blood and Ran are
> recognized as great films even though Kurosawa took their
> plots from Shakespeare).
Of course it hasn't hurt the reputation.This is because Japanese cinema has
progressed past it. They've used animation to stylishly touch on a variety
of interesting issues and thus contribute to the growth of the movie art
form. They no longer rely on samurai movies, yet our comic industry still
relies on superheroes. This is why I'm hoping that online comics will
somehow spark a much needed evolution in this industry. It offers a low cost
way to publish stories in much the same way that animation offered the
Japanese an economical way to produce movies (since they lacked the
space/funding that the Hollywood filmmakers have).
Ginru
> with "widespread respect"--American cinema is still seen as pretty much
> lowbrow entertainment.
I think we've learned to distinguish the quality films from the lowbrow
cinema. If a professor can't seperate 'Citizen Kane' from 'Freddy Got
Fingered', then I don't think he should be teaching anything.
>(And I don't think that it's either the duty or the
> inclination of scholars to teach comics "appreciation.")
Not yet. Things may change in the future and that's what I'm hoping for.
> Well, subject matter and execution don't necessarily correlate with
critical
> attention.
But they do correlate with how much the public appreciates an art form. If
the public can relate to the characters and content of a well-executed
story, then they're more likely to view it favorably. And with popularity
comes more critical attention.
>
> Critical attention to comics will come the same way that it did for film,
> with critics writing articles about comics. That's likely to happen first
> with comics adaptations of "literary" material because those articles will
> have a much better chance of seeing print in the existing journals.
>
I think there had to be some popularity with the general public before the
media could justify writing movie reviews. Comics don't have that popularity
yet and I don't think they'd get it from making literary adaptations.
Grant Enfield
"Ginru" <gi...@lycos.com> wrote in message news:a3kuoo$g...@portal.gmu.edu...
> > However, getting critical consideration in the academy doesn't correlate
> > with "widespread respect"--American cinema is still seen as pretty much
> > lowbrow entertainment.
>
> I think we've learned to distinguish the quality films from the lowbrow
> cinema. If a professor can't seperate 'Citizen Kane' from 'Freddy Got
> Fingered', then I don't think he should be teaching anything.
When I said that American cinema is still seen as lowbrow entertainment, I
meant that it was the gernal movie-going audience that sees it pretty much
as lowbrow entertainment. How often do movie-goers reject critical analysis
of movies by pointing out, "It's only a *movie*"?
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with professors and Citizen Kane
and Freddy Got Fingered. I think it's pretty clear that the two are
different kinds of films, but if you're saying that one is worth teaching
and the other isn't, then I'll argue that which one is worth teaching
depends entirely on what sort of class it is.
> >(And I don't think that it's either the duty or the
> > inclination of scholars to teach comics "appreciation.")
>
> Not yet. Things may change in the future and that's what I'm hoping for.
Are you saying that you hope that it will be the inclination or duty of
scholars to teach comics appreciation?
I think (and lots of those in my profession would agree with me) that it's
*never* the job of scholars to teach appreciation of anything. While there
can be some nearly universal agreements about some things working very well
and others not working well at all, what folks like is a matter of
*taste*--things aren't objectively good or bad that way.
> > Well, subject matter and execution don't necessarily correlate with
> > critical attention.
>
> But they do correlate with how much the public appreciates an art form.
Not true.
Armageddon was a movie that ignored what I consider to be fundamental
storytelling devices (though it managed some other stunning
accomplishments), but it's a popular success.
> And with popularity comes more critical attention.
Also not true.
Blade Runner is written about much more than many other movies. While that
has quite a bit to do with its numerous releases in various forms (each one
being an opportunity to publish timely articles), it's out of complete
disproportion to its popularity.
> I think there had to be some popularity with the general public before the
> media could justify writing movie reviews. Comics don't have that
popularity
> yet and I don't think they'd get it from making literary adaptations.
I think you're mistaking critical articles in scholarly journals with
reviews in popular magazines or newspapers. There is some market for
critical reviews of movies in popular media, but not much compared to the
market for popular reviews. I was talking about scholarly articles intended
for scholarly audiences--that's what I understand as "critical attention."
grant
Ginru
Grant Enfield <enf...@wam.NO.umd.SPAM.edu> wrote in message
news:a3l6tj$10o$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
>
> "Ginru" <gi...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:a3kuoo$g...@portal.gmu.edu...
>
> > > However, getting critical consideration in the academy doesn't
correlate
> > > with "widespread respect"--American cinema is still seen as pretty
much
> > > lowbrow entertainment.
> >
> > I think we've learned to distinguish the quality films from the lowbrow
> > cinema. If a professor can't seperate 'Citizen Kane' from 'Freddy Got
> > Fingered', then I don't think he should be teaching anything.
>
> When I said that American cinema is still seen as lowbrow entertainment, I
> meant that it was the gernal movie-going audience that sees it pretty much
> as lowbrow entertainment. How often do movie-goers reject critical
analysis
> of movies by pointing out, "It's only a *movie*"?
The people that would say something like that would normally be the same
ones to reject critical analysis of 'Crime and Punishment' by saying "It's
only a *book*". Does that mean literature is seen as lowbrow entertainment
too??? There's a difference between someone seeing something as lowbrow and
someone not caring to analyze it.
>
> I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with professors and Citizen Kane
> and Freddy Got Fingered. I think it's pretty clear that the two are
> different kinds of films, but if you're saying that one is worth teaching
> and the other isn't, then I'll argue that which one is worth teaching
> depends entirely on what sort of class it is.
I was referring to your claim that people see film as lowbrow entertainment.
I said that it was quite simple to distinguish a film of depth from a simple
flick not meant to be taken seriously (aka lowbrow entertainment).
> Are you saying that you hope that it will be the inclination or duty of
> scholars to teach comics appreciation?
>
> I think (and lots of those in my profession would agree with me) that it's
> *never* the job of scholars to teach appreciation of anything. While there
> can be some nearly universal agreements about some things working very
well
> and others not working well at all, what folks like is a matter of
> *taste*--things aren't objectively good or bad that way.
>
I think we have a disagreement on what constitutes "appreciation". I am not
referring to liking or disliking something. That is indeed a matter of
taste. I'm talking about respecting something as a true art form. For
instance, someone may not *like* rap music but they can still appreciate it
as a viable musical genre requiring skill to perform. The ones that don't
appreciate it would normally say something like "I don't get it. They're
just talking!". When a teacher takes his students to a museum, he is trying
to give them a great appreciation of fine arts. When Arnold (THE BISHOP)
mentioned in an earlier post that he was teaching a comic course, it's
evident how he's trying to give his students a deeper appreciation of this
art form.
>
> > > Well, subject matter and execution don't necessarily correlate with
> > > critical attention.
> >
> > But they do correlate with how much the public appreciates an art form.
>
> Not true.
>
> Armageddon was a movie that ignored what I consider to be fundamental
> storytelling devices (though it managed some other stunning
> accomplishments), but it's a popular success.
Perhaps the people that liked it and made that movie a box office success
had believed it to be well executed?
I haven't seen it myself so I can't comment on its quality. Though if the
public didn't care for the subject matter and execution of today's movies,
then I doubt the film industry would be doing so well during the recession.
Audiences would have been finding other ways to spend their money/time,
which is definitely not the case.
>
>
> > And with popularity comes more critical attention.
>
> Also not true.
>
> Blade Runner is written about much more than many other movies. While that
> has quite a bit to do with its numerous releases in various forms (each
one
> being an opportunity to publish timely articles), it's out of complete
> disproportion to its popularity.
I was talking about how mainstream success for the comic industry would lead
to greater critical attention (since it's obvious that popular *demand*
would persuade the media to *supply* articles on the topic). I'm not sure
why you think Blade Runner relates to that statement.
BTW I personally consider Blade Runner to be a scifi classic. It's an
influential film that inspired the futuristic cyberpunk genre of anime.
>
> > I think there had to be some popularity with the general public before
the
> > media could justify writing movie reviews. Comics don't have that
> popularity
> > yet and I don't think they'd get it from making literary adaptations.
>
> I think you're mistaking critical articles in scholarly journals with
> reviews in popular magazines or newspapers. There is some market for
> critical reviews of movies in popular media, but not much compared to the
> market for popular reviews. I was talking about scholarly articles
intended
> for scholarly audiences--that's what I understand as "critical attention."
I'm not talking about scholarly journals. Why would mainstream audiences
bother reading those?? I'm talking about entertainment critics because
audiences actually read their reviews (and advertisers use their opinions to
sell a product). I was describing my hopes that comics of the future will
have achieved enough public attention that magazines and newspapers would be
forced to devote more articles/columns to it.
Paul "Duggy" Duggan
>I think we have a disagreement on what constitutes "appreciation". I am not
>referring to liking or disliking something. That is indeed a matter of
>taste. I'm talking about respecting something as a true art form.
True. We are in no way required to like the films in my Film Appreciation
classes, just discuss them.
---
- Dug.
---
The Hand make The Shadows look like insects.
---
Menshevik
>> I think has to do with a widespread reluctance to treat popular forms
>> of entertainment as art. For instance, for the longest time most US
>> film directors (discounting immigrants from European countries)
>> simply refused to admit they were creating art (John Ford is a
>> famous example of this) and from my far from perfect knowledge
>> of the subject it seems to me that most of the important writing
>> on film theory and esthetics was written abroad (isn't it
>> remarkable, for instance, that one supremely American genre of
>> film is known by a French name -- film noir?).
>
>You have a good point. Indeed there is often an elitist resistance to
>respecting anything popular as art. At one time the American film industry
>may have been under-appreciated but general opinion on it has evolved since
>then.
I was more thinking of US film-makers' self-image as more a kind
of craftsmen than as artists. As far as I see, that did not really change
until the 1970s, by which time they had a big body of literature
written by foreigners to build upon.
>> As for the general perception of comics -- critics in America
>> (outside comics fandom, that is) only rarely seem to have had
>> much interest in comics, one of the few times seems to have been
>> in the early 1970s, when they were reacting to the 'Marvel Revolution'
>> and the then-current "relevance". But on the whole it seems to me
>> that the general failure to appreciate comics as an art form
>> is not primarily the fault of those who produce comics. So a lot of
>> the stuff being put out today is not very good, so what?
>> Why should comics be exempt from Sturgeon's Law
>> (90 percent of everything is crap)? The problem is not that
>> so much of the current comic production is bad, or juvenile
>> (juvenile literature and movies seem to be treated with more
>> respect than comics sometimes) or that they could be described
>> as soft porn (some literary classics and famous works of art can
>> and have been described as worse), but that people will ignore
>> the great works of the comics art form, whether or not
>> they are using the crappy stuff as a pretext.
>
>Another good point. But isn't it strange that the general perception has not
>changed over the years like it has for the film industry?
No. For one thing, there is simply a lot more secondary literature
available about the film industry, about the esthetics of films etc.
and the film and TV industry is much better at marketing itself,
in part because it spends more money on PR and documentary
features.
>The 10 percent of
>non-crap (Maus, Sin City, Sandman, etc.) should have been enough to make up
>for the 90% of trash (as it has for TV, film, music, and other entertainment
>industries). Perhaps it's because of the subject matter of those classics.
>Maybe we need more breakthrough comics...something that has the depth to
>attract intellectual critics, the style to attract the mainstream comic
>collectors, and the social relevance to attract the general public.
I don't really think so. If anything, social relevance seems to be
a turn-off to the general public in most fields and I for instance see
little social relevance in a comic like Sin City (which seems
to me firmly rooted in the traditions and conventions of the
hard-boild detictive genre). Also, how do you define "depth"?
When I see When I look at Europe, the comics that received
the most critical attention and adulation are Tintin, Asterix and
Carl Barks' Duck stories, which fans of the like of Sandman etc.
might find lacking in depth.
Oh, something I forgot to put in my last post: One should also
not forget that comic books are only part of the picture. As
the comic-book market has been shrinking over the past
years, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the comics the general
public is actually the most aware of are those it sees on the funny
pages of newspapers?
We have over a century of comics to look at, and part of the
problem is not just that people ignore the good stuff that is
being produced today, but also the classics of the past, that
for instance the creators of the great age of American newspaper
comic strips do not receive the kind of general attention
that they deserve.
>> A few other points:
>> The western no longer dominates the American film industry,
>> but then I am not sure if it in fact ever did. Still, people have
>> written histories of western movies, usually focusing on the
>> American ones.
>
>I think this is because western movies were such a popular reflection of
>mainstream american culture in the past. I suppose this explains why many
>foreigners once referred to us as "John Wayne cowboys" when Americans went
>to war.
I think that was most noticeable during the presidency
of Ronald Reagan, who had acted in a few Westerns himself.
>> Samurai movies may no longer dominate the Japanese cinema, but
>> Japanese cinema achieved its high world-wide esteem
>> mainly because of its samurai films (how many of us could list
>> as many as ten or even six great Japanese films that could
>> not be described as samurai movies?
>
>That depends on if we disregard anime. Miyazaki's storytelling genius should
>never be overlooked.
And why should we not disregard anime? The stuff that achieves
success outside Japan mostly falls out of the picture
because it is noti films, but material produced for television, and
what Japanese anime films are genuinely appreciated outside
the "ghetto" of anime and comics fandom? I'm not really an
anime fan, the only cinematic anime releases within the past
decade that caught my attention (and I didn't go to see any of
them) were Princess Mononoke and the Pokémon films.
> And no one here has argued against the PAST influence
>of samurai movies, but the thing to remember is that they moved forward from
>that.
Which may be a good thing, but did not really do anything to enhance
the reputation of Japanese cinema (it is probably safe to say
that as far as current production goes, the reputation of the
Japanese cinema industry is now not as high as it was in the
1950s, 60s and 70s, when most of the Japanese films
released abroad to critical acclaim were samurai movies).
> Sure, some of
>> Gojira/Godzilla's successors were commercially successful
>> abroad, but could you in all honesty describe them as great movies?)
>> So the perceived genre "samurai movie" does not seem to
>> have hurt the reputation of Japanese cinema, nor, in some
>> cases, did recycled plots (e.g. Throne of Blood and Ran are
>> recognized as great films even though Kurosawa took their
>> plots from Shakespeare).
>
>Of course it hasn't hurt the reputation.This is because Japanese cinema has
>progressed past it.
No it isn't. It is because they are great movies.
> They've used animation to stylishly touch on a variety
>of interesting issues and thus contribute to the growth of the movie art
>form. They no longer rely on samurai movies, yet our comic industry still
>relies on superheroes.
I think this comes close to falling into the trap of dismissing a
genre wholesale -- it belongs to a certain genre, therefore
it can't be good. The way I see it, a large part of the problem is
that critics can't be bothered to distinguish a good superhero
story from a bad one, not that the superhero genre dominates the
comic-book field in the US, for which I think the comic-buying
audience is at least as much to blame as the comic-book industry.
After all, a lot of non-superhero comics are still being produced,
but apparently not enough people will buy them in the US.
(I find it interesting for instance that Walt Disney comics
and The Simpsons sell
better in absolute numbers in some European countries than
in the U.S.).
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I was talking about how mainstream success for the comic industry would lead
> to greater critical attention (since it's obvious that popular *demand*
> would persuade the media to *supply* articles on the topic). I'm not sure
> why you think Blade Runner relates to that statement.
Because critical attention is not directly proportional to mainstream
success. TV critics wrote a ton about Twin Peaks, for example -- but it was
hardly an unqualified success.
> I'm not talking about scholarly journals. Why would mainstream audiences
> bother reading those??
Scholarly journals can be very influential on acceptance of a medium -- see
the earlier example brought up of the French film commentators.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: February Previews, Teenagers from Mars, Sandwalk Adventures
Congressman Thompson
> Couldn't agree more. I've been teaching a course in "Comics as
> Literature" for three years now (with, of course, plenty of attention to
> the artistic side, but it's offered under an English department's
> curriculum), and love the opportunity to help foster the understanding
> that comics are a literary and artistic form worthy of the same critical
> analysis and academic examination as so-called "classic" literature,
> film, etc.
>
> Arnold
Would it be appropriate for you to post an outline of your course
materials? I assume McCloud's work is in there, but what else do you
reference to bolster the idea?
thompson
Ginru
Johanna Draper Carlson <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote in message
news:B883F4E4.5E063%joh...@comicsworthreading.com...
>
> Because critical attention is not directly proportional to mainstream
> success. TV critics wrote a ton about Twin Peaks, for example -- but it
was
> hardly an unqualified success.
I never said the process worked backwards. I said popular success would
*lead* to greater critic/media attention (since entertainment
columns/articles would have to be attentive to whatever interests the
public). You're both listing examples (BR, Twin Peaks) that never had
popular success. The media will often jump the gun to report on things that
they *think* will be popular or feel should be popular, but that doesn't
necessarily mean that the public will embrace it (Spielberg's A.I. comes to
mind). But if something is popular to begin with, then the media has to
report on it since that is how they stay in business.
>
> Scholarly journals can be very influential on acceptance of a medium --
see
> the earlier example brought up of the French film commentators.
>
I believe Menshevik was illustrating how people, particularly those in the
industry (Ford), refused to accept something popular as art. I think that
old opinion came from a narrow view and close-minded appreciation of what
constitutes art. Fortunately comic creators today already realize that what
they are doing is art, and the current fans believe that too. So the next
step is to get John Q. Public to agree with us and to support the industry.
Since they won't care to read a "Beauty of Comics" encyclopedia or a
"History of Comics" essay, then I don't feel the scholarly approach will be
effective to winning them over.
I believe the Web offers a new frontier for comics to expand into. It offers
a higher level of dynamic design mixed with cheaper production costs (no
more paper!!) that could essentially revolutionize the way comics are
created, marketed, and perceived. I'm hopeful that this will be the way in
which we establish mainstream support in the future.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I said popular success would *lead* to greater critic/media attention (since
> entertainment columns/articles would have to be attentive to whatever
> interests the public).
I think there's some confusion over what you mean by popular success,
specifically. There's a difference between saying
"if comics get popular, we'll see more articles on comics (of any kind)" and
"if comics get popular, we'll see more articles on popular comics". I'm
trying to say that the latter doesn't necessarily happen.
> if something is popular to begin with, then the media has to
> report on it since that is how they stay in business.
Not necessarily. Do you see a lot of Nascar or pro wrestling coverage?
They're incredibly popular (measured by attendance and sales), but they
aren't reported on much.
> Since they won't care to read a "Beauty of Comics" encyclopedia or a
> "History of Comics" essay, then I don't feel the scholarly approach will be
> effective to winning them over.
I disagree. When I taught college, I opened some kids' eyes to comics by
assigning them to read some in class. Depends on the approach, of course --
scholarly writing can be dull.
Grant Enfield
"Ginru" <gi...@lycos.com> wrote in message news:a3lgps$n...@portal.gmu.edu...
> The people that would say something like that would normally be the same
> ones to reject critical analysis of 'Crime and Punishment' by saying "It's
> only a *book*". Does that mean literature is seen as lowbrow entertainment
> too???
No. But that's because "literature" designates a subset of print media
that's considered highbrow art. It's an artificial distinction that's used
to say, this stuff over here is worth reading and writing about and that
stuff over there isn't. People know Crime and Punishment is "literature" the
same way they know that Citizen Kane is "art"--someone told them. And that
distinction between highbrow and lowbrow is already made, I think, in
comics: Sandman is "literary," and mainstream superhero stuff is not.
Actually, Maus would be a much better example than Sandman because Maus
actually gets ink in history and lit journals.
> I was referring to your claim that people see film as lowbrow
entertainment.
> I said that it was quite simple to distinguish a film of depth from a
simple
> flick not meant to be taken seriously (aka lowbrow entertainment).
And I'll point out that many subjects that lots of people would argue are
"simple" and "not meant to be taken seriously" are actually complex and can
be taken seriously (whether they were meant to be or not). Popular romance
novels and slasher films have received quite a bit of (often well-deserved)
scholarly attention recently, and Alien also gets a disproportionate amount
of space in film journals.
> I think we have a disagreement on what constitutes "appreciation". I am
not
> referring to liking or disliking something. That is indeed a matter of
> taste. I'm talking about respecting something as a true art form.
And I think that what's a "true art form" is a matter of arbitrary cultural
determination. Okay, it's actually not arbitrary--it's what the culture
wants to preserve (generally because it helps preserve the status quo for
the culture).
> For
> instance, someone may not *like* rap music but they can still appreciate
it
> as a viable musical genre requiring skill to perform. The ones that don't
> appreciate it would normally say something like "I don't get it. They're
> just talking!". When a teacher takes his students to a museum, he is
trying
> to give them a great appreciation of fine arts.
Perhaps. Or she may be giving students the opportunity to see what the
subjects of the class are really like instead of just seeing plates in
textbooks. With that approach, a trip to the museum would be no more about
giving students a great appreciation of art than a trip to the zoo would be
about giving students a great appreciation of animals. (And if that's what
you meant me to understand from the start, then now we agree. :)
>When Arnold (THE BISHOP)
> mentioned in an earlier post that he was teaching a comic course, it's
> evident how he's trying to give his students a deeper appreciation of this
> art form.
Exposing people to things that they may or may not like because, hey, they
might like it is lots different from explaining to people what's "good"
about it and teaching them that they should like it.
> I was talking about how mainstream success for the comic industry would
lead
> to greater critical attention (since it's obvious that popular *demand*
> would persuade the media to *supply* articles on the topic). I'm not sure
> why you think Blade Runner relates to that statement.
It's because I misunderstood your earlier statement about wanting comics to
receive greater critical attention to mean greater scholarly attention
rather than greater attention from the mass media.
> I'm not talking about scholarly journals. Why would mainstream audiences
> bother reading those?? I'm talking about entertainment critics because
> audiences actually read their reviews (and advertisers use their opinions
to
> sell a product). I was describing my hopes that comics of the future will
> have achieved enough public attention that magazines and newspapers would
be
> forced to devote more articles/columns to it.
And I misunderstood what sort of attention you were hoping for.
If you want more reviews of comic books to appear in mass media, then I
think you're right, there needs to be a market for such reviews. However, I
don't think that mass media reviews equate to "critical attention" because
most mass media reviews simply try to match their audience's taste to the
subject--if people will like it, then the movie gets a good review, for
example.
What it seems to me that you want is for there to be a large group of
consumers who share your tastes in comics that will encourage mass media
reviewers to laud those comics you like (because they're good, right?). And
yeah, I think we'd *all* like that. :)
grant
Henry Spencer
Johanna Draper Carlson <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>> if something is popular to begin with, then the media has to
>> report on it since that is how they stay in business.
>
>Not necessarily. Do you see a lot of Nascar or pro wrestling coverage?
>They're incredibly popular (measured by attendance and sales), but they
>aren't reported on much.
Somewhat closer to home, just *try* to find reviews of romance novels in
the media. And they are popular; they sell like hotcakes compared to the
"literary" novels that the media cover at length.
--
Many things changed on Sept. 11, but the | Henry Spencer he...@spsystems.net
importance of freedom did not. -SpaceNews| (aka he...@zoo.toronto.edu)
THE BISHOP
necessarily to perpetuate a lot of his theories, but to introduce a
common language for analysis. In fact, most students tend to disagree
vehemently with some of his assertions, but it makes for some good
conversations.
Following that, the rest of the course is spent reading a lot of comic
stories, built around some larger graphic novels and supplemented by
individual issues where appropriate. MAUS is a major lynchpin of the
course obviously, as is WATCHMEN, and we also weave through some
examples of comics hybridizing with non-fiction, such as in Rick Geary's
FATAL BULLET. We touch on STRANGERS IN PARADISE, some early DC and
Marvel hero stories, and there's a lot more as well. In the last
semester I added the Jimmy Corrigan novel, but that met with a
surprising amount of sheer resistance. Virtually no one enjoyed it and
many students had trouble even discussing it intelligently. It was too
opaque to them. I don't think I'll use it next time unless I can think
of a better or more dynamic way to approach it.
And no, no SANDMAN yet. The course is very much a work in progress, and
sad to say, I haven't read much of the series or know it well enough to
do it justice until I delve a little deeper.
Arnold
John M. Gamble
THE BISHOP <theb...@geocities.com> wrote:
>I do indeed use McCloud as a sort of "text book" and starting point, not
>necessarily to perpetuate a lot of his theories, but to introduce a
>common language for analysis. In fact, most students tend to disagree
>vehemently with some of his assertions, but it makes for some good
>conversations.
>
>Following that, the rest of the course is spent reading a lot of comic
>stories, built around some larger graphic novels and supplemented by
>individual issues where appropriate. MAUS is a major lynchpin of the
>course obviously, as is WATCHMEN, and we also weave through some
>examples of comics hybridizing with non-fiction, such as in Rick Geary's
>FATAL BULLET. We touch on STRANGERS IN PARADISE, some early DC and
>Marvel hero stories, and there's a lot more as well. In the last
Do you teach it solely on the basis of the stories and art, or do
you trace the evolution that leads from the early hero stories to
the niches occupied by Watchmen, Strangers In Paradise, etc.?
There's a professor at Northwestern that has used 100 Bullets in
his (non-comics) English class.
>semester I added the Jimmy Corrigan novel, but that met with a
>surprising amount of sheer resistance. Virtually no one enjoyed it and
>many students had trouble even discussing it intelligently. It was too
>opaque to them. I don't think I'll use it next time unless I can think
>of a better or more dynamic way to approach it.
I'm actually not surprised - it is very dense and detailed work, and i've
read a great deal of analysis of individual themes in the book that took
me by surprise - it's amazing how many layers exist in the book. It
would be hard to do it justice (from a student's perspective) simply due
to the competition for the student's attention from other courses.
>
>And no, no SANDMAN yet. The course is very much a work in progress, and
>sad to say, I haven't read much of the series or know it well enough to
>do it justice until I delve a little deeper.
Doing all of Sandman might be a bit much, and if you were to do only one
title from Sandman, there might be a problem with back-references - you'd
have to write up a long set of footnotes (on the other hand, the Sandman
Annotations are still on line, i think - i'd have to check).
-john
February 28 1997: Last day libraries could order catalogue cards
from the Library of Congress.
THE BISHOP
John M. Gamble wrote:
> Do you teach it solely on the basis of the stories and art, or do
> you trace the evolution that leads from the early hero stories to
> the niches occupied by Watchmen, Strangers In Paradise, etc.?
Both, really. The course is vaguely structured to reflect a certain
chronological progression, starting arbitrarily from the birth of the
American comic book as a physical object in the mid- to late '30s and on
to the present day. The superhero material provides the skeletal
timeline and then we diverge where appropriate to look at themes like
comics as history, comics adapting pre-existing literature (which means
I get to assign CLASSICS in a college course :) ), and so on.
> I'm actually not surprised - it is very dense and detailed work
Very true, yet WATCHMEN is also very complex when you start to take it
apart, but for some reason it works a hell of a lot better in a class
context. Students seem to be able to deconstruct with far more facility
and enthusiasm. I think Jimmy just leaves most kids cold and depressed -
which is pretty much the whole point, isn't it? :)
> Doing all of Sandman might be a bit much, and if you were to do only one
> title from Sandman, there might be a problem with back-references
Possibly, but I think using a single arc in the trade paperback form
should work fine with a bit of grounding in the background basics. I
don't think it would be a problem, just not something I feel confident
adding until I really examine it myself. I'm long overdue anyway, I
think. 75 issues just waiting for me to dive in.
Arnold
Jeff Coleman
"THE BISHOP" <theb...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:3C60A6A1...@geocities.com...
> Very true, yet WATCHMEN is also very complex when you start to take it
> apart, but for some reason it works a hell of a lot better in a class
> context. Students seem to be able to deconstruct with far more facility
> and enthusiasm. I think Jimmy just leaves most kids cold and depressed -
> which is pretty much the whole point, isn't it? :)
I'm not a college kid and it leaves ME cold and depressed. I find it kind
of a drag that just about every time comics have come in conversation with
someone here in NY, that the "Jimmy Corrigan" book is about the only thing
folks know about.
It's less of a drag than if they thought comics had been dead for thirty
years, but I'd much rather talk about (and read) comics that can lead to me
enjoying myself, rather than having the pitiful worthlessness of the human
race reinforced to me over and over again in endless detail.
That's why I stopped reading the Comics Journal, for that matter! :)
Jeff
--
www.isaacpriestley.com
Latest album "Days of Being Dumb"
available for download now!
Carl Henderson
> [W]hy are we stuck with traditional
> superheroes still being the most popular genre in our comic industry??
Because that's what comic readers buy the most of. If 75% of comics readers
bought romance, mystery, westerns, etc., then that's what publishers would
put out.
--
Carl Henderson carl.he...@airmail.net
Top 300 Report Archive http://j_carl_henderson.tripod.com/
RAC/RACM FAQ http://www.enteract.com/~katew/faqs/miscfaq.htm
THE BISHOP
> That's why I stopped reading the Comics Journal, for that matter! :)
Ah, but Jeff, there are so *many* reasons for doing that :)
Paul "Duggy" Duggan
But it only takes one.
---
- Dug.
---
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you
give it to them? Then do not be to eager to deal out death in
judgement. For even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf.
---
Jeff Coleman
"Paul "Duggy" Duggan" <jc12...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.21.020211...@marlin.jcu.edu.au...
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, THE BISHOP wrote:
> >Jeff Coleman wrote
> >> That's why I stopped reading the Comics Journal, for that matter! :)
> >Ah, but Jeff, there are so *many* reasons for doing that :)
>
> But it only takes one.
Heh...
For me it was opening up the Winter Special and seeing a big article
entitled "What's Wrong With Comics" by Greg Cwiklik, who I remember from his
past article, "The Inherent Limitations of the Comic Book Medium."
Greg apparently felt that the limitations of the comic book medium are,
that it's impossible for anyone to do a long story in comics because of the
time it takes to do a single issue--it would take YEARS to develop a story
of any real depth!
All this without mentioning a certain 26-year, 300-issue storyline OR a
certain couple of Bros who even work for the same company Cwiklik does.
I just couldn't see myself paying this guy's wages anymore.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> it would take YEARS to develop a story of any real depth!
> All this without mentioning a certain 26-year, 300-issue storyline
Didn't you just make his point? I mean, stop reading whatever you want for
whatever reason you want, sure, but this seemed like an odd example to use.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: Slow News Day, Xeno's Arrow, Scary Godmother, Akiko,
Reviews of Amazing Spider-Man, Batgirl, and Superman
Jeff Coleman
"Johanna Draper Carlson" <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote in message
news:B88DD04E.5EF7A%joh...@comicsworthreading.com...
> Jeff Coleman at jcol...@NOSPAMhandofgod.com wrote:
>
> > it would take YEARS to develop a story of any real depth!
> > All this without mentioning a certain 26-year, 300-issue storyline
>
> Didn't you just make his point? I mean, stop reading whatever you want for
> whatever reason you want, sure, but this seemed like an odd example to
use.
His point wasn't that it would take years to do, so only extremely dedicated
people would do it, even if he didn't personally care for the result--his
point was that it wasn't POSSIBLE to do. It seemed the height of sloppiness
to write an article saying nobody would do extended storylines in comics
without mentioning the people who actually DO extended storylines in comics.
Doesn't exactly support his thesis, though.
If he had MENTIONED Cerebus or Love and Rockets, I would have disliked his
article a bit less, but everything Cwiklik (and Groth, for that matter)
writes seems to be variations on the theme of "Comics are terrible
because..."
I don't understand why these guys want to write about comics in the
first place...
Plus, I got a bit tired of being told (as in the 25th Anniversary Issue)
that "genres exist so stupid people don't forget what they like to read."
Infamute!
>Heh...
>For me it was opening up the Winter Special and seeing a big article
>entitled "What's Wrong With Comics" by Greg Cwiklik, who I remember from his
>past article, "The Inherent Limitations of the Comic Book Medium."
> Greg apparently felt that the limitations of the comic book medium are,
>that it's impossible for anyone to do a long story in comics because of the
>time it takes to do a single issue--it would take YEARS to develop a story
>of any real depth!
> All this without mentioning a certain 26-year, 300-issue storyline OR a
>certain couple of Bros who even work for the same company Cwiklik does.
>I just couldn't see myself paying this guy's wages anymore.
A couple of freelance articles a year at half a cent per word does
not constitute "wages".
-Chris
__________________________
Ninjas: TOTALLY SWEET! http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~rahjr79/
Infamute!
>Plus, I got a bit tired of being told (as in the 25th Anniversary Issue)
>that "genres exist so stupid people don't forget what they like to read."
Once, several years ago as a joke from a reader's awards poll
ballot. And then again a few months ago, when the same person recalled
in a retrospective issue their quote being printed years before. You
seem unusually sensitive.
Jeff Coleman
"Infamute!" <mSuP...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c68...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Jeff Coleman" <jcol...@NOSPAMhandofgod.com> digitally declared:
>
> >Plus, I got a bit tired of being told (as in the 25th Anniversary Issue)
> >that "genres exist so stupid people don't forget what they like to read."
>
> Once, several years ago as a joke from a reader's awards poll
> ballot. And then again a few months ago, when the same person recalled
> in a retrospective issue their quote being printed years before. You
> seem unusually sensitive.
As you like. I guess I can decide which I magazines I care to read, though.
I've been reading the Journal for ten years and have been growing more and
more dissatisfied with the elitist approach they tend to take. It's not as
though the "genre" quote is completely unrepresentative of the magzine...
There was a time when I was on the other side of the fence--it actually
entertained me to sit around and smugly insult superhero comics, while I
"realized" that alternative autobiographical comics were "real" art.
Now, I'm much happier in that I prefer a synthesis of the two--I
actually *like* genres--I like comics that have action in them, that have
crime stories, that have superhero elements, autobiographical element, and
so on. The Journal just doesn't represent what I dig in the same way that
it used to. I've changed, and I don't enjoy it as much.
There's also the fact that I find Groth's "gonzo journalism" unpleasant
and think he just plain has a bad attitude.
For example, I love movies AND music, but I'd rather discuss them with
someone who doesn't become rabid at the thought of Michael Bay and Britney
Spears polluting the world with pop, or think that there's something "wrong"
with kids today because they listen to hip-hop. I see that as roughly
analagous to the Comics Journal's attitude.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> everything Cwiklik (and Groth, for that matter) writes seems to be variations
> on the theme of "Comics are terrible because..."
Good thing they rarely contribute, then.
I don't begrudge them a different opinion. They make some good points, they
make some stupid points, sometimes both in the same article (Groth's
reaction to McCloud, for example). But they're raising issues that are
important to discuss and don't get talked about much elsewhere.
TCJ has also done some amazing pieces of journalism, like the five-part
investigation of Image's history.
It's the best of what we've got, and there's always part of it that's worth
reading.
Dave Doty
> TCJ has also done some amazing pieces of journalism, like the five-part
> investigation of Image's history.
I didn't see it. Since you used the term "investigation," did they turn up
some deep, dark secrets folks wouldn't readily divulge? I thought most of
Image's wickedness was apparent on the surface. :)
Dave Doty
Jeff Coleman
"Johanna Draper Carlson" <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote in message
news:B88E7B7E.5F063%joh...@comicsworthreading.com...
> Jeff Coleman at jcol...@NOSPAMhandofgod.com wrote:
>
> > everything Cwiklik (and Groth, for that matter) writes seems to be
variations
> > on the theme of "Comics are terrible because..."
>
> Good thing they rarely contribute, then.
> I don't begrudge them a different opinion. They make some good points,
they
> make some stupid points, sometimes both in the same article (Groth's
> reaction to McCloud, for example). But they're raising issues that are
> important to discuss and don't get talked about much elsewhere.
I was at least glad they gave McCloud the appropriate space to respond to
Groth's sloppy piece--that alone was almost made it worthwhile for Groth to
have done the piece in the first place.
> TCJ has also done some amazing pieces of journalism, like the five-part
> investigation of Image's history.
I definitely agree with this--even more important (to me personally) than
the journalism has been the expansive, often definitive interviews with
important creators. I get down on the Journal for its tone, but I'm glad to
have a big shelf full of them, with interviews with Charles Schulz, Kyle
Baker, Erik Larsen, Dylan Horrocks and loads of others.
Even when they really drop the ball (such as trying to get Frank Miller
to talk shit about his friends Walt Simonsen and others just because they do
"genre" work) their interviews are big, they're in-depth, and there's always
something interesting in them.
> It's the best of what we've got, and there's always part of it that's
worth
> reading.
This is true--I find things go in cycles, so I wouldn't be surprised to be
interested in reading it again in the future. I can listen to nothing but
jazz for a month, and then go three months without listening to it at all,
and it's the same with most other things.
Talon The Merciful
>
>TCJ has also done some amazing pieces of journalism, like the five-part
>investigation of Image's history.
Hahahahahahaha!!!!
>It's the best of what we've got, and there's always part of it that's worth
>reading.
LOL! Too funny, J! :)
Talon T M
Absolute Ruler of RACM
Steve Block
<jcol...@NOSPAMhandofgod.com> wrote:
>His point wasn't that it would take years to do, so only extremely dedicated
>people would do it, even if he didn't personally care for the result--his
>point was that it wasn't POSSIBLE to do.
Sorry, I might be missing something here. Is he saying it isn't
possible, in which case you may have a point, or is he saying only
extremely dedicated people would do it, in which case you wouldn't
have a point, as he has covered Cerebus and Love and Rockets with
the extremely dedicated clause.
Invisibles Mailing List home page http://www.invisibilia.co.uk
alt.manics.music FAQ http://thb.org.uk/bored/faq/1.html
Jeff Coleman
"Talon The Merciful" <tal...@visto.com> wrote in message
news:a4bru...@drn.newsguy.com...
You're surplus to requirements here, too, you know...
Jeff Coleman
"Steve Block" <steve...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8slh6u868bfk0i34d...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 02:11:03 GMT, "Jeff Coleman"
> <jcol...@NOSPAMhandofgod.com> wrote:
>
> >His point wasn't that it would take years to do, so only extremely
dedicated
> >people would do it, even if he didn't personally care for the result--his
> >point was that it wasn't POSSIBLE to do.
>
> Sorry, I might be missing something here. Is he saying it isn't
> possible, in which case you may have a point, or is he saying only
> extremely dedicated people would do it, in which case you wouldn't
> have a point, as he has covered Cerebus and Love and Rockets with
> the extremely dedicated clause.
I think it's one of those arguments that makes a lot of sense if you're one
of his friends and agrees with him, but doesn't make so much sense
otherwise. He was basically saying that comics is so hard to do that only
dedicated people would do it, AND that it's such a low-paying ghetto that
nobody would be dedicated enough to do anthing worthwhile in it. And like
many the Journal, he has very strict definitions of what's "worthwhile"--as
in "no genre crap, no superheros, no action stories, no light comedy" and so
on.
This is not someone to whom it's worthwhile to spend your career or your
life, as for example Jack Kirby did, drawing people in tights beating each
other up, nor is it worthwhile to spend your time drawing "funny
animals"--he'd make an exception for MAUS's Pulitzer Prize, but not for
CEREBUS, OMAHA or FINDER, if you get my meaning.
I don't recall the issue number, but the article itself was called "The
Inherent Limitations of the Comic Book Medium" or something equally
long-winded. I'm afraid I've been a bit too long-winded myself in
discussing it--as Johanna noted, the author, Greg Cwiklik, doesn't
contribute to the Journal that much. His latest article is called "What's
Wrong With Comics". I'd be willing to guess you can see a trend...
Steve Block
<jcol...@NOSPAMhandofgod.com> wrote:
>I think it's one of those arguments that makes a lot of sense if you're one
>of his friends and agrees with him, but doesn't make so much sense
>otherwise. He was basically saying that comics is so hard to do that only
>dedicated people would do it, AND that it's such a low-paying ghetto that
>nobody would be dedicated enough to do anthing worthwhile in it. And like
>many the Journal, he has very strict definitions of what's "worthwhile"--as
>in "no genre crap, no superheros, no action stories, no light comedy" and so
>on.
Ah, I see. One of those From Hell is brilliant but Watchmen is
inherently flawed because it is about superheroes types. I have to
agree, the slant against superheroes is what turns me away from the
Journal myself.