"Illustrated Fiction"
Ken from Chicago
magazine, it's Illustrated Fiction.
-- Ken from Chicago (who's glad that problem's been solved)
P.S. Or it's "Illustrated Non-Fiction".
Ken from Chicago
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i8qdnb2b6Oj...@comcast.com...
Fine, fine, or "Illustrated Stories", if you need a generic
all-encompensating term.
-- Ken from Chicago
Jason Michael
I say it's "comics" and I say to hell with it.
Jason
jason michael @ canada .com
Ophidian
> Whether in a "book" or a "novel" or "paperback" or a "hardcover" or a
> magazine, it's Illustrated Fiction.
As opposed to, say, Winnie the Pooh?
Ophidian
>
> I say it's "comics" and I say to hell with it.
2nd that.
Two varieties: "books" and "strips".
Tarquin Biscuitbarrel, Esq.
> Whether in a "book" or a "novel" or "paperback" or a "hardcover" or a
> magazine, it's Illustrated Fiction.
*YOU'RE* Illustrated Fiction!
(Sorry, I had nothing.)
Tarquin B.
--
JLB: "I've flipped through some Essentials. I
didn't like that many of them. You want to have
some idea of what I liked from Marvel?"
Me: "Not really. I was just making conversation."
Ken from Chicago
"Ophidian" <ophid...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Y4A_f.695$8q.70@dukeread08...
Thus "Illustrated Fiction" and no need to worry about books, strips, novels,
paperbacks, tomes, phonebooks, etc.
-- Ken from Chicago
Kevrob
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
> > Whether in a "book" or a "novel" or "paperback" or a "hardcover" or a
> > magazine, it's Illustrated Fiction.
>
> *YOU'RE* Illustrated Fiction!
>
> (Sorry, I had nothing.)
>
Lev Gleason's group, Comic House, used the term "illustories" on issues
dated Dec. 1948 through Dec. 1953. It never caught on, but that could
have been trademarked. EC dubbed their experiment at publishing in
a black & white magazine format "Picto-fiction." Only MAD was a
success as a B&W, and the other titles diead an early death.
Any other names for "sequential art" out there?
Kevin
Ophidian
Again I say "comics".
Illustrated Fiction has all the same worries with less accuracy...
Martin Feller
I prefer "Comic Books"... it's easier to keep a straight face once you move
on and tell somebody the typical subject matter.
Tarquin Biscuitbarrel, Esq.
news:1144715770.7...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Lev Gleason's group, Comic House, used the term "illustories" on issues
> dated Dec. 1948 through Dec. 1953. It never caught on, but that could
> have been trademarked. EC dubbed their experiment at publishing in
> a black & white magazine format "Picto-fiction." Only MAD was a
> success as a B&W, and the other titles diead an early death.
>
> Any other names for "sequential art" out there?
Illustories?
Picto-fiction?
Illuscriptures?
Graphitterature?
Seriously, why is everyone involved with comic books or comic strips so
embarrassed about their field/medium? It's like the expression "Graphic
Novel" -- Now /there's/ a euphemism if I've ever heard one. "Illustrated
Book" or even "Illustrated Novel" was too childish sounding, so they went
with the much more serious-sounding "Graphic Novel". I'm sorry, but there's
nothing serious about Emperor Doom.
And now they're subtle trying to change the vernacular from "issue", "run"
to more legitimate words like "episode" and "season".
Why do I get the feeling that everyone involved with comic books would
really rather be doing something less embarrassing to them?
Tarquin B.
--
JLB: "I've flipped through some Essentials. I
didn't like that many of them. You want to have
some idea of what I liked from Marvel?"
"Not really. I was just making conversation."
High Priest of Tarquin Biscuitbarrel, Esq.
> "Kevrob" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1144715770.7...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Lev Gleason's group, Comic House, used the term "illustories" on issues
>> dated Dec. 1948 through Dec. 1953. It never caught on, but that could
>> have been trademarked. EC dubbed their experiment at publishing in
>> a black & white magazine format "Picto-fiction." Only MAD was a
>> success as a B&W, and the other titles diead an early death.
>>
>> Any other names for "sequential art" out there?
> Illustories?
> Picto-fiction?
> Illuscriptures?
> Graphitterature?
> Seriously, why is everyone involved with comic books or comic strips so
> embarrassed about their field/medium? It's like the expression "Graphic
> Novel" -- Now /there's/ a euphemism if I've ever heard one. "Illustrated
> Book" or even "Illustrated Novel" was too childish sounding, so they went
> with the much more serious-sounding "Graphic Novel". I'm sorry, but
> there's nothing serious about Emperor Doom.
> And now they're subtle trying to change the vernacular from "issue",
> "run" to more legitimate words like "episode" and "season".
> Why do I get the feeling that everyone involved with comic books would
> really rather be doing something less embarrassing to them?
> Tarquin B.
Too true All-Wise-One. Why must we as pitiful humans be embarassed about
our true intentions? Call it what it is!
--
Me: I laugh at those who think you might be civil to stupid questions.
Tarquin B.: Laugh and *pity*! Do not forget to *pity*! It's a very important
part of the
equation.
High Priest of Tarquin Biscuitbarrel, Esq.
Tim Turnip
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>"Kevrob" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:1144715770.7...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Lev Gleason's group, Comic House, used the term "illustories" on issues
>> dated Dec. 1948 through Dec. 1953. It never caught on, but that could
>> have been trademarked. EC dubbed their experiment at publishing in
>> a black & white magazine format "Picto-fiction." Only MAD was a
>> success as a B&W, and the other titles diead an early death.
>>
>> Any other names for "sequential art" out there?
>
>Illustories?
>
>Picto-fiction?
>
>Illuscriptures?
>
>Graphitterature?
>
>Seriously, why is everyone involved with comic books or comic strips so
>embarrassed about their field/medium? It's like the expression "Graphic
>Novel" -- Now /there's/ a euphemism if I've ever heard one. "Illustrated
>Book" or even "Illustrated Novel" was too childish sounding, so they went
>with the much more serious-sounding "Graphic Novel". I'm sorry, but there's
>nothing serious about Emperor Doom.
As I originally understood it, "graphic novel" was intended merely as
a term to distinguish standalone, extra-length stories like Emperor
Doom from shorter serial comics, not to import an unearned impression
of maturity.
Tarquin Biscuitbarrel, Esq.
news:91do32t1hb52l71fe...@4ax.com...
>
> As I originally understood it, "graphic novel" was intended merely as
> a term to distinguish standalone, extra-length stories like Emperor
> Doom from shorter serial comics, not to import an unearned impression
> of maturity.
That there's a need to distinguish them from regular comic books is not in
question. That they chose the most serious and legitimate-sounding name to
describe them is. "Graphic Novel", as an expression to describe double-sized
standalone comic books, kinda reeks of desperation and struglling for
legitimacy in the mainstream's eyes.
Hey, it worked. V for Vendetta is based on a "Graphic Novel" instead of a
comic book, and that makes everyone associated with the project feel better
about it. But it's not fooling US, now is it? ;)
Ken from Chicago
"Comics" implies funny aka not serious aka not to be taken seriously.
Thus the misapprehension at "serious" comics or confusion about the
"funnies" being not so laughable.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Martin Feller" <martin...@sxfxcxgxlxoxbxaxlx.nxext> wrote in message
news:XjR_f.10203$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Illustrated Fiction" is freed of the CENTURY of stigma that "comics" or
"comic strips" or "comic books" have--kinda like how Toyota, Honda, Hyundai,
etc. are freed of a century of "legacy" costs that GM, Ford and Chevy have
had.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Tarquin Biscuitbarrel, Esq." <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:443be3dd$0$11186$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> "Kevrob" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1144715770.7...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Lev Gleason's group, Comic House, used the term "illustories" on issues
>> dated Dec. 1948 through Dec. 1953. It never caught on, but that could
>> have been trademarked. EC dubbed their experiment at publishing in
>> a black & white magazine format "Picto-fiction." Only MAD was a
>> success as a B&W, and the other titles diead an early death.
>>
>> Any other names for "sequential art" out there?
>
> Illustories?
>
> Picto-fiction?
>
> Illuscriptures?
>
> Graphitterature?
>
> Seriously, why is everyone involved with comic books or comic strips so
> embarrassed about their field/medium? It's like the expression "Graphic
> Novel" -- Now /there's/ a euphemism if I've ever heard one. "Illustrated
> Book" or even "Illustrated Novel" was too childish sounding, so they went
> with the much more serious-sounding "Graphic Novel". I'm sorry, but
> there's nothing serious about Emperor Doom.
Plus "graphic novel" is hampered by the common use of the word "graphic" to
mean violently or sexually explicit as in a novel that is ... "graphic".
> And now they're subtle trying to change the vernacular from "issue", "run"
> to more legitimate words like "episode" and "season".
>
> Why do I get the feeling that everyone involved with comic books would
> really rather be doing something less embarrassing to them?
>
> Tarquin B.
Plus the beauty of "Illustrated Fiction" over "Illustrated Novel" or
"Illustrated Book" is that it's freed of a particular form or size or the
contradiction of labelling a magazine a "book" or what to call them when
item in question is not long enough to be a "graphic *novel*".
"Illustrated Fiction" can easily refer to any size work from a single panel
(Scout McCloud's UNDERSTANDING COMICS view of comics as having at least two
panels to form "sequential art" notwithstanding) to a strip to a magazine to
a trade paperback to a tome a "phonebook" or an entire multi-decade monthly
series.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Tarquin Biscuitbarrel, Esq." <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:443c3f64$0$16435$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
Then again DC Comics' "Vertigo" imprint is literally more "graphic" than
their standard Code-approved superhero comics.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ophidian
>
> "Illustrated Fiction" can easily refer to any size work from a single panel
> (Scout McCloud's UNDERSTANDING COMICS view of comics as having at least two
> panels to form "sequential art" notwithstanding) to a strip to a magazine to
> a trade paperback to a tome a "phonebook" or an entire multi-decade monthly
> series.
If you really find "comics" laughable then, sure, let's go with
"sequential art".
That can be fiction OR non-fiction.
I'm sorry but I'm still hearing "Illustrated Fiction" as what
Howard Pyle used to work on.
Ophidian
>
> "Illustrated Fiction" is freed of the CENTURY of stigma that "comics" or
> "comic strips" or "comic books" have
And bound to the stigma of childrens' literature...
Peter Bruells
"Bildgeschichen" or "Bande dessinée".
We, OTOH, keep using "Comics" which doesn't have obvious connotations
to "Komik" for us,
Ken from Chicago
Amen. "Comics" = "funny books" = "kiddie fare".
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Just like science fiction, video games or animation--at least in the
US.
james...@hmrcaspire.com
Kevrob wrote:
> Any other names for "sequential art" out there?
Manga.
Manwha (Korean).
Manhwa (Chinese).
--
James
Laurent Lehmann
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Ophidian" <ophid...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:znZ_f.2996$8q.1241@dukeread08...
>> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>> "Illustrated Fiction" is freed of the CENTURY of stigma that "comics" or
>>> "comic strips" or "comic books" have
>>
>> And bound to the stigma of childrens' literature...
>
>Amen. "Comics" = "funny books" = "kiddie fare".
it seems to me that Ophidian meant that "illustrated fiction"
usually means "kiddie books" - which was indeed my initial reaction to
your post. I remember a bunch of Disney illustrated books I used to
read before I graduated to comic books...
--
Laurent
no_parking_Duck
book reader (who may have hang ups on what they think comics are) how
cool the art and story telling is in modern comics. Instead of
changing the terminology, maybe we should re-educate them as to what
comics are.
The down side to using the "illustrated stories" term is non comic
readers will ask you what that means, and after you spend time
explaining it to them they will say "oh, comic books" and walk away
with their noses in the air.
John
Ken from Chicago
"no_parking_Duck" <no_pa...@bymagic.com> wrote in message
news:1144883217.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I think the problem is, as I see it, trying to convey to a non comic
> book reader (who may have hang ups on what they think comics are) how
> cool the art and story telling is in modern comics. Instead of
> changing the terminology, maybe we should re-educate them as to what
> comics are.
The problem is that it would NOT be merely re-educating them but UNeducating
from misconceptions and the problem with uneducating someone is like trying
to unring a bell or unhear a sound. The bell having rung CAN'T be unrung,
that which has been heard CAN'T be unheard.
> The down side to using the "illustrated stories" term is non comic
> readers will ask you what that means, and after you spend time
> explaining it to them they will say "oh, comic books" and walk away
> with their noses in the air.
>
> John
>
> http://www.bymagic.com
Besides why call it "comics" when so little of it is anywhere close to
funny?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ophidian
Go Germany!
Ophidian
Exactly.
Everything from "kids books" to the art in Lewis Carol's Alice books
to Bernie Wrightson's art in various novels is what I think when I
hear "illustrated fiction".
Fiction, with illustrations.
Not illustrations that _tell_ the fiction.
Plus I'm still maintaining that "fiction" is too limitting a term for
a publication grouping that includes biographies and "true war tales".
Laurent Lehmann
wrote:
>Plus I'm still maintaining that "fiction" is too limitting a term for
>a publication grouping that includes biographies and "true war tales".
And even essays, pamphlets, PSA, news stories,ads ...
"Illustrated fiction" isn't much more accurate than "comics".
"Sequential art" is a better term, because it only deals with the
form, and doesn't prejudge what the content might be.
--
Laurent
Tarquin Biscuitbarrel, Esq.
news:XKedneUa4dY...@comcast.com...
>
> "Comics" implies funny aka not serious aka not to be taken seriously.
>
> Thus the misapprehension at "serious" comics or confusion about the
> "funnies" being not so laughable.
Perhaps in 1971. But I'm pretty confident the terms "comics" and "comic
books", in 2006, is not automatically associated with humor.
The average joe on the street knows exactly what comics and comic books are.
Any attempt to "serious-ize" the expression is a false need created by the
creators who THEMSELVES want to be taken more seriously.
But no matter what you call it, it's still going to be stories about
superheroes who wear their underwear on the outside, whose secret identities
are supposed to be hidden behind eyeglasses.
Instead of trying to add fresh coats of paint on the turd, the comic book
industry needs to do something about making the turd less of a turd.
And it's doing exactly that right now, with Identity Crisis and Civil War.
(I hate arguing with myself.)
Tarquin Biscuitbarrel, Esq.
>
> If you really find "comics" laughable then, sure, let's go with
> "sequential art".
> That can be fiction OR non-fiction.
>
> I'm sorry but I'm still hearing "Illustrated Fiction" as what
> Howard Pyle used to work on.
People! They're freaking comic books, regardless of the number of pages or
if there's a "to be continued" caption on the last panel!
Referring to them as novels, graphic fiction, illustrated sequential art,
etc. is akin to referring to Coldplay as music.
High Priest of Tarquin Biscuitbarrel, Esq.
You wrote:
> "Ophidian" <ophid...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:umZ_f.2995$8q.1018@dukeread08...
>>
>> If you really find "comics" laughable then, sure, let's go with
>> "sequential art".
>> That can be fiction OR non-fiction.
>>
>> I'm sorry but I'm still hearing "Illustrated Fiction" as what
>> Howard Pyle used to work on.
> People! They're freaking comic books, regardless of the number of pages
> or if there's a "to be continued" caption on the last panel!
> Referring to them as novels, graphic fiction, illustrated sequential art,
> etc. is akin to referring to Coldplay as music.
> Tarquin B.
Behold, you have been warned! Speak not of "Illustrated Fiction" anymore!
The All-Wise-One has spoken and these are to be referred to as "Comic
Books"! And Coldplay, you may quiver off into obscurity for you have not
found favor in the eyes of the All-Knowing!
High Priest of Tarquin Biscuitbarrel, Esq.
You wrote:
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XKedneUa4dY...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Comics" implies funny aka not serious aka not to be taken seriously.
>>
>> Thus the misapprehension at "serious" comics or confusion about the
>> "funnies" being not so laughable.
> Perhaps in 1971. But I'm pretty confident the terms "comics" and "comic
> books", in 2006, is not automatically associated with humor.
> The average joe on the street knows exactly what comics and comic books
> are. Any attempt to "serious-ize" the expression is a false need created
> by the creators who THEMSELVES want to be taken more seriously.
> But no matter what you call it, it's still going to be stories about
> superheroes who wear their underwear on the outside, whose secret
> identities are supposed to be hidden behind eyeglasses.
> Instead of trying to add fresh coats of paint on the turd, the comic book
> industry needs to do something about making the turd less of a turd.
> And it's doing exactly that right now, with Identity Crisis and Civil
> War.
> (I hate arguing with myself.)
> Tarquin B.
Ah, but All-Wise-One, who else is worthy to argue with You, but You? All
hail Identity Crisis and Civil War, for these have found favor in the eyes
of the All-Wise-One. And Comic Industry, you have been warned! Apply no
more pigments to feces! Make you feces more palatable!
Ken from Chicago
PRECISELY!
That's the kind of MYTH that the (American) public at large has about it.
MAUS
A CONTRACT WITH GOD
GHOST WORLD
AMERICAN SPLENDOR
No secret identities.
No underoos.
No powers.
Just stories.
Just fiction.
Illustrated fiction.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Hey, you can't talk that way about Mister Gwyneth Paltrow, hubbie o Gwyn,
father o Apple n Moses.
-- Ken from Chicago (who transmits this message at the speed of sound)
Ken from Chicago
"Laurent Lehmann" <llehmann...@club-internet.fr> wrote in message
news:tapr32lmdpk7k7646...@4ax.com...
"Sequential art" could be a series of sculptures or songs or poetry. It's
too vague.
Only "Illustrated Fiction" will do.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ophidian
> "Laurent Lehmann" <llehmann...@club-internet.fr> wrote in message
> news:tapr32lmdpk7k7646...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 12:43:25 -0400, Ophidian <ophid...@cox.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Plus I'm still maintaining that "fiction" is too limitting a term for
>>>a publication grouping that includes biographies and "true war tales".
>>
>>And even essays, pamphlets, PSA, news stories,ads ...
>>
>>"Illustrated fiction" isn't much more accurate than "comics".
>>"Sequential art" is a better term, because it only deals with the
>>form, and doesn't prejudge what the content might be.
>
> "Sequential art" could be a series of sculptures or songs or poetry. It's
> too vague.
>
> Only "Illustrated Fiction" will do.
"sequential illustration" ;P
comics...@gavroche.org
>too vague.
>Only "Illustrated Fiction" will do.
"Fiction" is more vague than "art" is.
Or, more to the point, "Fiction" is often wrong, whereas "art" is only
vague.
You see, art includes illustrations.
Fiction doesn't include non-fiction.
You can't call Maus Illustrated Fiction. You can't. Unless you want
to be called a Revisionist.
Nor can you call Sacco's Palestine: A Nation Occupied, Illustrated
Fiction. It isn't.
Both are art.
Of course, JK Rowling's novels are art too. Many just tend not to
consider writing to be art, because almost everyone thinks they can
write.
Sequential Art
Sequential Graphic Art (a bit long)
Graphic Literature
Illustrated Literature
Literary Art -- Genre Art (requires two terms...but classification
isn't difficult, or at least isn't any more difficult than literary v
genre in novels)
-John
Ken from Chicago
But it's not just a series of pictures but STORIES being told. Illustrations
in service to the STORIES. That's problem many pencillers made during 90s,
forgetting that the point of the pics was to ILLUSTRATE the STORIES being
told.
-- Ken from Chicago
spiritof...@hotmail.com
> Then again DC Comics' "Vertigo" imprint is literally more "graphic" than
> their standard Code-approved superhero comics.
No, it isn't. It contains the same amount of illustrations per page as
the DC Universe comics.
Mark Moore
spiritof...@hotmail.com
Except that it consists of more than one panel, which means that stuff
like the Archie pin-ups would be excluded.
Mark Moore
Gustav...@yahoo.com
--Gustavo (who feels very grown up anyway)
Matt Deres
<comics...@gavroche.org> wrote in message
news:1144985442....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >"Sequential art" could be a series of sculptures or songs or poetry. It's
>>too vague.
>
>>Only "Illustrated Fiction" will do.
>
> "Fiction" is more vague than "art" is.
> Or, more to the point, "Fiction" is often wrong, whereas "art" is only
> vague.
> You see, art includes illustrations.
> Fiction doesn't include non-fiction.
> You can't call Maus Illustrated Fiction. You can't.
I had no idea that an army of dogs once defeated an evil horde of cats that
were rounding up mice into ghettos and killing them. Your history teacher
must be very proud.
Matt
spiritof...@hotmail.com
> Only "Illustrated Fiction" will do.
Except when describing PSAs and biographical stories.
Mark Moore
Ken from Chicago
<spiritof...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145062903....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Groan!
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
>>too vague.
>
>>Only "Illustrated Fiction" will do.
>
> "Fiction" is more vague than "art" is.
> Or, more to the point, "Fiction" is often wrong, whereas "art" is only
> vague.
How can "fiction" be "wrong"? By DEFINITION fiction contain NON-factual
elements.
> You see, art includes illustrations.
> Fiction doesn't include non-fiction.
Fiction includes non-fiction all the time, from basic physics, to celebrity
appearances to geography, to historical events and public personas.
> You can't call Maus Illustrated Fiction. You can't. Unless you want
> to be called a Revisionist.
Were the Nazis literally cats and Jews literally mice?
> Nor can you call Sacco's Palestine: A Nation Occupied, Illustrated
> Fiction. It isn't.
> Both are art.
> Of course, JK Rowling's novels are art too. Many just tend not to
> consider writing to be art, because almost everyone thinks they can
> write.
I agree. Literature is an ART form.
That's why if you read my messages I rarely if ever refer to pencillers /
inkers as "artists" in opposition to scripters and dialoguists as "writers".
One's a visual art form the other is a literary art form. Only in comics are
writers literally positioned as NOT "artists". It's a lesson Image Comics
founders--all *seven* of them--learned in the 90s. Notice I typically refer
to them quite deliberately as "illustrators".
> Sequential Art
> Sequential Graphic Art (a bit long)
> Graphic Literature
> Illustrated Literature
> Literary Art -- Genre Art (requires two terms...but classification
> isn't difficult, or at least isn't any more difficult than literary v
> genre in novels)
>
> -John
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
<spiritof...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145064382.0...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
"Illustrated Non-Fiction".
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Or more generically "Illustrated Stories".
Ken from Chicago
<spiritof...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145063986....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This is where I diverge from Scout McCloud and "sequential art" requiring at
least two panels. I think illustrated fiction can tell a story in a single
panel (albeit a very short story).
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
<Gustav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145064007....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Picture Books.
>
> --Gustavo (who feels very grown up anyway)
The problem with "picture books" is that it includes portfolios, or a bound
collection of pictures that do not tell a story--a problem many pencillers
had during the '90s--as opposed to pictures that *illustrate* a story.
-- Ken from Chicago
ron saarna
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ufCdnY4XU8p...@comcast.com...
> This is where I diverge from Scout McCloud and "sequential art" requiring
at
> least two panels. I think illustrated fiction can tell a story in a single
> panel (albeit a very short story).
Not necessarily (for different values of *very short*). I can recall several
weekend Family Circus strips that had Billy at the top left of the panel
explaining to his Mom that "I came right home from school!" with the rest of
the panel being this spaghetti like path of arrows showing Billy's path, and
relevant stops on the way (fishing hole, playing marbles, swing-set, beating
stray animals to death, etc.). Those stories certainly took longer to read
than Kathy's latest multi-panel shopping dilemmas.
Ken from Chicago
"ron saarna" <du...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:oP50g.6049$L.29...@news20.bellglobal.com...
I stand corrected.
-- Ken from Chicago (who loved those giant one-panel "Family Circus" Sunday
comics)
Jack Bohn
>"Ophidian" <ophid...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:bEE%f.3194$8q.1308@dukeread08...
>>
>> "sequential illustration" ;P
>
>But it's not just a series of pictures but STORIES being told. Illustrations
>in service to the STORIES. That's problem many pencillers made during 90s,
>forgetting that the point of the pics was to ILLUSTRATE the STORIES being
>told.
So they weren't producing Illustrated Stories in the '90s? What
where they producing? Comic books? If I've got a run of X-MEN,
where do I divide them up?
--
-Jack
Ophidian
>
> P.S. Or more generically "Illustrated Stories".
Better.
Not perfect.
You're still including Dr. Seuss.
And is Ripley's, which should be included, technically "stories"?
It's more of "factoids".
Ken from Chicago
"Jack Bohn" <jack...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:bkt142d4ddialor6b...@4ax.com...
Look to more examples from a certain comics company focused more on Image
than Ideas, especially work by a certain Liefeld. Mind you, that's 1990s
Liefeld not to be confused with 1980s Liefeld, when he had an actual EDITOR
who had and used the authority to insist on pictures that ILLUSTRATED the
story being told instead of HAMPERED understanding of same. Liefeld's
CAPTAIN AMERICA is infamous.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Stories can be of varying lengths. If it's not a "story" then it's certainly
not an "Illustrated Story" but rather merely an "illustration" with a
caption.
-- Ken from Chicago
ron saarna
> So they weren't producing Illustrated Stories in the '90s? What
> where they producing? Comic books? If I've got a run of X-MEN,
> where do I divide them up?
Right along the spine (and if you remove the staples, it becomes easier).
Then scatter them to the wind.
comics...@gavroche.org
> > You can't call Maus Illustrated Fiction. You can't. Unless you want
> > to be called a Revisionist.
>
> Were the Nazis literally cats and Jews literally mice?
Have you ever seen a mouse that smoked? (outside of laboratory
experiments?)
In the genre known as "historical fiction" new characters are created
to interact with the historical characters. This doesn't happen here.
The characters are depicted as cats, mice, etc but the reader knows the
events and plot of the story are accurate. It's not fiction. It's a
biography.
I agree comic books are an out-of-date expression.
I dislike "illustrated stories" as a generic, as 'stories' has a
childish connotation.
However, Illustrated ___, where one can fill in the blank, works.
(fiction, non-fiction, biography, etc)
I also like Sequential Art. I don't care if it includes a series of
statues or paintings that tell a story. Let it.
John
Ken from Chicago
<comics...@gavroche.org> wrote in message
news:1145197354.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > You can't call Maus Illustrated Fiction. You can't. Unless you want
>> > to be called a Revisionist.
>>
>> Were the Nazis literally cats and Jews literally mice?
>
> Have you ever seen a mouse that smoked? (outside of laboratory
> experiments?)
>
> In the genre known as "historical fiction" new characters are created
> to interact with the historical characters. This doesn't happen here.
>
> The characters are depicted as cats, mice, etc but the reader knows the
> events and plot of the story are accurate. It's not fiction. It's a
> biography.
You assume a lot if you think the reader knows the events of WWII.
Biographies don't depict people as animals. Whatshisname caught major flack
for fictionalizing Reagan's biography in DUTCH by inserting a fictional
character and almost having Reagan as a supporting character in what was
ostensibly his own bio.
Moreover in MAUS the lines between animal and person got blurred later on in
the series as cats and mice took on more animalistic aspects, ala NARNIA's
depiction of talking (sentient) and non-talking (non-sentient) animals.
> I agree comic books are an out-of-date expression.
> I dislike "illustrated stories" as a generic, as 'stories' has a
> childish connotation.
"News stories"?
> However, Illustrated ___, where one can fill in the blank, works.
> (fiction, non-fiction, biography, etc)
Well, yeah, I preferred "Illustrated Fiction" (and "Illustrated
Non-Fiction") since it can refer to a single or multiple stories.
Um, wouldn't "Illustrated Non-Fiction" cover illustrated biographies?
> I also like Sequential Art. I don't care if it includes a series of
> statues or paintings that tell a story. Let it.
>
> John
"Sequential Art" could literally be a series of anything, even parts on an
assembly line. They are in a sequence.
-- Ken from Chicago
Laurent Lehmann
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>P.S. Or more generically "Illustrated Stories".
What about Steranko's _Chandler : The Red Tide_ ?
Or Randy Zimmerman's _Spank the Monkey : On the Comic Market_,
which was an essay/pamphlet on the comics market?
--
Laurent
Ophidian
Yet still a "comic".
Ken from Chicago
Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with these. An essay / pamphlet on the comics market
could be done as Illustrated Nonfiction.
-- Ken from Chicago
ron saarna
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:H-KdncLkVek...@comcast.com...
> > I agree comic books are an out-of-date expression.
> > I dislike "illustrated stories" as a generic, as 'stories' has a
> > childish connotation.
>
> "News stories"?
Or for that matter "Hush kids, Grandma is watching her stories".
(Actually, I wouldn't wish Hush on any Grandmother.)
> > However, Illustrated ___, where one can fill in the blank, works.
> > (fiction, non-fiction, biography, etc)
>
> Well, yeah, I preferred "Illustrated Fiction" (and "Illustrated
> Non-Fiction") since it can refer to a single or multiple stories.
>
> Um, wouldn't "Illustrated Non-Fiction" cover illustrated biographies?
Semantics is what we do best here on the internets, so don't question.
Librarians and readers (sometimes they are the same) like to quantify. This
debate is being held in the same forum where someone complained about the
recent re-naming (but not re-numbering) of a Superman title, because they
weren't sure how to file the issues anymore. Clearly we would need an
"Illustrated True Crime" distinction, (as an example) so that people didn't
accidently pick up a prose book, after getting lost in the glut of Graphic
Novels and Manga, and all those other books with no pictures.
> > I also like Sequential Art. I don't care if it includes a series of
> > statues or paintings that tell a story. Let it.
> >
> > John
>
> "Sequential Art" could literally be a series of anything, even parts on an
> assembly line. They are in a sequence.
But is it art? (Don't even try to answer this! Many people with no net
access have failed for hundreds of years.)
Aesthetically I do like the term "Sequential Art". I am just as happy
entertaining my 6 year old niece's requests for me to read a Hulk
"comic-book" with her. If in the future, somebody tells their kid not to bug
Grandpa because he is reading his "stories", it wouldn't bother me either.
Stories, sequential art, illustrated fiction, comic-books. What is the
difference? It is just a label.
Just don't call them funny-papers. That I have a problem with, and will take
it to the back-alley.
Laurent Lehmann
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with these. An essay / pamphlet on the comics market
>could be done as Illustrated Nonfiction.
_Chandler : The Red Tide_ is an illustrated crime novel, that
is a book containing roughly a prose paragraph and a big illlustration
per page. Same thing as kids' fairytales books, only for grownups.
(And speaking of fairyrales, there's also the excellent Max Hamm,
Fairytales Detective, which uses the same format).
These are stories, there are pictures, but are these comics ?
I don't think so, because there's no actual panel to panel narration :
you could remove the pictures and still have the whole story, thus
showing the pictures are actually superfluous, but remove the prose
and there's no story, only a collection of pretty pictures.
Which is the problem I have with all your "illustrated
something" suggestions : to me, "illustrated stories" doesn't suggest
that the pictures actually *tell* the story, only that a (prose) story
is accompanied by some illustrations (like the books illustrated by
Arthur Rackham or Gustave Doré, or more recently Solomon Kane
illustrated by Gary Gianni or Conan illustrated by Mark Schultz).
--
Laurent
Ken from Chicago
>
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:H-KdncLkVek...@comcast.com...
>>
>> <comics...@gavroche.org> wrote in message
>> news:1145197354.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > I agree comic books are an out-of-date expression.
>> > I dislike "illustrated stories" as a generic, as 'stories' has a
>> > childish connotation.
>>
>> "News stories"?
>
> Or for that matter "Hush kids, Grandma is watching her stories".
>
> (Actually, I wouldn't wish Hush on any Grandmother.)
Unless it's BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER's "Hush".
>> > However, Illustrated ___, where one can fill in the blank, works.
>> > (fiction, non-fiction, biography, etc)
>>
>> Well, yeah, I preferred "Illustrated Fiction" (and "Illustrated
>> Non-Fiction") since it can refer to a single or multiple stories.
>>
>> Um, wouldn't "Illustrated Non-Fiction" cover illustrated biographies?
>
> Semantics is what we do best here on the internets, so don't question.
> Librarians and readers (sometimes they are the same) like to quantify.
> This
> debate is being held in the same forum where someone complained about the
> recent re-naming (but not re-numbering) of a Superman title, because they
> weren't sure how to file the issues anymore. Clearly we would need an
File alphabetically by title, then chronologically by publishing date.
> "Illustrated True Crime" distinction, (as an example) so that people
> didn't
> accidently pick up a prose book, after getting lost in the glut of Graphic
> Novels and Manga, and all those other books with no pictures.
>
>> > I also like Sequential Art. I don't care if it includes a series of
>> > statues or paintings that tell a story. Let it.
>> >
>> > John
>>
>> "Sequential Art" could literally be a series of anything, even parts on
>> an
>> assembly line. They are in a sequence.
>
> But is it art? (Don't even try to answer this! Many people with no net
> access have failed for hundreds of years.)
Fortunately I'm here with the answer and net access, tho I had the answer
before I had net access:
ART IS A METAPHOR.
It's a comparison of two things, some comparisons are more obvious than
others. That's why art is subjective because not everyone sees the
comparison, or the same comparison. A painting of person is a comparison of
paint strokes and canvas to the person in the picture. The more
photorealistic the painting, the more direct or more obvious the comparison.
Conversely the more stylized or abstract the painting, the less direct or
less obvious the comparison.
> Aesthetically I do like the term "Sequential Art". I am just as happy
> entertaining my 6 year old niece's requests for me to read a Hulk
> "comic-book" with her. If in the future, somebody tells their kid not to
> bug
> Grandpa because he is reading his "stories", it wouldn't bother me either.
> Stories, sequential art, illustrated fiction, comic-books. What is the
> difference? It is just a label.
>
> Just don't call them funny-papers. That I have a problem with, and will
> take
> it to the back-alley.
"Comics" has a CENTURY of reputation as being "funny papers", "funny books",
"funnies". Even the Sunday morning news talk show, THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE
STEPHANOPOLOS has a segment called the "Sunday Funnies" which shows video
clips of political humor from the late night talk shows or THE DAILY SHOW or
THE COLBERT REPORT, but depicts them in a series of panels with thick
borders akin to the format used in Illustrated Fiction.
Plus "comics" is not only associated with "comic books", which is dismissed
as merely kiddie fare, but also with "comedy", an art form and genre that
dismissed as well. Comedy as an art form isn't treated seriously, certainly
not as much as drama.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 17:09:21 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with these. An essay / pamphlet on the comics market
>>could be done as Illustrated Nonfiction.
>
> _Chandler : The Red Tide_ is an illustrated crime novel, that
> is a book containing roughly a prose paragraph and a big illlustration
> per page. Same thing as kids' fairytales books, only for grownups.
Wait a second, J. Michael Straczynski's DELICATE CREATURES is a fairy tale
for grownups.
> (And speaking of fairyrales, there's also the excellent Max Hamm,
> Fairytales Detective, which uses the same format).
> These are stories, there are pictures, but are these comics ?
> I don't think so, because there's no actual panel to panel narration :
> you could remove the pictures and still have the whole story, thus
> showing the pictures are actually superfluous, but remove the prose
> and there's no story, only a collection of pretty pictures.
>
> Which is the problem I have with all your "illustrated
> something" suggestions : to me, "illustrated stories" doesn't suggest
> that the pictures actually *tell* the story, only that a (prose) story
> is accompanied by some illustrations (like the books illustrated by
> Arthur Rackham or Gustave Doré, or more recently Solomon Kane
> illustrated by Gary Gianni or Conan illustrated by Mark Schultz).
>
> --
> Laurent
What, I'm blurring the lines between a shrinking, dying niche market that's
not taken seriously and a huge, broadbase general market? And the problem
is?
-- Ken from Chicago
Laurent Lehmann
That if you're trying to coin a "new" term to define comics,
you'd better be aware of the connotations this term brings to the
table.
Look, you're trying to come up with something new because you
feel "comics"doesn't cover all the genres of this particular artform
and doesn't look serious enough. Point taken. As said elsewhere, other
languages use terms that describe better the specifities of the
artform.
But I find it slightly ironic that the "serious" term you're
championing is also the one used to describe all kiddie books
associating prose text and pictures...
--
Laurent
Andrew Stephenson
llehmann...@club-internet.fr "Laurent Lehmann" writes:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 06:46:50 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >What, I'm blurring the lines between a shrinking, dying niche market that's
> >not taken seriously and a huge, broadbase general market? And the problem
> >is?
>
> That if you're trying to coin a "new" term to define comics,
> you'd better be aware of the connotations this term brings to the
> table.
>
> [...]
Ken just likes to talk. The more people who will talk with him,
the happier he is -- witness the way he routinely crossposts to
r.a.c.misc as well as to DC and Marvel universe NGs, even when
the matter is definitely misc, like this. (As if DC and Marvel
readers are incapable of subscribing to r.a.c.misc, or actually
_want_ to see misc stuff crossposted to their NGs.)
This topic is a pointless straw man. Whatever term is chosen, it
will acquire connotations. Shakespeare said it nicely, in _Romeo
and Juliet_: "That which we call a rose, by any other name would
smell as sweet." Or as bad.
--
Andrew Stephenson
Eminence
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Plus "comics" is not only associated with "comic books", which is dismissed
>as merely kiddie fare, but also with "comedy", an art form and genre that
>dismissed as well. Comedy as an art form isn't treated seriously, certainly
>not as much as drama.
And therein lies another problem: comedy, strictly speaking, *is*
drama, and its opposite is tragedy. But nobody likes to refer to
"serious" drama as "tragedy," so it's allowed to be "drama" all by its
lonesome, and comedy becomes the maligned stepchild.
I mean this in the classical sense, of course, and not necessarily the
watered-down colloquial sense... which, IIRC, is that comedy is the
story of a low man made great, and tragedy the story of a great man
brought low (which would make "The Beverly Hillbillies" a comedy even
if it weren't meant to be funny). Somewhere along the way, "comedy"
became associated with lowbrow yuks, and eventually we even got a
mish-mash hybrid called "dramedy."
and if this isn't making much sense, it's because I really could stand
some more sleep.
Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned
~consul
> Laurent Lehmann wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 12:43:25 -0400, Ophidian <ophid...@cox.net>
>>> a publication grouping that includes biographies and "true war tales".
>> And even essays, pamphlets, PSA, news stories,ads ...
>> "Illustrated fiction" isn't much more accurate than "comics".
>> "Sequential art" is a better term, because it only deals with the
>> form, and doesn't prejudge what the content might be.
> Except that it consists of more than one panel, which means that stuff
> like the Archie pin-ups would be excluded.
So? If it's just a one page, it's a pin up or a poster, not sequential art. Archie has
regular comics that are multiple pages, as well as one-pagers with sequential panels,
which could cover that.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For within these Trials, we
shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
~consul
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> P.S. Or more generically "Illustrated Stories".
> Better.
> Not perfect.
> You're still including Dr. Seuss.
Illustrated Children's Novel, which is how I always saw it filed as?
> And is Ripley's, which should be included, technically "stories"?
> It's more of "factoids".
Ripley's what?
Ophidian
> Ophidian wrote:
>
>> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>
>>> P.S. Or more generically "Illustrated Stories".
>>
>> Better.
>> Not perfect.
>> You're still including Dr. Seuss.
>
> Illustrated Children's Novel, which is how I always saw it filed as?
A "chlidren's novel" isn't a story?
>> And is Ripley's, which should be included, technically "stories"?
>> It's more of "factoids".
>
> Ripley's what?
Believe it or Not!
~consul
> ~consul wrote:
>> Ophidian wrote:
>>> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>>> P.S. Or more generically "Illustrated Stories".
>>> Better.
>>> Not perfect.
>>> You're still including Dr. Seuss.
>> Illustrated Children's Novel, which is how I always saw it filed as?
> A "chlidren's novel" isn't a story?
It is, but my wonderings was why list it as a possible problem? An anecdote is also a
story, but it isn't included in the definition of "illustrated story" or "children's novel".
>>> And is Ripley's, which should be included, technically "stories"?
>>> It's more of "factoids".
>> Ripley's what?
> Believe it or Not!
I thought that it was a tv show. In print, an encyclopedia.
Ophidian
> Ophidian wrote:
>
>> ~consul wrote:
>>
>>> Ophidian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> P.S. Or more generically "Illustrated Stories".
>>>>
>>>> Better.
>>>> Not perfect.
>>>> You're still including Dr. Seuss.
>>>
>>> Illustrated Children's Novel, which is how I always saw it filed as?
>>
>> A "chlidren's novel" isn't a story?
>
> It is, but my wonderings was why list it as a possible problem?
Because the term describes far more than the "genre" Ken is trying
to use it as a label for.
> An
> anecdote is also a story, but it isn't included in the definition of
> "illustrated story" or "children's novel".
Well an anecdote is usually not illustrated.
But if it is, it IS an "illustrated story".
>>>> And is Ripley's, which should be included, technically "stories"?
>>>> It's more of "factoids".
>>>
>>> Ripley's what?
>>
>> Believe it or Not!
>
> I thought that it was a tv show. In print, an encyclopedia.
It ran for decades as a one-panel newspaper comic.
ron saarna
>
> "ron saarna" <du...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:ZhB0g.565$wK1....@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >> > However, Illustrated ___, where one can fill in the blank, works.
> >> > (fiction, non-fiction, biography, etc)
> >>
> >> Well, yeah, I preferred "Illustrated Fiction" (and "Illustrated
> >> Non-Fiction") since it can refer to a single or multiple stories.
> >>
> >> Um, wouldn't "Illustrated Non-Fiction" cover illustrated biographies?
> >
> > Semantics is what we do best here on the internets, so don't question.
> > Librarians and readers (sometimes they are the same) like to quantify.
> > This
> > debate is being held in the same forum where someone complained about
the
> > recent re-naming (but not re-numbering) of a Superman title, because
they
> > weren't sure how to file the issues anymore. Clearly we would need an
>
> File alphabetically by title, then chronologically by publishing date.
Then the series becomes non-sequential, except to the learned. Unless only
the learned know "art" It was an enough of an issue to raise by
chronologists intent on preserving the "Illustrated Fiction" you trumpet.
You raise too broad a definition. Curious George the book, and Curious
George the film is "Illustrated Fiction". So is "Sin City". Both words taken
independantly have a different connotation. Illustrated. Fiction. Combined
together without enough adjectives in your own words does not mean anything
worth describing that there is no term for already.
> > But is it art? (Don't even try to answer this! Many people with no net
> > access have failed for hundreds of years.)
>
> Fortunately I'm here with the answer and net access, tho I had the answer
> before I had net access:
Lo, behold our new philosopher:
> ART IS A METAPHOR.
>
> It's a comparison of two things, some comparisons are more obvious than
> others. That's why art is subjective because not everyone sees the
> comparison, or the same comparison. A painting of person is a comparison
of
> paint strokes and canvas to the person in the picture. The more
> photorealistic the painting, the more direct or more obvious the
comparison.
> Conversely the more stylized or abstract the painting, the less direct or
> less obvious the comparison.
Some (actually everything) you have said is wrong except for: "It's a
comparison of two things, some comparisons are more obvious than others." I
just put my artistic spin on that last claim. But you will no doubt call me
all sorts of flaming names by presenting a different image than what you
expected. Some art is original. If it is more obvious than others, it does
not make it art.
Or were you just trying to claim "photo-realistic" art is real, as opposed
to abstract art. Or do any lines count as long as they portray the message?
You said it did. The comics sections have existed in most print-media. The
New Yorker still runs comics as does Hustler. Neither publication is working
towards getting rid of them. My daily paper still runs these "Illustrated
Fiction" strips, despite subscribers keep calling then "comic-strips".But
"new-stories" is a legitimate response.
Learn how to pick your battles. Tell any newspaper or magazine to get rid of
their comic-strips. Show me a paper that actually did, based on yours' and
other complaints. How well are they doing?
Ken from Chicago
"Eminence" <grey.e...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:beo742ph33kk6urj0...@4ax.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedy
Comedy = Drama + Happy Ending
Tragedy = Drama + Unhappy Ending
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Math rules.
Ken from Chicago
>
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:QpSdnUqgirv7_N7Z...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "ron saarna" <du...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ZhB0g.565$wK1....@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>> >> > However, Illustrated ___, where one can fill in the blank, works.
>> >> > (fiction, non-fiction, biography, etc)
>> >>
>> >> Well, yeah, I preferred "Illustrated Fiction" (and "Illustrated
>> >> Non-Fiction") since it can refer to a single or multiple stories.
>> >>
>> >> Um, wouldn't "Illustrated Non-Fiction" cover illustrated biographies?
>> >
>> > Semantics is what we do best here on the internets, so don't question.
>> > Librarians and readers (sometimes they are the same) like to quantify.
>> > This
>> > debate is being held in the same forum where someone complained about
> the
>> > recent re-naming (but not re-numbering) of a Superman title, because
> they
>> > weren't sure how to file the issues anymore. Clearly we would need an
>>
>> File alphabetically by title, then chronologically by publishing date.
>
> Then the series becomes non-sequential, except to the learned. Unless only
My was response was how to store a collection when the series title changes.
> the learned know "art" It was an enough of an issue to raise by
> chronologists intent on preserving the "Illustrated Fiction" you trumpet.
> You raise too broad a definition. Curious George the book, and Curious
> George the film is "Illustrated Fiction". So is "Sin City". Both words
> taken
> independantly have a different connotation. Illustrated. Fiction. Combined
> together without enough adjectives in your own words does not mean
> anything
> worth describing that there is no term for already.
CURIOUS GEORGE and SIN CITY are indeed Illustrated Fiction. On a technical
level all film is Illustrated Fiction, but I was intending on going that
far. The broad definition where in printed versions of both CG and SC fit is
precisely the point: Illustrated Fiction can be just as juvenile or as
mature as the subject matter requires or the creator intends--just like
EITHER Illustration OR Fiction can fit a wide range from juvenile to mature.
>> > But is it art? (Don't even try to answer this! Many people with no net
>> > access have failed for hundreds of years.)
>>
>> Fortunately I'm here with the answer and net access, tho I had the answer
>> before I had net access:
>
> Lo, behold our new philosopher:
>
>> ART IS A METAPHOR.
>>
>> It's a comparison of two things, some comparisons are more obvious than
>> others. That's why art is subjective because not everyone sees the
>> comparison, or the same comparison. A painting of person is a comparison
> of
>> paint strokes and canvas to the person in the picture. The more
>> photorealistic the painting, the more direct or more obvious the
> comparison.
>> Conversely the more stylized or abstract the painting, the less direct or
>> less obvious the comparison.
>
> Some (actually everything) you have said is wrong except for: "It's a
> comparison of two things, some comparisons are more obvious than others."
> I
> just put my artistic spin on that last claim. But you will no doubt call
> me
> all sorts of flaming names by presenting a different image than what you
Only an idiot makes ad hominem personal attacks.
I like to think I'm not an idiot. I get no benefit from personally insulting
you just because we have a disagreement of ideas. I can't make you believe
what you don't want to. The best I can do is present my evidence and it's up
to you to agree--or not. If you agree, all well and good, and if not, oh
well, life goes on.
> expected. Some art is original. If it is more obvious than others, it does
> not make it art.
Huh?
Less obvious "art" is not "art"? Isn't that self-contradictory? If you start
out as less obvious "art" isn't it ... you know ... "art"?
> Or were you just trying to claim "photo-realistic" art is real, as opposed
> to abstract art. Or do any lines count as long as they portray the
> message?
No, that for many people the a more realistic painting or sculpture is "art"
as the comparison between the object and the reality is more readily scene.
They judge it by how close the reproduction of the reality is ... realized.
For others, comparison need not be so literal, the reproduction can be more
abstract.
It's a matter of definition and opinion and subjectivity of the audience
regarding the work of "art" in question.
"Comic *books*", that is the monthly serial magazine, is the dying,
shrinking niche market (altho the TPB format has a surge of popularity,
IMHO, since you have complete stories in one package and the buyer doesn't
have to make a long-term commitment to getting six issues over have a year,
but has it all on one shot).
I agree that "comic *strips*" remain popular, because they are quick, have
pert near instant gratification, and they are convenient, right there in the
newspaper. You don't have to travel to a specialty shop in some remote
location.
> Learn how to pick your battles. Tell any newspaper or magazine to get rid
> of
> their comic-strips. Show me a paper that actually did, based on yours' and
> other complaints. How well are they doing?
Why would I tell them that?
-- Ken from Chicago
Crimespree Magazine
> shrinking niche market (altho the TPB format has a surge of popularity,
> IMHO, since you have complete stories in one package and the buyer doesn't
> have to make a long-term commitment to getting six issues over have a year,
> but has it all on one shot).
>
>
>
Actually comics sales are up. I've talked to a number of comics store owners who
say that sales are higher than they've been in years. Where are you getting your
facts?
Comics, graphic novels illustrated fiction. Who cares? The world at large will
continue to call them comic books. SO will the companies that make them.
Why go on and on about this stuff? All this obsessing about sales figures and
the future of the industry. Trust me, comics books will be here after we are
dead and buried.
Jon
LUXXXCORP
with "PANELOLOGY" or "PANELOGY".
It meant the art, (science? philosophy? etc.?) of telling a story via
the use of "Panel" Art.
Chris Ware is, currently, monkeywrenching around with the entire
concept, y'know.
Him and that "ZOT!" fella.
(Remember the CSA or whatever the acronym was?
Guys like Rogofski & Seuling, I guess, TCB. Something similar called:
"Fortress of Trust" or something: the logo being a pair of shaking, not
quivering, hands, is being planned by CGC chat board members.)
Ken from Chicago
"LUXXXCORP" <luxx...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1145349262.5...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
"Panelology" or "Panelogy" sounds like a STUDY of panels, kinda like
"Comicology" would be a STUDY of comics.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Crimespree Magazine" <nig...@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:44444A66...@execpc.com...
Obsessively debating about some seemingly trivial point?
I'm sorry, have you never met Illustrated Fiction fans before?
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Read this and similar newsgroups and online forums for examples.
Ken from Chicago
> ~consul wrote:
>
>> Ophidian wrote:
>>
>>> ~consul wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ophidian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S. Or more generically "Illustrated Stories".
>>>>>
>>>>> Better.
>>>>> Not perfect.
>>>>> You're still including Dr. Seuss.
>>>>
>>>> Illustrated Children's Novel, which is how I always saw it filed as?
>>>
>>> A "chlidren's novel" isn't a story?
>>
>> It is, but my wonderings was why list it as a possible problem?
>
> Because the term describes far more than the "genre" Ken is trying
> to use it as a label for.
Illustrated Fiction is not a genre but a medium.
That's the problem is that the mainstream THINKS it's a genre and want to
shoehorn it into one little corner, be it superheroes, sf, kiddie fare--at
least here in America. Part of the lack of understanding of reaction to
backlash to the Mohammed cartoons is that in America the thought what's the
big deal, it's "just cartoons", but internationally, cartoons are not
considered as merely kiddie fare, but just as valid form of expression as
prose--and thus just as serious as any other form of political rhetoric.
>> An anecdote is also a story, but it isn't included in the definition of
>> "illustrated story" or "children's novel".
>
> Well an anecdote is usually not illustrated.
> But if it is, it IS an "illustrated story".
>
>>>>> And is Ripley's, which should be included, technically "stories"?
>>>>> It's more of "factoids".
>>>>
>>>> Ripley's what?
>>>
>>> Believe it or Not!
>>
>> I thought that it was a tv show. In print, an encyclopedia.
>
> It ran for decades as a one-panel newspaper comic.
Believe it or not.
Oh come on, you HAD to know someone would say it? It was crying out to be
said!
-- Ken from Chicago (who remembers Jack Palance hosted the tv show, then his
daughter(?), Holly, cohosted, cute, but she lacked Jack's menacing voice)
Jack Bohn
>>>>>> And is Ripley's, which should be included, technically "stories"?
>>>>>> It's more of "factoids".
>>>>>
>>>>> Ripley's what?
>>>>
>>>> Believe it or Not!
>>>
>>> I thought that it was a tv show. In print, an encyclopedia.
>>
>> It ran for decades as a one-panel newspaper comic.
>
>Believe it or not.
>
>Oh come on, you HAD to know someone would say it? It was crying out to be
>said!
>
>-- Ken from Chicago (who remembers Jack Palance hosted the tv show, then his
>daughter(?), Holly, cohosted, cute, but she lacked Jack's menacing voice)
Lacking his menacing voice is not a bug, it's a feature!
--
-Jack
ron saarna
> Illustrated Fiction is not a genre but a medium.
It can be both.
> That's the problem is that the mainstream THINKS it's a genre and want to
> shoehorn it into one little corner, be it superheroes, sf, kiddie fare--at
> least here in America. Part of the lack of understanding of reaction to
> backlash to the Mohammed cartoons is that in America the thought what's
the
> big deal, it's "just cartoons", but internationally, cartoons are not
> considered as merely kiddie fare, but just as valid form of expression as
> prose--and thus just as serious as any other form of political rhetoric.
No, we just have a different understanding of what satire can involve.
Satire has nothing to do that involves cartoons exclusively. A joke is a
joke, regardless the medium (but maybe you want to invent a word to replace
satire.) My feeling is that there are no "sacred cows" that can not be
mocked. That includes religious figures, political figures, etc. Anyone and
anything is fair game. Some don't feel that way. They have their own
beliefs. The US routinely mocks religious figures in its cartoons. Our
culture doesn't count if it offends someone? Welcome to the world of
political cartooning. Think about the word "cartoon" while you are at it. It
is wrong to make a cartoon, but not a Fatweh?
> Believe it or not.
>
> Oh come on, you HAD to know someone would say it? It was crying out to be
> said!
To bring it on-topic again, Dean Cain (Lois and Clark) was the latest host.
LUXXXCORP
"So? If it's just a one page, it's a pin up or a poster, not sequential
art. Archie has
regular comics that are multiple pages, as well as one-pagers with
sequential panels,
which could cover that. "
How, then, would you include this:
"Death By Sexy version 1.2 by Evan Keeling got a really righteous (and
ambitious) concept. These are all concert posters for the band Death By
Sexy, which have to include the time, date and ticket price of each
show, and Evan's trying to connect all these posters into an ongoing
story in which each poster is one full page."
I got the above, here:
http://seanmaher.blogspot.com/
He's reviewing new stuff from the SPX.
Ophidian
> "Ophidian" <ophid...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:iZS0g.3497$8q.2882@dukeread08...
>>
>>Because the term describes far more than the "genre" Ken is trying
>>to use it as a label for.
>
> Illustrated Fiction is not a genre but a medium.
Hence the quotes.
> That's the problem is that the mainstream THINKS it's a genre and want to
> shoehorn it into one little corner, be it superheroes, sf, kiddie fare--at
> least here in America. Part of the lack of understanding of reaction to
> backlash to the Mohammed cartoons is that in America the thought what's the
> big deal, it's "just cartoons", but internationally, cartoons are not
> considered as merely kiddie fare, but just as valid form of expression as
> prose--and thus just as serious as any other form of political rhetoric.
I think the problem there is not that Muslims take comics seriously
but that they take Mohammed seriously.
The Satanic Verses flap didn't happen because the British don't
take novels seriously or because the Muslims take them too seriously.
ron saarna
> Obsessively debating about some seemingly trivial point?
>
> I'm sorry, have you never met Illustrated Fiction fans before?
The Sequential Art fans here would disagree with you. You guys just keep
trying to get the last word in.