Comics are dead... long live comics!

[Drusilla lives!]

Will the graphic novel format transform and advance the comic genre to the point that comics are eventually subsumed by them? Are we witnessing the birth of a new medium and the death of an old one?

I am not completely convinced that the two formats cannot coexist with each focusing on differing story structures. After all, as the name implies the graphic novel should have more in common with non graphic novels, both fiction and nonfiction. Comics are, or were, centered around the "short story". Unless the art of the short story is dead than clearly there should be room for the traditional comic form in my opinion. The death of comics could be due to major headwinds such as rising prices which spur reduced demand, over saturation of titles, a general decline in interest in the medium as an entertainment/creative vehicle, etc... but these factors would also effect publishers of graphic novels as well... eventually. Why would the graphic novel flourish while the comic format dies a slow death? The graphic novel also has it's own unique problems as well. What does the graphic novel offer a reading public that the traditional, non graphic novel doesn't already. Does the graphic novel have to overcome any latent stereotypes or preconceptions due to its associations with comics?

[Dennis]

Are collected trade paperback arcs also considered graphic novels? Is Preacher one big graphic novel or ten. Or are you only talking about special stories that didn't come out in monthly format.

At any rate, check out the newest Tilting at Windmills column.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=17284


For instance, I can quickly see that there are approximately 3800 book format SKUs that we stock that we’ve sold one or more copies of in the last twelve months. Then there are the roughly 1400 books that we’ve sold no (none, zero, zilch) copies of since our initial inventory and installation of the POS system.

The question, however, is what happens after that, because some of the results I’ve experienced are downright weird. For instance, let’s look at “Ultimate Spider-Man.” There are 19 trade paperbacks of the series out as of this writing. We turned v1 five times in the last year. That’s pretty decent for an eight year old series. V2 turned three times, and v3 turned twice. However, in the last twelve months, we’ve yet to turn a copy of v4, 5, or 7 through 10, and 12 through 16.

(And lest you think that it is just “Ultimate,” sales on the JMS “Amazing” volumes have dropped to nil as well; further we can sell volumes 1 to 3 of “Essential Spider-Man,” but v4 and older are also without movement)

Then there are headshakers like “Batman: A Death in the Family,” which has been in print as a trade for decades. I haven’t sold a copy in a year, really? I’ve always considered that one of the “must stock” part of the superhero section; shows you how much I know! (There are 28 different “Batman” TPs that the raw facts say I have to delete.)

It appears that trade paperbacks, like the periodicals, have a shelf life. Unless you're talking about a famous classic that keeps on selling no matter what.

Comic book fans (or maybe just superhero fans) seem to want to follow the current stories. We want to know what's happening now in Spidey's life, not what happened in the summer of 2003.

I've always considered the trade paperback to be something special - reserved for the best stories. Well that was how I felt in 1987. And I guess that feeling is still there - I only want to buy a trade if it's a special story. But I'll throw my money away on a mediocre monthly comic, simply because it's NeW. Once it gets old, there's no reason to buy it.

[Drusilla lives!]

Are collected trade paperback arcs also considered graphic novels? Is Preacher one big graphic novel or ten. Or are you only talking about special stories that didn't come out in monthly format.
...

It appears that trade paperbacks, like the periodicals, have a shelf life. Unless you're talking about a famous classic that keeps on selling no matter what.

Comic book fans (or maybe just superhero fans) seem to want to follow the current stories. We want to know what's happening now in Spidey's life, not what happened in the summer of 2003.

I've always considered the trade paperback to be something special - reserved for the best stories. Well that was how I felt in 1987. And I guess that feeling is still there - I only want to buy a trade if it's a special story. But I'll throw my money away on a mediocre monthly comic, simply because it's NeW. Once it gets old, there's no reason to buy it.

I was only thinking of graphic novels in the sense that they feature new, original material, not TPB's that contain reprints of stories recently published in an on going monthly comic. I consider most of the TPB's as a gimmick that in my opinion is bad for both the graphic novel and the long term health of the comics industry.

Call me old school but I feel that if it's worth reading and it's recently published in a comic... track down and buy the comic. If there is a good on going arc in Detective Comics, pre-order the comic to it's conclusion. Reprinting recent stories in a TPB is probably a drain on the monthly sales of the on going titles in my opinion. Why buy the individual issues if the arc is going to be reprinted in only six months time? I'm not opposed to reprinting hard to find works of long defunct publishers or classic comics whose value as artifact now makes it to prohibitive to obtain in their original form... but to saturate the comics market with TPB's stuffed with reprinted material from less than a year ago?

On the other hand, there are many comics being published today that I feel should be published as GN's. For example, all those Criminal Macabre limited series by Niles in comic format... I mean, why? They're perfectly suited for the GN format and as soon as the series is completed... presto, Criminal Macabre: Case of The Devil Baby's Rattle TPB... why not just publish it as a TPB and get it over with.

[dancj]

Reprinting recent stories in a TPB is probably a drain on the monthly sales of the on going titles in my opinion. Why buy the individual issues if the arc is going to be reprinted in only six months time? I'm not opposed to reprinting hard to find works of long defunct publishers or classic comics whose value as artifact now makes it to prohibitive to obtain in their original form... but to saturate the comics market with TPB's stuffed with reprinted material from less than a year ago?
I have no doubt that the comics do lose some sales to the TPBs, but I've also got no doubt that it gains some sales that aren't at the expense of comics. If DC announced tomorrow that they were going to stop producing TPBs and that comics are the only way of getting their books then that would probably be the end of my DC buying. I really can't be arsed messing around with comic bags every 22 pages any more.

I'd be less adverse to any plans to completely drop monthlies, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be.

[Steven Grant]

On the other hand, there are many comics being published today that I feel should be published as GN's. For example, all those Criminal Macabre limited series by Niles in comic format... I mean, why? They're perfectly suited for the GN format and as soon as the series is completed... presto, Criminal Macabre: Case of The Devil Baby's Rattle TPB... why not just publish it as a TPB and get it over with.

Because most comics publishers are still in transition between a magazine economy and a book economy, and the magazine economy is still the one they consider "normal." But many are shifting, incrementally, and you're going to start seeing a lot more original graphic novels over the next couple of years as it sinks in that it's cheaper and more profitable overall to just go that route rather than the comics-to-collection route even though it's initially more costly.

- Grant

[Drusilla lives!]

I have no doubt that the comics do lose some sales to the TPBs, but I've also got no doubt that it gains some sales that aren't at the expense of comics. If DC announced tomorrow that they were going to stop producing TPBs and that comics are the only way of getting their books then that would probably be the end of my DC buying. I really can't be arsed messing around with comic bags every 22 pages any more.

I'd be less adverse to any plans to completely drop monthlies, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be.

I for one would miss the monthlies... but that's just me. I grew up with comics being sold on newsstands and then comic shops. There was always a "collecting" aspect to my comic buying. Not a mercantilistic one... at least not at first, if that were the case I would have never bought half the comics that I did. I enjoyed the excitement of finding a rare issue, hunting down a much needed second or third part to a four part arc. It was fun and made reading comics something different, it made it a "hobby" as well. I'm afraid the loss of that aspect of buying and reading comics will eventually be one of the things that lead to it's ultimate decline... but again, that's just me talking.

But I understand where you're coming from... poor distribution in the seventies and even through the local comic shops in my area in the eighties were a source of major dissatisfaction as well. Many times you really couldn't get that last missing issue of a good story arc. In fact, when comics were distributed via newsstands in the seventies I would consider myself lucky to find my favorite monthlies on sale month in and month out... it was a real crapshoot. I'm sure the publishers knew this as well, crossovers and tie-ins?... multi-issue arcs more than three issues?... back then they were a very rare bird indeed. Maybe this sparked the TPB market as it currently exits, maybe not, but releasing TPB's a month or two after the arc was just published seems excessive and counter productive to me.

[Drusilla lives!]

Because most comics publishers are still in transition between a magazine economy and a book economy, and the magazine economy is still the one they consider "normal." But many are shifting, incrementally, and you're going to start seeing a lot more original graphic novels over the next couple of years as it sinks in that it's cheaper and more profitable overall to just go that route rather than the comics-to-collection route even though it's initially more costly.

- Grant

Yes, I agree with you completely on that point. You can see it in the younger publishing companies like Avatar Press... or should I say Warren Ellis Press. :)

Black Summer was (or should I say is, since they still have not released the last issue) a good limited series in my opinion. But it was/is completely suited for the GN format. I mean, great iconic cover (issue #0) by Ryp, great concept, etc... eight issues? Ok, maybe all the extra killer cover art by Ryp is worth it... maybe. Now you have No Hero, which is being advertised as a serialization of a GN?... when was the GN published?

But I believe there is still room for the traditional comic format. I really enjoy reading and collecting Simpsons and Futurama comics from Bongo and I think the material is perfectly suited to the monthly or bimonthly format... why issue the material in a TPB?... at least for a couple of decades... comics are the perfect medium for the material. I also feel that way about some long running titles such as Detective Comics... if they stick to the short story format. More ambitious multi-threaded crossover arcs could be tackled in GN's.

[badMike]

I really enjoy reading and collecting Simpsons and Futurama comics from Bongo and I think the material is perfectly suited to the monthly or bimonthly format... why issue the material in a TPB?Because different people have different reading habits and if a publisher can appeal to as many of them as possible, then they should try. Some people don't want to or can't go week in / week out to a comic book store -- and to make sure you get exactly what you want, you has to go every week.

Going every week was a regular habit for me for years, but now I'm totally sick of it. I'd be more apt to buy a Simpsons collection to have a more satisfying reading experience. What's the difference between reading a collection of monthly individual stories or, say, a collection of two-to-five pagers by David Sedaris?

[BigBoss]

Well me personally the bennefiet of tbps is I dont have to wait on what happens next, but the down side is, waiting for the comics to get in tpb collection. and you usally get 6 issues in a tpb for 15 dollers witch ends up being a doler maybe 2 cheaper then say if you bought them in comic form, but I can undertsand the hardcore passion of collecting.

[Drusilla lives!]

Because different people have different reading habits and if a publisher can appeal to as many of them as possible, then they should try. Some people don't want to or can't go week in / week out to a comic book store -- and to make sure you get exactly what you want, you has to go every week.

Going every week was a regular habit for me for years, but now I'm totally sick of it. I'd be more apt to buy a Simpsons collection to have a more satisfying reading experience. What's the difference between reading a collection of monthly individual stories or, say, a collection of two-to-five pagers by David Sedaris?

I don't buy my comics at a local comic shop either, I usually pre-order thru which ever internet retailer has the lowest price. With the internet as the new distribution channel it's easier than ever to complete a story arc. From my perspective this reduces the need for a TPB... I'd much rather have the four or five individual Simpson comics.

The difference to me is that the comic form seems a more perfect one... it's minimalism necessitating more creative thought and skill on the part of both the writer and artist to effectively produce a satisfying and aesthetically pleasing work. When this is done right, it shouldn't be lost in a cheap "throw away" TPB... but it shouldn't be lost in time either. After a decade or two, a well done TPB with added value (author/artist bio, historical information, back story, etc.) would in my opinion be warranted. I grant that the terms "perfect", "aesthetically pleasing" and so on, are loaded ones, with different meanings for different people. In fact, my own concepts are more likely formed by my past experience and what I've been "sold" over the years than anything else, but it's the only way to convey to you my feeling on the matter.

[Drusilla lives!]

Well me personally the bennefiet of tbps is I dont have to wait on what happens next, but the down side is, waiting for the comics to get in tpb collection. and you usally get 6 issues in a tpb for 15 dollers witch ends up being a doler maybe 2 cheaper then say if you bought them in comic form, but I can undertsand the hardcore passion of collecting.

Yeah, it's probably just me... a dinosaur from another era deluding myself with romantic nostalgia of the way things never were. :) If I was starting out now in comics my opinion would be completely different I suppose.

[Dennis]

The graphic novel is like a movie, comics are like a tv show. They're two different categories of stories; the gn should have a proper ending, while the comic has the luxury of being big and epic and going on and on without resolving anything. If you have a long story, you want to give it to your readers piece by piece on a regular basis. You don't want them waiting six months for the next bit. Out of sight, out of mind.

[BigBoss]

yea books like batman spidey iron man supes etc, those are more suited for a comic format but. like drusillia stated in a earlier post. books like liketed series like no hero black summer, should just skip comic format and go to GN.

[Drusilla lives!]

"Cheap" and "throw away"... interesting terms and a bit harsh. The TPB's aren't really that cheap nor are they probably considered disposable to the people who buy and collect them... at one time people felt the same way about comics.

What would make me use such terms? I think it goes back to a general philosophy about art that I have... which I will not go into detail on. But key to my definition and philosophy is intention. When an piece of art is created in a form such as a comic book (or any other medium), whether or not the publisher meant it or not, he or she creates a context which conveys a sense of intent. That is, the idea that that piece of art was intended to be presented in that form. When a work is then transfered haphazardly to even another form within the same general medium, it's a violation of that intent. This for me sends (for lack of a better term) a "mixed message" about the value of the work in the first place and whether it should be considered art.

[BigBoss]

I would like mutch to hear bout your philopsy.

[Drusilla lives!]

Well... you asked for it...

What is art? There is much beauty in nature, but this pure, primal beauty formed by random processes is not art. Furthermore, there is much beauty in art, but not all art is considered beautiful. In fact, there is a lot of art that is not at all beautiful by conventional measures... and esthetic measures have been argued to be themselves a product of convention. Art is said to provoke an emotional response in the observer, but not all art was created to do so, or does so as intended. Further muddling any attempt at defining art is that the term is sometimes applied to physical constructs, sometimes to the creative medium from which the constructs are born. When abstracting from all these notions what are we left with? Are we left with a single concept, something that we can point to and declare "that defines what art is".

In general, no, but one thing does stand out. Art always seems to involve the attempted communication of conscious intention on the part of the artist to the observer (artist included). Therefore for me, a good starting definition of what qualifies as art is any construct (physical or not) that is created with a purpose on the part of it's author. That is, art is a (human) construct whose foundation is intention and whose medium is defined by methods that are both simultaneously shaped and limited by the context of both the author and the observer.

A Jackson Pollack painting seems to some to be nothing more than paint botches on a drop cloth. But the differance between a Pollack painting and an unfortunate accident involving a can of paint, a canvas and a bannana peel, is intention. Whether we believe it or not, each work was fabricated with meditated insight reflective of his inner nature at the time... each color choice, each slash of paint, each drop... all were orchestrated with an aim in mind. But in the end it doesn't matter if this was really true or not, what does matter is if he stated it as such and worked under that intent. Thus, what makes it art (for me anyway) is the intent. They are works of art because they are the product of a method within a context guided in deference to intention.

Say a performance artist burns an American flag in front of a crowd at the Washington monument. Is it art? To me it would depend on intention. If the artist claims to have done it to invoke an emotional response from the on lookers... of which I'm sure he will... then on a certain level it could be considered art. The burning flag was simultaneously a medium and construct, the intent, the creation of human emotion to the construct... hopefully the artist is wearing a good pair of running shoes as well.

[Dennis]

Would 9/11 be art then?

[Drusilla lives!]

Would 9/11 be art then?

No because it's intent was formulated within a political context, not an artistic one. If say the flag burner in front of the Washington monument intended to protest America's involvement in Iraq, then the context of the act has shifted from artistic expression to political expression.

[Dennis]

No because it's intent was formulated within a political context, not an artistic one. If say the flag burner in front of the Washington monument intended to protest America's involvement in Iraq, then the context of the act has shifted from artistic expression to political expression.

But aren't you using the word art in describing art: art is an intention formulated within an artistic context. Isn't a painting of George Bush as a Nazi political expression as well? Both modes of expression are designed to get a reaction from people. Wouldn't the painter love it if he inspired people to think more like him?

What if an artist covered a copy of the bible with imported kangaroo feces. Isn't that anti-religious expression? Why can't it be an artistic expression with an emphasis on a political issue.

Isn't the performance artist just getting more credit because he's doing it with flair (or paint, pixels, sound).

[mattx110]

No because it's intent was formulated within a political context, not an artistic one. If say the flag burner in front of the Washington monument intended to protest America's involvement in Iraq, then the context of the act has shifted from artistic expression to political expression.
politics is art.

art is skill applied to contrivance. Also derivation, but it's a subset and I don't feel like dealing in subsets.

There's nothing about political acts that don't say "art" given some differential exploration, ie: doing the math, finding the simplest way of representing a function.

[Libaax]

I was only thinking of graphic novels in the sense that they feature new, original material, not TPB's that contain reprints of stories recently published in an on going monthly comic. I consider most of the TPB's as a gimmick that in my opinion is bad for both the graphic novel and the long term health of the comics industry.

Call me old school but I feel that if it's worth reading and it's recently published in a comic... track down and buy the comic. If there is a good on going arc in Detective Comics, pre-order the comic to it's conclusion. Reprinting recent stories in a TPB is probably a drain on the monthly sales of the on going titles in my opinion. Why buy the individual issues if the arc is going to be reprinted in only six months time? I'm not opposed to reprinting hard to find works of long defunct publishers or classic comics whose value as artifact now makes it to prohibitive to obtain in their original form... but to saturate the comics market with TPB's stuffed with reprinted material from less than a year ago?

On the other hand, there are many comics being published today that I feel should be published as GN's. For example, all those Criminal Macabre limited series by Niles in comic format... I mean, why? They're perfectly suited for the GN format and as soon as the series is completed... presto, Criminal Macabre: Case of The Devil Baby's Rattle TPB... why not just publish it as a TPB and get it over with.


Thats what why trades rule.

For over in the center of american comics in terms living in North America its easy getting single issues for monthlies that are less than an year old.

For me an international reader whose LCS can only order the newest monthlies. You have to get Trades to catch up to a comic that started 5 months ago even.

Without trades you would never catch to a comic you like over here.

All the graphic Novels in my LCS are trades of real old comics or newest trades.

Original GNs are not common.

Less than a year old trades might not be something special for you but for people like me it saves alot of time and money to order older monthly comics that takes month to get old of and by that time you are almost another year after.

[Dennis]

Can't you say everything we do has an intention. I intend to get someone to smile, I intend to get someone pissed off, I intend to teach someone about abortion, I intend to enlighten, I intend to get a cheeseburger. And isn't art that same intention with a layer of bullshit on top.

And what about acting? Aren't we all acting?

[Dennis]

Like, what if you want to get someone to think the Holocaust was wrong. You could do this masterful painting showing how the Holocaust was wrong. But what if someone just says, "The Holocaust was wrong." Both people have the exact same goal: to persuade. But one is art.

[mattx110]

And what about acting? Aren't we all acting?
Technically yes.

Some people still suck at it, but get by on a pretty face.

[Dennis]

Before today, I would have said art (at least good art), is a bold brave attempt to discover the truth. But the problem with all definitions that define art as this noble very important endeavor is this: what about bad art? How do you put Vanilla Ice in the same category as Mozart? What about the 5 year old dripping paint? That kid also wants to be loved, wants the teacher and Mommy to smile at her masterpiece. There is intention there also.

I guess I have to conclude that art is not about the discovery of truth, it's in fact the complete opposite: art is taking a truth and making it a lie. For example, think of a well done caricature of George Bush; he could look like a chimp with giant ears and being led around by Dick Cheney on a leash. This of course is defined as satire: something funny based on the truth. But even though it's based on the truth, it's still a lie. An exaggeration, of any sort, is still a lie.

The truth doesn't need to be exaggerated, or dressed up in any way. It doesn't need to be photoshopped. Once you start manipulating the truth, it's no longer the truth.

Is a make-up artist an artist? The plastic surgeon? The photo manipulator? Yes. Because art is about transforming what is real into something else. That something else I would describe as this: bullshit that we find pleasing.

What is great art? It's fancier bullshit. Bullshit with a cherry on top.

What about great photos? They're often considered as capturing the real essence of something - capturing the truth about the subject. But think about how a photographer goes about it: waiting all day and night for the perfect moment, the perfect lighting, playing with his five thousand dollar camera and fancy lenses, telling a model to hold this pose, take a thousand pictures, squinting and jumping around, ok hold that pose now, tell a large staff of assistants what to do. Why does the truth require so much effort?

Stories: a grown up version of playing with dolls.

Why do we need art? The ultimate purpose? So we can feel better. Even depressing music makes us feel better. We don't want the truth. We want to be lied to. The truth is boring and scary. We need the shiny piece of bullshit. With a cherry on top.

[Drusilla lives!]

One question that goes begging is would 9/11 be art if OBinL considered himself an artist and declared that he committed the act as a work of art. Would an act of mass murder be considered art just because it was intended as such? This lays bare another aspect of art... is there a moral aspect to art? I'm afraid not as I defined it, but this is so of other human activities such as science. Moral judgement in art is a function of the individual, not of art itself... as I defined it.

How can one rectify this? Is art a neutral construct?... one which is to be observed and interacted with without being consumed by it? What is the art in this case, the construct or the observer? If art is "neutral" then 9/11 would not be art for it "consumed" it's observers in the process of it's creation.

[Dennis]

I always felt that music was a drug - something intended to alter moods. Art changes the feelings of someone. The artist may never show his art to anyone else, so the feelings he's changing would only be his own.

Bad guys can be very creative. They are innovating all the time. A new torture method could be just as ingenious as the latest Apple product. Is there a Steve Jobs of torturers?

They say the goal of terrorism is to cause fear or terror. Isn't that the ultimate goal of horror movies? They say that terrorists do this as a "means of coercion". Coercion sounds very violent and forceful but is it always? From wikipedia:


Coercion may also refer to more subtle means of influence such as sweet talking, begging, charming, and seduction.

What if the artist wants his fans to feel happy? Isn't the artist practicing the art of Happyism?

[Drusilla lives!]

Before today, I would have said art (at least good art), is a bold brave attempt to discover the truth. But the problem with all definitions that define art as this noble very important endeavor is this: what about bad art? How do you put Vanilla Ice in the same category as Mozart? What about the 5 year old dripping paint? That kid also wants to be loved, wants the teacher and Mommy to smile at her masterpiece. There is intention there also.

I guess I have to conclude that art is not about the discovery of truth, it's in fact the complete opposite: art is taking a truth and making it a lie. For example, think of a well done caricature of George Bush; he could look like a chimp with giant ears and being led around by Dick Cheney on a leash. This of course is defined as satire: something funny based on the truth. But even though it's based on the truth, it's still a lie. An exaggeration, of any sort, is still a lie.

The truth doesn't need to be exaggerated, or dressed up in any way. It doesn't need to be photoshopped. Once you start manipulating the truth, it's no longer the truth.

Is a make-up artist an artist? The plastic surgeon? The photo manipulator? Yes. Because art is about transforming what is real into something else. That something else I would describe as this: bullshit that we find pleasing.

What is great art? It's fancier bullshit. Bullshit with a cherry on top.

What about great photos? They're often considered as capturing the real essence of something - capturing the truth about the subject. But think about how a photographer goes about it: waiting all day and night for the perfect moment, the perfect lighting, playing with his five thousand dollar camera and fancy lenses, telling a model to hold this pose, take a thousand pictures, squinting and jumping around, ok hold that pose now, tell a large staff of assistants what to do. Why does the truth require so much effort?

Stories: a grown up version of playing with dolls.

Why do we need art? The ultimate purpose? So we can feel better. Even depressing music makes us feel better. We don't want the truth. We want to be lied to. The truth is boring and scary. We need the shiny piece of bullshit. With a cherry on top.

Artists are real people... some are sinners, some are saints... all are a product of their culture. They have opinions, values, etc... some choose to use their talent to lend support to these opinions and values. Does that make it art?... or is that art a utility? If they claim that their intent was to create a piece of art (whose subject matter happens to be of a political nature) then by my definition it's art. But if it's a political statement it's not... it's faux art... and that individual artist is using his or her art as a utility. Which raises a question, how can one be sure? Truth is in the fabric of the individual, it is up to them to be truthful to themselves and their art. As an observer there is really no way of determining for certain what an artist has intended... but one would believe them to be truthful to themselves... but then this is the basis of further problems in trying to define art. In fact, the interplay between artist intention and perceived intention on the part of the observer is in my opinion the root basis of performance art.

What you may (or rather I may) be grasping for is this, is there art in a "pure" form, one removed from experience? Going back to Pollack's work, is it a "purer" form of art than say one created from utility? All working artists seem to bend to utility in one form or another... even Mozart had his patrons.

[Dennis]

Random crazy thoughts:

I see the ultimate goal of art as a form of therapy for the artist. The artist has a need to feel better. Everything else is secondary - whatever statement he makes doesn't really matter; he chooses the statement in order to serve his own purpose, which is to feel better.

Someone like Britney Spears is not considered a real artist, mainly because it doesn't appear she's putting a whole lot of work into it. And because of what we perceive as a lack of work ethic, we don't consider her art to be real.

I think it's this work ethic that we're really impressed by. We're invigorated by some imagined image of Jackson Pollock feverishly and violently splashing paint around. Ooh look at how hard he's working!

Anything that is done on a really big scale will probably be considered as art by many.

Or we're impressed by someone who seem to have similar sensibilities as us. You may feel down and gloomy one day, and Radiohead might match that mood, so they become kindred spirits to us. Sometimes we're looking to change our mood, sometimes we want to amplify what we're feeling.

A great artist can make us feel something we never felt before - we feel an emotion we've probably felt before, but with a new twist. And if you're a kid, that emotion could be completely brand new. Great art is a new flavor of an emotion.

Art is a desperate attempt to feel better, and the more desperate it seems, the greater we think it is. That's why happy new age music and pictures of kittens playing isn't regarded as great.

In the end, we're just trying to get attention. We need someone to pay attention to us. We try to create something new in order to attract eyeballs.

I see stories as a form of manipulation. All stories are essentially mysteries. The writer sets up the situation and tries to entice you into wondering what will happen next. They're playing a game - one that is designed to capture your attention. Having someone read your words for days, weeks, months is power.

This might sound grandiose, but artists may be trying to alter your very soul. They are playing god, and want to be worshipped.

I saw Justin Timberlake on Oprah, and he said being on stage was a "holy experience." He is fully embracing his godhood.

The artist plays with sounds, color, words in order to play with your soul.

Alan Moore and Grant Morrison claim their art are works of magick that heighten consciousness. What they're saying is your soul isn't good enough, and they have just the remedy.

[Drusilla lives!]

Thats what why trades rule.

For over in the center of american comics in terms living in North America its easy getting single issues for monthlies that are less than an year old.

For me an international reader whose LCS can only order the newest monthlies. You have to get Trades to catch up to a comic that started 5 months ago even.

Without trades you would never catch to a comic you like over here.

All the graphic Novels in my LCS are trades of real old comics or newest trades.

Original GNs are not common.

Less than a year old trades might not be something special for you but for people like me it saves alot of time and money to order older monthly comics that takes month to get old of and by that time you are almost another year after.

Getting back to TPB's... as I said I don't like them due to my personal taste, which is probably influenced more by the time and culture in which I grew up than anything else. What I was puzzled by was the strong terminology I used to describe their worth... I guess for me there is something more. When an artist is asked (or more likely assigned) a project in a medium such as comics, I feel the artist is influenced and shaped by the limitations of that medium and that in fact the artists intention is shaped by the medium... just as my "personal taste" was shaped by my past. Therefore, when a story which was "shaped" to fit a medium such as a monthly comic is later combined into a different format, it appears to be done at the expense of the artists intention. If the artist created a GN story and was forced to cut it up into parts to fit a comic format than this too is a loss of intent... and raises the question of the work being a work of utility or pure art.

[Drusilla lives!]

Random crazy thoughts:

I see the ultimate goal of art as a form of therapy for the artist. The artist has a need to feel better. Everything else is secondary - whatever statement he makes doesn't really matter; he chooses the statement in order to serve his own purpose, which is to feel better.

Someone like Britney Spears is not considered a real artist, mainly because it doesn't appear she's putting a whole lot of work into it. And because of what we perceive as a lack of work ethic, we don't consider her art to be real.

I think it's this work ethic that we're really impressed by. We're invigorated by some imagined image of Jackson Pollock feverishly and violently splashing paint around. Ooh look at how hard he's working!

Anything that is done on a really big scale will probably be considered as art by many.

Or we're impressed by someone who seem to have similar sensibilities as us. You may feel down and gloomy one day, and Radiohead might match that mood, so they become kindred spirits to us. Sometimes we're looking to change our mood, sometimes we want to amplify what we're feeling.

A great artist can make us feel something we never felt before - we feel an emotion we've probably felt before, but with a new twist. And if you're a kid, that emotion could be completely brand new. Great art is a new flavor of an emotion.

Art is a desperate attempt to feel better, and the more desperate it seems, the greater we think it is. That's why happy new age music and pictures of kittens playing isn't regarded as great.

In the end, we're just trying to get attention. We need someone to pay attention to us. We try to create something new in order to attract eyeballs.

I see stories as a form of manipulation. All stories are essentially mysteries. The writer sets up the situation and tries to entice you into wondering what will happen next. They're playing a game - one that is designed to capture your attention. Having someone read your words for days, weeks, months is power.

This might sound grandiose, but artists may be trying to alter your very soul. They are playing god, and want to be worshipped.

I saw Justin Timberlake on Oprah, and he said being on stage was a "holy experience." He is fully embracing his godhood.

The artist plays with sounds, color, words in order to play with your soul.

Alan Moore and Grant Morrison claim their art are works of magick that heighten consciousness. What they're saying is your soul isn't good enough, and they have just the remedy.

Britney Spears is a little after my time, so I really can't comment on her musical talent. I did read a piece in the NY Times regarding her last album though. To me it sounded like she was trying to become more of an artist. I mean, fighting for more creative control and then producing something with that control can't be all that easy. Especially if as you say she has limited musical ability or limited experience in production... at any rate she must have worked harder than she ever did before, I don't know. Some people have mastery of their medium and become famous, others choose to work in obscurity. Some artists become famous without mastery of their art, but have an art to master... while others still claim to have an art but really are working to another end. The crucible of fame burns all who touch it... more so those who are not true to themselves or their art. One cannot fault her for trying to discern what she truly is... especially the other faux artists around her. If anything she is a product of the times... an artist who doesn't know what her real art is... grasping for something.

As far as all that "playing with your soul" stuff... I really don't know. I think the best I can say is that it would be my "observed intention" of what an artist is saying in a work, not necessarily the artists intent. But I'm glad you mentioned it though, It gives me an opportunity to mention why I feel an artist does need to work at their craft, not just to become better technically, but to gain perspective on the role of art in society. Since I feel there is no moral basis to art, the artist must mature into the traditional role of shaman and tread the delicate line when exploring bold new ideas... that is, they must exhibit good stewardship... ideas are to be kicked around and played with... no one should die over an idea... but people do everyday, both directly and indirectly... and this goes for the artist as well.

[BigBoss]

Well... you asked for it...

What is art? There is much beauty in nature, but this pure, primal beauty formed by random processes is not art. Furthermore, there is much beauty in art, but not all art is considered beautiful. In fact, there is a lot of art that is not at all beautiful by conventional measures... and esthetic measures have been argued to be themselves a product of convention. Art is said to provoke an emotional response in the observer, but not all art was created to do so, or does so as intended. Further muddling any attempt at defining art is that the term is sometimes applied to physical constructs, sometimes to the creative medium from which the constructs are born. When abstracting from all these notions what are we left with? Are we left with a single concept, something that we can point to and declare "that defines what art is".

In general, no, but one thing does stand out. Art always seems to involve the attempted communication of conscious intention on the part of the artist to the observer (artist included). Therefore for me, a good starting definition of what qualifies as art is any construct (physical or not) that is created with a purpose on the part of it's author. That is, art is a (human) construct whose foundation is intention and whose medium is defined by methods that are both simultaneously shaped and limited by the context of both the author and the observer.

A Jackson Pollack painting seems to some to be nothing more than paint botches on a drop cloth. But the differance between a Pollack painting and an unfortunate accident involving a can of paint, a canvas and a bannana peel, is intention. Whether we believe it or not, each work was fabricated with meditated insight reflective of his inner nature at the time... each color choice, each slash of paint, each drop... all were orchestrated with an aim in mind. But in the end it doesn't matter if this was really true or not, what does matter is if he stated it as such and worked under that intent. Thus, what makes it art (for me anyway) is the intent. They are works of art because they are the product of a method within a context guided in deference to intention.

Say a performance artist burns an American flag in front of a crowd at the Washington monument. Is it art? To me it would depend on intention. If the artist claims to have done it to invoke an emotional response from the on lookers... of which I'm sure he will... then on a certain level it could be considered art. The burning flag was simultaneously a medium and construct, the intent, the creation of human emotion to the construct... hopefully the artist is wearing a good pair of running shoes as well.

Ok I would like first to say that I love women and thier bodies so this statment is not gay. That was one of the most intelligent posts ever.

[Drusilla lives!]

Ok I would like first to say that I love women and thier bodies so this statment is not gay. That was one of the most intelligent posts ever.

Neither am I... but thanks for the compliment! My intent when I chose my avatar was to pay homage to EC and all the great artists they had on staff... Johnny Craig among them... not as a statement on my sexuality... I hope this doesn't disturb you too much. Perhaps I should change it.

[bartl]

Neither am I...
Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[Drusilla lives!]

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Absolutely... and I wouldn't want to ruffle anyones tail feathers by implying otherwise. :)

But now that I've been "outed" so to speak, I guess I couldn't have asked for a better example of "perceived intention" on the part of an observer. :)

[Drusilla lives!]

FYI: http://www.povonline.com/cols/COL365.htm

Just in case someone doesn't know who Johnny Craig is.

[BigBoss]

Neither am I... but thanks for the compliment! My intent when I chose my avatar was to pay homage to EC and all the great artists they had on staff... Johnny Craig among them... not as a statement on my sexuality... I hope this doesn't disturb you too much. Perhaps I should change it.

If someone can not understand your reason's that's thier problem. I have no problem.

[bartl]

If someone can not understand your reason's that's thier problem. I have no problem.
My avatar has remained the same, but my description changed at one point. With "New Member", "Senior Member", etc., I, who was somewhat more overweight than I am now, gave myself the title, "Extra Large Member". Scott Shaw! pointed out to me that it had a meaning other than what I had intended. I tried to change it to "Immoderator", but the software rejected that, so I finally changed it to "Heretic", which seems to be acceptable, and appropriate for someone on a comics board who hasn't actually bought a comic in years.

[Dennis]

Britney Spears is a little after my time, so I really can't comment on her musical talent. I did read a piece in the NY Times regarding her last album though. To me it sounded like she was trying to become more of an artist. I mean, fighting for more creative control and then producing something with that control can't be all that easy. Especially if as you say she has limited musical ability or limited experience in production... at any rate she must have worked harder than she ever did before, I don't know. Some people have mastery of their medium and become famous, others choose to work in obscurity. Some artists become famous without mastery of their art, but have an art to master... while others still claim to have an art but really are working to another end. The crucible of fame burns all who touch it... more so those who are not true to themselves or their art. One cannot fault her for trying to discern what she truly is... especially the other faux artists around her. If anything she is a product of the times... an artist who doesn't know what her real art is... grasping for something.

As far as all that "playing with your soul" stuff... I really don't know. I think the best I can say is that it would be my "observed intention" of what an artist is saying in a work, not necessarily the artists intent. But I'm glad you mentioned it though, It gives me an opportunity to mention why I feel an artist does need to work at their craft, not just to become better technically, but to gain perspective on the role of art in society. Since I feel there is no moral basis to art, the artist must mature into the traditional role of shaman and tread the delicate line when exploring bold new ideas... that is, they must exhibit good stewardship... ideas are to be kicked around and played with... no one should die over an idea... but people do everyday, both directly and indirectly... and this goes for the artist as well.

Martin Scorsese is doing AT&T commercials. What artists are saying in their works is this: fame rocks.

[Drusilla lives!]

... "Extra Large Member"...

LOL :)


... I finally changed it to "Heretic", which seems to be acceptable, and appropriate for someone on a comics board who hasn't actually bought a comic in years.

I just got that book on Ditko (Strange and Stranger) and was thumbing through it... seems really good. I strongly recommend you get a copy or check it out of the library. After looking at his work and also going back to my EC Library collection and some of my old Warrens I can't really blame you for not buying comics anymore.

[Lord Destiny]

I can't really blame you for not buying comics anymore.

I keep coming back every few years. I really got into DC from Identity Crisis to Infinite Crisis #4. But OYL threw old timers like me under the bus. And Marvel killing Cap was the final blow there too. Now I'm back to reading old stuff again.

1. The art's better IMO (even if the printing is worse).
2. The stories get to the point. (No padding for the trades.)
3. I know who the characters are. If it says Aquaman, I know what that means.

[Drusilla lives!]

I keep coming back every few years. I really got into DC from Identity Crisis to Infinite Crisis #4. But OYL threw old timers like me under the bus. And Marvel killing Cap was the final blow there too. Now I'm back to reading old stuff again.

1. The art's better IMO (even if the printing is worse).
2. The stories get to the point. (No padding for the trades.)
3. I know who the characters are. If it says Aquaman, I know what that means.

This is my first (and last time back)... I only got back into comics about three years ago because a box fell on my foot (I was moving out of NY and one of my comic boxes broke open when I dropped it). Up to then I hadn't looked at them in years. It started me thinking... gee I wonder if any of these are worth anything? So I bought a copy of the overstreet guide and to my surprise even some of those "bronze" age books that I hadn't really been all that fond of in the first place turned out to be worth something after all. I started to wonder, what did ever become of say The Falcon, Devil Dinosaur or the FF for that matter? Not that I was completely in the dark... even though my local comic shops main business became video rentals, it still carried a modest collection of the latest titles. I mean, I was aware that Peter had changed costumes several times (black, red and blue, black again, then back to red and blue). But for the odd Groo title here and there in the 90's I never really bought anything. From what I've heard I didn't miss much. I consider my real comic buying days to have ended sometime in 83.

My feeling on the current state of comics is that it's both the best of times and the worst. In my opinion, technically the art work is as good as it's ever been (especially at DC) but it's hard to tell if there are any true innovators because of the shear bulk of what's out there every month to look at. The writing, well lets just say that it's not any worse than it's ever been... but again it's hard to tell due to the saturated market conditions. But I know how you feel, I've never seen a cover so "creepy" than one say by Terrance Lindall.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about:

http://www.bilderundworte.net/snoop/de/storytellers/216,1309,L,0/Terrance_Lindall?PHPSESSID=2407be6a452e973d7a896c4 36c886563

As far as the bad printing or quality of paper... for the Warren mags I think they actually heightened their "eerie", "creepy" feel... the texture and that strange inky smell. Didn't help them against the ravages of time but in my opinion it did add to the experience.

[bartl]

So I bought a copy of the overstreet guide and to my surprise even some of those "bronze" age books that I hadn't really been all that fond of in the first place turned out to be worth something after all. I started to wonder, what did ever become of say The Falcon, Devil Dinosaur or the FF for that matter?
I've been using Wikipedia.

[yoda510]

I thought art was what you hang on your walls so your house looks nice...I think you guys are thinking too hard.

[Drusilla lives!]

I've been using Wikipedia.

Hey, thanks for the tip... just goes to show that even though I (use to) make a living as a programmer I still don't know what the hell people use (need) it for. :)

I'm glad to read that Falcon is still around... really dug em. Honestly, I never did get Devil D, and the wiki entry doesn't help much either... "Earth-616", "Earth-76411"???... all that just to justify and fit Moon-Boy and DD into the rest of the Marvel universe?... oof, no wonder I left comics by 83. What's really funny is when you follow the link on "Earth-76411" it takes you to the "Marvel Multiverse" page which has a "This article may be too long" message box. Yes, I fully agree there are too many universes... "Earth-9", "Earth-12", "Earth-15"... is this stuff for real? I never realized how bad it was.

[Drusilla lives!]

I thought art was what you hang on your walls so your house looks nice...I think you guys are thinking too hard.

Yes, it's good for that too... that is, if you still have a house to hang it in. It looks like we'll all have to get use to "thinking hard" since it seems a lot of the writers on CRB appear to be in a philosophical mood... judging by some of the recent column posts.

[Drusilla lives!]

Just finished that Blake Bell book on Ditko (Strange and Stranger) and I must say bravo. This is not only one of the best books on Ditko (if not the only one so far) but also one of the best books I've read regarding the history of comics in general... which shouldn't be surprising since Ditko was there for a good portion of it. That is, the story of the medium is naturally reflected in the individual stories of the people directly involved in it's creation, and no one was more in the thick of it then Ditko. If you are interested in the early history of Marvel comics, how Stan Lee got his job, how Spider-Man came into being, or were ever puzzled by what was referred to as the "Marvel method" this book reveals all. If you are interested in the Charlton Comics story it's in there. Wondered how the comics code intruded upon the creativity of the artists in the medium, it's in there. Curious about the rise of the fanzines or the early attempts at independent publishing, it's in there. Want to get a grasp on issues regarding artists rights and the give and take of the industry, it's in there. Just about every facet of comics is covered, but again, this shouldn't be surprising since Ditko was (is) comics. All this and you also learn a great deal about the man himself... it is a biography after all.

Overall the writing is superb and Ditko's story (and by extension the story of comic-dom) flows effortlessly from page to page, chapter to chapter. The only portions that I found a little rough going were in the later stages of the book when the author discusses some specific examples of the artists work... that is, the period covering the late 60's to late 70's. The period was a tumultuous one for Ditko and the author needed to discuss the artists work in relation to everything else going on at the time in his life... a daunting task with any subject, but especially when dealing with the life of Ditko... which in the end I think he pulls off marvelously. But on a first read one can easily get a little confused at the chronological order of things. Of course there is also a great sampling of the artists work as well and overall the book is put together very well, kudos to Fantagraphics for a job well done. Now if only Ditko himself had more input into the project... but you can't have everything. If you ever wanted to know more about Ditko and his art or about comics in general or just wanted to get up to speed with some of the issues that still need to be addressed in comics than I strongly recommend this book.

And thanks to Steven Grant for recommending it to me... it was an excellent read.

[EuropaBambaataa]

I'm glad to read that Falcon is still around... really dug em. Honestly, I never did get Devil D, and the wiki entry doesn't help much either... "Earth-616", "Earth-76411"???... all that just to justify and fit Moon-Boy and DD into the rest of the Marvel universe?... oof, no wonder I left comics by 83. What's really funny is when you follow the link on "Earth-76411" it takes you to the "Marvel Multiverse" page which has a "This article may be too long" message box. Yes, I fully agree there are too many universes... "Earth-9", "Earth-12", "Earth-15"... is this stuff for real? I never realized how bad it was.

It's not. Most of those Earths have appeared once in a specific title where the concept is "heroes from parallel dimensions hop to other parallel dimensions to save the day there". In the MU, those Earths appeared in Exiles or refer to members of the Captain Britain Corps. In some cases, stories like the New Universe, the original Squadron Supreme or Age of Apocalypse were visited and were "assigned" Earth-number designations. And then there was that OHOTMU - Alternate Earths one-shot, where someone felt the need to catalogue all of these parallel worlds. The only thing that's not in the main MU is New Exiles (which I believe is still "heroes from parallel dimensions hop to other parallel dimensions to save the day there", but now with mutants only) or the Ultimate titles, which are only four and labeled as such.

In the DCU, I've read some complaints about people that want to know which titles and stories post-Infinite Crisis are in which Earth (there's supposedly 52 now). I just don't understand how people can be so confused. All of the regular titled stories happened on the same Earth as everyone else, and specific dimension hoppers usually come to "our" dimension. Anyway, out of those 52 Earths, I don't expect regular titles to have crossovers with more than three or four in the next 10 years, and even so it'll be some sort of special event, not a "Tales of Earth-33" feature or an Earth-7 line with ten new titles.

[bartl]

Anyway, out of those 52 Earths, I don't expect regular titles to have crossovers with more than three or four in the next 10 years, and even so it'll be some sort of special event, not a "Tales of Earth-33" feature or an Earth-7 line with ten new titles.
When I hear about the "52 Earths", I'm getting flashbacks of Bill Gates' "640K of RAM is enough for ANYBODY." Or, visions of some BBC producer saying, "Hey, with 12 regenerations, we'll never have to worry about running out of Doctors."

[Steven Grant]

When I hear about the "52 Earths", I'm getting flashbacks of Bill Gates' "640K of RAM is enough for ANYBODY." Or, visions of some BBC producer saying, "Hey, with 12 regenerations, we'll never have to worry about running out of Doctors."

What Bill really said was that ten megs of hard drive was more than anyone would ever need.

And the Dr. Who producers now openly say that by the time they run out of regenerations they'll have figured out a way around it.

Hell, I've already figured out loopholes in the Doctor regeneration setup...

- Grant

[Paul McEnery]

What Bill really said was that ten megs of hard drive was more than anyone would ever need.

And the Dr. Who producers now openly say that by the time they run out of regenerations they'll have figured out a way around it.

Hell, I've already figured out loopholes in the Doctor regeneration setup...

- Grant

The best one is that the world will come to an end before they get there.

[dancj]

Hell, I've already figured out loopholes in the Doctor regeneration setup...

They don't even need to think up a new loophole. The Master is already past his twelfth regeneration.

[Steven Grant]

The best one is that the world will come to an end before they get there.

Oh, they've already done that more than once...

- Grant

[Paul McEnery]

Oh, they've already done that more than once...

- Grant

Three times so far, isn't it?

[bartl]

What Bill really said was that ten megs of hard drive was more than anyone would ever need.
He may have denied it, but, in his denials, he also said a number of things that were just not correct. For example, he later stated that people weren't complaining about the memory limit until 1987 or 1988; I was working with 80286 chips in 1982, and the quote was already widely circulated. He also claimed that the 640K limit was a limit of the chip. Not so; if he had and his team had bothered to READ THE INSTRUCTIONS, the 80286 made it simple to surpass the limit. The oriignal IBM PC BIOS and PS-MS/DOS was written using techniques which the 8086/88 instructions specifically said not to use (I won't get into the technicalities, but it was the use of those techniques which created the limit). Gates, of course, blamed the 80286 chip for not being designed around Microsoft's incompetence, calling it a "brain dead chip" (the company I worked for had no problem moving 8086 apps to the 80286; WE followed the rules).

Now, of course, the question is if he didn't say it, then why did he wait over a decade to deny it? Unfortunately, in 1981, quotes were not as widely disseminated as they are today. We don't have archives of almost any of the computer newspapers, nor most of the magazines of that time, which means it would take a LOT of legwork to verify the quote, something on which I'm sure Bill Gates is counting.

[Drusilla lives!]

He may have denied it, but, in his denials, he also said a number of things that were just not correct. For example, he later stated that people weren't complaining about the memory limit until 1987 or 1988; I was working with 80286 chips in 1982, and the quote was already widely circulated. He also claimed that the 640K limit was a limit of the chip. Not so; if he had and his team had bothered to READ THE INSTRUCTIONS, the 80286 made it simple to surpass the limit. The oriignal IBM PC BIOS and PS-MS/DOS was written using techniques which the 8086/88 instructions specifically said not to use (I won't get into the technicalities, but it was the use of those techniques which created the limit). Gates, of course, blamed the 80286 chip for not being designed around Microsoft's incompetence, calling it a "brain dead chip" (the company I worked for had no problem moving 8086 apps to the 80286; WE followed the rules).

Now, of course, the question is if he didn't say it, then why did he wait over a decade to deny it? Unfortunately, in 1981, quotes were not as widely disseminated as they are today. We don't have archives of almost any of the computer newspapers, nor most of the magazines of that time, which means it would take a LOT of legwork to verify the quote, something on which I'm sure Bill Gates is counting.

Now you're sounding like I did a few years back... let me guess, out of work programmer?

[Drusilla lives!]

It's not. Most of those Earths have appeared once in a specific title where the concept is "heroes from parallel dimensions hop to other parallel dimensions to save the day there". In the MU, those Earths appeared in Exiles or refer to members of the Captain Britain Corps. In some cases, stories like the New Universe, the original Squadron Supreme or Age of Apocalypse were visited and were "assigned" Earth-number designations. And then there was that OHOTMU - Alternate Earths one-shot, where someone felt the need to catalogue all of these parallel worlds. The only thing that's not in the main MU is New Exiles (which I believe is still "heroes from parallel dimensions hop to other parallel dimensions to save the day there", but now with mutants only) or the Ultimate titles, which are only four and labeled as such.

In the DCU, I've read some complaints about people that want to know which titles and stories post-Infinite Crisis are in which Earth (there's supposedly 52 now). I just don't understand how people can be so confused. All of the regular titled stories happened on the same Earth as everyone else, and specific dimension hoppers usually come to "our" dimension. Anyway, out of those 52 Earths, I don't expect regular titles to have crossovers with more than three or four in the next 10 years, and even so it'll be some sort of special event, not a "Tales of Earth-33" feature or an Earth-7 line with ten new titles.

So like when Thing falls into that portal to the Negative Zone he's crossing into another universe or what? Here's the definition from the wiki...

"Universe/continuity
A Universe/continuity is a single reality, such as Earth-616, the mainstream Marvel Universe/Continuity. Note that in Marvel Comics, the concept of a continuity is not the same as "dimension" or "universe"; for example, characters like Mephisto and Dormammu hail from alternate dimensions and the Celestials from another universe, but they all nevertheless belong to Earth-616. A continuity should also not be confused with an imprint; for example, while the titles of some imprints, such as Ultimate Marvel, take place in a different continuity, some or all publications in other imprints, such as Epic Comics, MAX, and Marvel UK, take place within the Earth-616 continuity. Note that in context the Marvel Universe is often used to refer to the Marvel Multiverse."

I think the NZ was an alternate universe consisting of anti-matter... I don't remember exactly... if so does that mean there are anti-universes for all the alternate universes in the marvel multiverse? :o

[EuropaBambaataa]

I think the NZ was an alternate universe consisting of anti-matter... I don't remember exactly... if so does that mean there are anti-universes for all the alternate universes in the marvel multiverse? :o

See, that's the type of thinking that makes people want to throw their comics out the window and say "screw this, I'm taking up fishing".

Alternate realities are nothing more than plot devices. They don't exist until they're needed. Terms like "Earth-616" and whatnot are thrown around by the cataloguers but they're meaningless. And those alternate reality pages on Wikipedia were written by the same guys who wrote the new Official Handbooks. Those pages have no context whatsoever, and make every single of those realities equally important, when, like I said before, most of them only appeared once.

So, if you want to know if you can pick up a Marvel comics or a DC comics after years away and understand what's going on, the answer is "no", but not because of alternate realities. And if you're worried about picking up something that's taking place in one, you might be better off doing so - it probably has a real ending and won't have followups to be explored in the next three company-wide crossovers.

[Drusilla lives!]

... Alternate realities are nothing more than plot devices. They don't exist until they're needed. ... So, if you want to know if you can pick up a Marvel comics or a DC comics after years away and understand what's going on, the answer is "no", but not because of alternate realities. And if you're worried about picking up something that's taking place in one, you might be better off doing so - it probably has a real ending and won't have followups to be explored in the next three company-wide crossovers.

In a way I think you nailed it on the head. I wasn't able to piece together what everyones beef was with continuity and alternate universes because I had been away from comics for so long... but I think I've got a handle on it now. What's lacking in my opinion is good stories within an ongoing theme. This was discussed in many places regarding Ditko and Stan's early work at Marvel in "Strange and Stranger"... which Ditko carried with him for the rest of his career :

"The concept of Shade plays into Ditko's strengths of inventing alternate dimensions and writing single-issue stories running parallel with a longer narrative."

I was always aware that alternate dimensions and universes were "plot devices" but that never seemed to get into the way of enjoying the single issue I had just bought off the stands. I'm of the opinion that one should understand and enjoy the present story at hand, and not be coerced into buying an entire crossover or event consisting of ten or more books, spanning three or more titles in order to make sense of anything. Why would the comics industry do this?... TPB's of course. Now in many cases there is no "single-issue" story to speak of... just a tie in to some on going event.

[bartl]

Now you're sounding like I did a few years back... let me guess, out of work programmer?
Working and making decent money programmer.

[bartl]

See, that's the type of thinking that makes people want to throw their comics out the window and say "screw this, I'm taking up fishing".
Do you know me, personally?

Actually, it was a combination of the sameness of the stories, the multi-crossovers so you had to buy a LOT of comics to read a single story, and a lack of a place to PUT all the comics. I took my collection, donated it to a children's hospital, and do most of my comic reaiding from TPB's from the library.

I just finished Infinity Crisis. I couldn't figure out half of what was going on, and half of what I could figure out had major plotholes.

[Drusilla lives!]

Working and making decent money programmer.

Then maybe there is still hope for the rest of us... not! :)

[Steven Grant]

Blame that on Uncanny X-Men, which got incredibly successful while having 1500 ongoing storylines and almost never a conclusion for any of them. (They only killed off Phoenix - the first time - because Shooter forced them to.)

But books that run a lot of single issue stories don't get bought either, so companies don't see that as a serious alternative...

- Grant

[Drusilla lives!]

...There are only a handful of ways to capitalize on our situation: 1) Expansion. 2) Licensing. 3) Merchandizing. 4) Publishing.

None of these are new. Expansion's already being tapped, mostly by innovative creators, to get their work into magazines and technologies and onto websites that traditionally haven't commonly been associated with comics. I don't know of any breakout successes yet generated, but that's old world thinking anyway; all that's really necessary to be called a success in those markets is continued exposure there and sufficient income derived. Changing the world, at least overnight, is not a requirement. Licensing and merchandizing is roughly the same ground, though direct merchandizing " of t-shirts, shotglasses, whatever " may be the quickest way for small or self- publishers to make money on their output, since they can function not only as advertising but as profit-generators, though much of that depends on the quality and appeal of both the product and the underlying property, and demands at least some marketing and distribution to make a dent. As DC and Marvel have learned, letting other people take that risk " hence licensing " has its advantages, but outside companies tend to only want licenses that are already popular. That brings up the specter of molding the product to fit the perceived prejudices of the potential licensee. I tend to use "product" as a simple, intentionally humbling term to counterbalance the term "creator" that we in comics love to throw around; ultimately what we're doing, no matter how we do it and with what intent or craft, is producing material used to generate income, for ourselves and others, and while that's no excuse for slipshod or cynically produced work there's no reason to be especially highfalutin about it either.

The fact remains that licensing generally follows on the heels of success, not the other way around. ...

Expansion, licensing, merchandizing and publishing are in my opinion all one now for the savvy established artist. You're right, probably the ultimate in creative control for an artist would be the internet and it's "direct marketing" power... not necessarily the graphic novel. Take Ditko for instance, with such strong philosophical views on "creators rights" and viewing most people in the established publishing business as "looters" he could be the poster boy for what the internet could promise for others in the industry. The graphic novel format couldn't serve Ditko and ultimately it will probably fall short for others as well. If he was as tech savvy as he was artistically talented, someone of his caliber could easily take freely available software and create his own web site with his own vision and interact with the rest of the world as he saw fit, at minimum cost and free of virtually all creative interference. But again, this model will work for someone like Ditko since as you say, no one will notice you unless you are a success... and how do you become successful... by the established means. That is, by way of the looters.

[lead sharp]

I hate the term graphic novel.

For me it goes, comic strip, comic, comic book implying narrative length accordingly. Even collected edition, or trade paperback is better.

The term graphic novel is, to me, a poncey attempt to dress something in unnecessary colours. A novel is a novel. Written word from start to finish. Tom Clancy writes novels. Graphic novel simply suggests a novel with a high level of descriptive narrative. After all Graphic, when referring to pictures is singular and when was the last time you saw a comic with only one panel?

I believe Will Eisner came up with the term and I think that despite all the good he's done for the medium that was the single biggest mistake in said medium.

It was basically a term to make none specialised shops feel better about selling comics. Which is what they are. comics. Say it with me;

Comics.

Anyway, regarding the fact that comics are on an upswing thanks to all the good movies coming out and I believe it's also to do with a bigger push from book shops and libraries, it's great!

It might even last.

I saw the alternate cover of Batman 679 on sale today for £9.95 in my local comic shop. In fact the other comic shop in Liverpool has an entire wall of massively over priced alternate covered comics on sale right in front of the door.

But lets face it, it won't.

[Steven Grant]

WILL EISNER DID NOT INVENT THE TERM "GRAPHIC NOVEL." It was Richard Kyle, in the late '60s.

- Grant

[jack009]

We might not like an old favourite comic changing with the times but it's a necessity for it to survive. It'll be interesting to see how it fares.
================================================== ======
jack009

WideCircles (http://www.lmltrade.com)

[lead sharp]

WILL EISNER DID NOT INVENT THE TERM "GRAPHIC NOVEL." It was Richard Kyle, in the late '60s.

- Grant


Which is why I said "I believe, which I no longer do.

Oh and while we're about it


The world where Henry Ford said you can have any colour of car you want as long as it's black doesn't exist anymore.

Never existed in the first place the first Fords where never available in black.

We can all do it, it's just that some of us don't really give a crap.

[mattx110]

I think calling them "comic books" is stupid. It doesn't properly describe them by anything but allusion to a hopeful shared knowledge that contains a subsidual (not the right word and maybe not a word, but best I can think of) allusion to something we don't want anyone to immediately think or they just think all comics are for 5 year olds with imaginations that need some coaxing.

"Sequential art" is too techinical and can describe a bunch of pictures in a row without words or a story.

Shattering a romanticism and just calling them "illustrated books" works best for me so far, but a better term might be out there. Scott McCloud goes through a whole thing where he says anything with a picture and a story is a form of comic, and as such, just because most illustrated books don't have panels, doesn't mean they can't be comics, and vice-versa.

[Dennis]

I think calling them "comic books" is stupid. It doesn't properly describe them by anything but allusion to a hopeful shared knowledge that contains a subsidual (not the right word and maybe not a word, but best I can think of) allusion to something we don't want anyone to immediately think or they just think all comics are for 5 year olds with imaginations that need some coaxing.


The word comic is fine. Everyone knows what a comic is. And does something need a name that describes what it is? Does the word chair describe what a chair is? Should we call them sitting devices?

The term graphic novel is just so pompous, like the word film. Comics and movies is perfectly fine.

When people think of comics, they think of preposterous silly stories with flat characterization. Is that still true? Yes. What if you took the most serious stories and adapted them to comics? Would they still be comics? Yes, there's something about drawings and word balloons that's just plain childish. Put a thought balloon on the Mona Lisa. Yes, silly isn't it. The word comic is perfect.

[Steven Grant]

The term graphic novel is just so pompous, like the word film. Comics and movies is perfectly fine.

Nothing especially pompous about "film." That's what movies were originally called, because they were produced on film. Films. The term "movies" came later.

If you want to think "graphic novels" is pompous, be my guest, but the term's not going away now. (My problem with "graphic novel" isn't that it's pompous but that it's used too indiscriminately, but that's not likely to change either.)

- Grant

[mattx110]

The word comic is fine. Everyone knows what a comic is. And does something need a name that describes what it is? Does the word chair describe what a chair is? Should we call them sitting devices?

The term graphic novel is just so pompous, like the word film. Comics and movies is perfectly fine.

When people think of comics, they think of preposterous silly stories with flat characterization. Is that still true? Yes. What if you took the most serious stories and adapted them to comics? Would they still be comics? Yes, there's something about drawings and word balloons that's just plain childish. Put a thought balloon on the Mona Lisa. Yes, silly isn't it. The word comic is perfect. The fact that there's at least 3 commonly used definitions for "comic" makes it not perfect. There's two commonly used definitions of "novel", but one is less common and very different context.

Maybe we should call comics "art novels" like "art films". It's pompous enough to show that it's not got capes and things and flying people. A little pretense is healthy, it lets the reader know what they're in for. The fact is, we shouldn't have to have a self-effacing or self-derogatory name like "comic book". And thought balloons are barely used these days, even in superhero books. We've got captions, we've got running narratives that are captionless like a real book. we can put the text with a little dash instead of a speech balloon if we want, and it takes away a lot of the silliness. You can paint the art, or use muted colors to make it seem less silly. We have tools and people with enough thought that we don't need to be represented by a word that says "4-color superheroes with hot damsels, or mickey mouse and donald" by association.

I don't know why I write "we" when referring to comicbook people. It's probably one of my delusions.

[Dennis]

The fact that there's at least 3 commonly used definitions for "comic" makes it not perfect. There's two commonly used definitions of "novel", but one is less common and very different context.

Maybe we should call comics "art novels" like "art films". It's pompous enough to show that it's not got capes and things and flying people. A little pretense is healthy, it lets the reader know what they're in for. The fact is, we shouldn't have to have a self-effacing or self-derogatory name like "comic book". And thought balloons are barely used these days, even in superhero books. We've got captions, we've got running narratives that are captionless like a real book. we can put the text with a little dash instead of a speech balloon if we want, and it takes away a lot of the silliness. You can paint the art, or use muted colors to make it seem less silly. We have tools and people with enough thought that we don't need to be represented by a word that says "4-color superheroes with hot damsels, or mickey mouse and donald" by association.

I don't know why I write "we" when referring to comicbook people. It's probably one of my delusions.

Trying to make comics less silly makes it seem even sillier. I'm always amused by sports on tv, because the analysts always look at what's happening way too seriously. An example would be a baseball game with Joe Morgan or Tim McCarver doing the analysis. They treat the game about as seriously as you can imagine - like they're observing a religious ritual. I would describe it as solemn. But think about what they're watching: grown men wearing caps hitting a ball around.

I just received my copy of Watchmen (this is the fourth time I'm buying this, again trying to see what the fuss is about). I admit that Alan Moore is a genius, and this work is genius. But it's also damn silly. To want to get deeply inside the thought processes of a superpowered naked blue man is ridiculous!

There's something inherently silly about comics. When comic writers attempt novels, the result is usually silly. Read Crooked Little Vein by Warren Ellis for an example. Also check out Batman 663, it's a prose issue by Grant Morrison. It is completely embarrassing and unreadable. Haven't read the Alan Moore novel, and the prose in his comics is boring. I understand Gaiman's novels are still in the urban fantasy genre, and of course that's a silly genre.

[mattx110]

Trying to make comics less silly makes it seem even sillier. I'm always amused by sports on tv, because the analysts always look at what's happening way too seriously. An example would be a baseball game with Joe Morgan or Tim McCarver doing the analysis. They treat the game about as seriously as you can imagine - like they're observing a religious ritual. I would describe it as solemn. But think about what they're watching: grown men wearing caps hitting a ball around.

I just received my copy of Watchmen (this is the fourth time I'm buying this, again trying to see what the fuss is about). I admit that Alan Moore is a genius, and this work is genius. But it's also damn silly. To want to get deeply inside the thought processes of a superpowered naked blue man is ridiculous!

There's something inherently silly about comics. When comic writers attempt novels, the result is usually silly. Read Crooked Little Vein by Warren Ellis for an example. Also check out Batman 663, it's a prose issue by Grant Morrison. It is completely embarrassing and unreadable. Haven't read the Alan Moore novel, and the prose in his comics is boring. I understand Gaiman's novels are still in the urban fantasy genre, and of course that's a silly genre.
All people published by Marvel and DC. And fantasy is only silly insofar as the writers have a sense of humor. So does Charles Dickens and he doesn't have to deal with half his work being called "comics". Well, he's dead anyway so he doesn't really have to deal with anything at all, but you know what I mean. And if you aren't comfortable with comparing contemporary writers to Dickens, you're ridiculous, as said comparison has nothing to do with quality and implies nothing of status beyond questioning the standards by which it seems to be granted. I'm not accusing you, just routing the potential issue.

[Steven Grant]

Maybe we should call comics "art novels" like "art films". It's pompous enough to show that it's not got capes and things and flying people.

There are plenty of graphic novels that have capes and things and flying people.

There's nothing intrinsically self-effacing or self-derogatory about "comic book."

"Art novel" doesn't connote anything drawn; as with "art film" it connotes "Ordinary people aren't going to want to see this because it's someone jerking around (or off) semi-incomprehensively." (Which is not how I think of "art films," but I know more than a few people who do.) "Art film" was also at one point popularly synonymous with "pornographic movie." Just as "graphic" was once synonymous with nudity and sexual or gory content, but "graphic novel" has managed to avoid those connotations.

There is no phrase that makes everyone happy. But trying to generate a phrase is a bit like trying to convince the world to switch to esperanto. The only thing that truly decides what something is called is common usage, and right now common usage is pretty limited to "graphic novel," "comic book" and "comic strip," depending on the format being spoken of. Get used to it.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

So does Charles Dickens and he doesn't have to deal with half his work being called "comics".

No, but for awhile while he was alive he had to deal with his output being called paid-by-the-word hackwork. He wasn't always the tedious icon of stuffy, sadistic English teachers we known him as today. At one point he was simply just another rabble-rousing plebian schlockmeister. He did eventually become tremendously popular and, therefore, respectable.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

We have tools and people with enough thought that we don't need to be represented by a word that says "4-color superheroes with hot damsels, or mickey mouse and donald" by association.

See, this is exactly what I mean when I refer to the inherent inferiority complex of the comics business, whether fan or professional.

Genpop really doesn't give a rat's ass anymore, and while, sure, everyone knows of superheroes, Genpop doesn't hold that to be an especially negative connotation anymore.

Believe me, from my experience, they'd almost all rather be doing what I do for a living than what they do for a living. Everyone now thinks comic books involve fame and money, and I generally change the subject without disabusing them of that. But, like I said, popularity and money heal all cultural wounds.

- Grant

[NatGertler]

It would be silly to try to separate the term from the sort of content that has made it popular; people will see what you're separating out, and recognize it for what it is.

And heaven forbid that we should superheroes associated with our material. After all, the superhero is so unpopular a genre that...

...that it's only about a third of this year's box office receipts.

Yeah, we need a term to tell people it's less like the things they like and more like Brideshead Revisited. That'll sell 'em!

[mattx110]

There are plenty of graphic novels that have capes and things and flying people.

There's nothing intrinsically self-effacing or self-derogatory about "comic book."

"Art novel" doesn't connote anything drawn; as with "art film" it connotes "Ordinary people aren't going to want to see this because it's someone jerking around (or off) semi-incomprehensively." (Which is not how I think of "art films," but I know more than a few people who do.) "Art film" was also at one point popularly synonymous with "pornographic movie." Just as "graphic" was once synonymous with nudity and sexual or gory content, but "graphic novel" has managed to avoid those connotations.

There is no phrase that makes everyone happy. But trying to generate a phrase is a bit like trying to convince the world to switch to esperanto. The only thing that truly decides what something is called is common usage, and right now common usage is pretty limited to "graphic novel," "comic book" and "comic strip," depending on the format being spoken of. Get used to it.

- GrantComics don't have to be drawn. There are photo comics. And I'm not gonna launch a successful campaign to get "comic" changed to something more generic with less historical baggage. I guess I should go back to taking pride in the badass EC hearings.


No, but for awhile while he was alive he had to deal with his output being called paid-by-the-word hackwork. He wasn't always the tedious icon of stuffy, sadistic English teachers we known him as today. At one point he was simply just another rabble-rousing plebian schlockmeister. He did eventually become tremendously popular and, therefore, respectable.

- Grant I think his sense of humor did partly stem from being paid by the word. So hey, Alan Moore's whole "Watchmen" thing was taking something that had a history of being taken for silly and made it creepier. Used a supposed handicap to his advantage. He also used a lot of words.


See, this is exactly what I mean when I refer to the inherent inferiority complex of the comics business, whether fan or professional.

Genpop really doesn't give a rat's ass anymore, and while, sure, everyone knows of superheroes, Genpop doesn't hold that to be an especially negative connotation anymore.

Believe me, from my experience, they'd almost all rather be doing what I do for a living than what they do for a living. Everyone now thinks comic books involve fame and money, and I generally change the subject without disabusing them of that. But, like I said, popularity and money heal all cultural wounds.

- GrantIt's just, I want to make comics, that most people will find incredibly dull, but they might accidentily buy them if they think superheroes could show up and give me money I don't deserve. Also, thanks for making your discussion points in separate posts, it made it easier to address them one by one without getting confused (which I'm apt to do).


It would be silly to try to separate the term from the sort of content that has made it popular; people will see what you're separating out, and recognize it for what it is.

And heaven forbid that we should superheroes associated with our material. After all, the superhero is so unpopular a genre that...

...that it's only about a third of this year's box office receipts.

Yeah, we need a term to tell people it's less like the things they like and more like Brideshead Revisited. That'll sell 'em!
When I saw the first trailer for the new Brideshead I had goosebumps. That might give you a bit of why my view could be so skewed. I just want an easier way of saying something is something, rather than going "well, this is like that, but it's not, in that it's not at all like that, but it's got the same format". It's kind of like competing definitions of the word "pop" since the Beatles came about (or maybe it was later when people had to pretend they weren't pop in order to be rock).

[Dennis]

It's just, I want to make comics, that most people will find incredibly dull, but they might accidentily buy them if they think superheroes could show up and give me money I don't deserve. Also, thanks for making your discussion points in separate posts, it made it easier to address them one by one without getting confused (which I'm apt to do).

What kind of comics do you want to make?

[Steven Grant]

I guess I should go back to taking pride in the badass EC hearings.

Eh? You mean the Kefauver hearings? Did I miss something? Those were hardly a victory for comics, except insofar as the Senate didn't think the issue was important enough to do anything about it.


It's just, I want to make comics, that most people will find incredibly dull, but they might accidentily buy them if they think superheroes could show up and give me money I don't deserve.

Just to be sure I'm understanding correctly: you want to make comics that you assume most people will find incredibly dull?

Why don't you just do the comics you want to do, but find an interesting way to do them?

If superheroes intrinsically made comics more interesting, all superhero comics would be selling a lot better than they do. Most superhero comics don't sell especially well at all, and most that come out of companies other than Marvel or DC don't last long enough to figure out how badly they're selling. So if you think superhero comics will save your ass, you're in deep trouble...


When I saw the first trailer for the new Brideshead I had goosebumps. That might give you a bit of why my view could be so skewed. I just want an easier way of saying something is something, rather than going "well, this is like that, but it's not, in that it's not at all like that, but it's got the same format". It's kind of like competing definitions of the word "pop" since the Beatles came about (or maybe it was later when people had to pretend they weren't pop in order to be rock).

Well, pop and rock weren't all that distinguishable when the Beatles came along. My suggestion is: don't worry about how your work will be labeled, just do your work, and maybe it'll be good enough to generate a whole new label.

My wife, who loved the Brideshead Revisited mini-series, was excited by the new movie, until she found out more about it. She mentioned what triggered her disappointment but I forget what it is, but I just said, "That's okay. You lost me at "Brideshead Revisited."

But, you know, chacun a son gout and all that...

- Grant

[mattx110]

What kind of comics do you want to make? Historical fiction.


Eh? You mean the Kefauver hearings? Did I miss something? Those were hardly a victory for comics, except insofar as the Senate didn't think the issue was important enough to do anything about it.
I just mean the "I could have drawn the neck" thing. I used to remember the actual quote.




Just to be sure I'm understanding correctly: you want to make comics that you assume most people will find incredibly dull?

Why don't you just do the comics you want to do, but find an interesting way to do them? I guess that's the smart way. I'm working on painting, so at least it can be a pretty picture book.


If superheroes intrinsically made comics more interesting, all superhero comics would be selling a lot better than they do. Most superhero comics don't sell especially well at all, and most that come out of companies other than Marvel or DC don't last long enough to figure out how badly they're selling. So if you think superhero comics will save your ass, you're in deep trouble...



Well, pop and rock weren't all that distinguishable when the Beatles came along. My suggestion is: don't worry about how your work will be labeled, just do your work, and maybe it'll be good enough to generate a whole new label.
I suppose that's the smartest way. I just don't like when opinions become accepted that are formed without the historical basis, so what makes something a comic, or what makes something transcendent of a genre, rather than completely of that genre or medium gets confused in a mess of hyperbole. I might just be annoyingly retro-nostalgizing. And my hang-up is that there's nothing not pop about rock music, but now there's some line of badassery implied by being "rock" that I don't think makes sense. I'm still on the "If it's not classical, it's pop" way of breaking things down (with pobably more than a few exceptions).


My wife, who loved the Brideshead Revisited mini-series, was excited by the new movie, until she found out more about it. She mentioned what triggered her disappointment but I forget what it is, but I just said, "That's okay. You lost me at "Brideshead Revisited."

But, you know, chacun a son gout and all that...

- Grant
C'est la vie. ? :smile:

[NatGertler]

I just want an easier way of saying something is something, rather than going "well, this is like that, but it's not, in that it's not at all like that, but it's got the same format".Sounds to me like you simply need to say the genre and the medium to lay down your base. "Historical fiction comic book" (or "historical fiction graphic novel") does not seem much more likely to be confused with "superhero comic book" than "historical fiction film" is apt to be confused with "superhero film".

[Dennis]

Historical fiction.

Can you be more specific? Like Berlin? Age of Bronze, 300? Regency romance?

What I think makes a comic a comic is a level of distortion and fantasy - a pleasant unreality. Like how pro wrestling is inherently cartoony. The more you distort reality, the better chance you have of bigger sales. Even if the dialogue and plots are realistic, the drawing style could be done in a cartoony style. If the art is photorealistic, and the dialogue is ultra-realistic, there's no chance for sales. Am I wrong about that?

[Dennis]

The Beat linked to this blog: http://puritybrown.blogspot.com/2008/08/words-words-words-part-two-of-two.html

The blogger analyzes a page of Sandman, and makes the point that the words tell you everything you need to know, with the art unnecessary, but nice.


Gaiman does write prose, now. Perhaps prose is simply a better fit for him. Perhaps it always was, and his comics works were a detour (which seems an odd thing to say of a portfolio that includes anything as monumental as Sandman, but only time will tell whether his collected prose is ultimately more impressive than his collected comics). It's easy to see how Sandman became the gateway drug for a generation of young comics fans; if you're used to reading prose books, Sandman doesn't require much mental retraining. Read the words and you get the story, for the most part, and the pictures are a nice bonus.

Sandman still bears re-reading, though, because not only are Gaiman's storytelling and world-building skills sound, but he's also very good at crafting elegant prose. The words are such a joy to read that you might not even notice that they're doing all the work; by contrast, a lot of comics writers with perfectly honed instincts for storytelling and dialogue can't put together a readable paragraph to save their lives.

I've been trying to figure out the difference between comic writers and novelists. Garth Ennis writes in the beginning of 303 that he wanted to write it as a novel, but chose comics because of the power of comics or something. I believe this is a rare example of Garth using a third person pov. And it's quite awkward. I think what makes it weird is that the narrator is way too emotionally involved - constantly commenting on what the character is feeling, what it means; it's really the characters' own thoughts but he's using the 3rd person pov to make it seem much more important. I see the narrator's job to be the play-by-play announcer, and not doing the color commentary, or worse - acting like the athlete's mom.

And I think that's the problem: comic books treat you like a kid, holding your hand every step of the way. The writer is not the sort of detached play-by-play guy, but the athlete's friends shouting from the stands. They take a very heavy-handed approach that doesn't work in prose. They're worried you're not feeling what you're supposed to feel.

This is from Watchmen - the Hollis Mason autobio: "Yes, we were crazy, we were kinky, we were Nazis, all those things that people say." This sounds more like Alan Moore talking than a 70 year old straight arrow former superhero.

In order to show how robotic Dr. Manhattan has become, he responds to someone asking "What's up, Doc?" with "Up is a relative concept, it has no intrinsic value."

The characters are pervy and pathetic, but they're still caricatures. Giving a character a sexual fetish doesn't make him more realistic.

[bartl]

Just to be sure I'm understanding correctly: you want to make comics that you assume most people will find incredibly dull?

Reminds me of the postmodernist idea that a comprehensible plotline is a sign of bad (read bourgeoisie) writing.

[mattx110]

Can you be more specific? Like Berlin? Age of Bronze, 300? Regency romance?

What I think makes a comic a comic is a level of distortion and fantasy - a pleasant unreality. Like how pro wrestling is inherently cartoony. The more you distort reality, the better chance you have of bigger sales. Even if the dialogue and plots are realistic, the drawing style could be done in a cartoony style. If the art is photorealistic, and the dialogue is ultra-realistic, there's no chance for sales. Am I wrong about that?
I was thinking painting impressionistic, with some fast ink drawings.
Stuff like, the post-trauma stuff. after the Russian revolution, after the American revolution, after the Civil War. I guess exciting flashbacks with explosions would be smart.

It also sucks to have to read so much as research to make something, but I can't really rely on just being me and writing me cause I don't have the style or experience to have that work (like Frank Miller seems to be able to do, just have fun being Frank Miller all over a book).

I think gettig painterly can maybe have a similar effect to cartoony. I wanted to comment on that part of your post, but I don't really know how to, I need more examples and to know what I'm talking about more to properly respond to you. Will Eisner never got afraid of cartoony, and those Disney characters have become icons, and like, Asterix can do insane sales numbers. Taking bits of reality, but throwing a cartoon into it.

[EuropaBambaataa]

I just mean the "I could have drawn the neck" thing. I used to remember the actual quote.

I only half-remember the exact quote as well, "it would have been bad taste drawing the woman's severed head with the neck facing the reader", and I interpreted it the same you did. I remember reading it out of context and in context. Even in the second case, I still thought that was a good defense, until I remembered it was not a good idea given the setting ("red scare" America in the conservative 1950s).

Gaines' response would have been appropriate, even applauded, given the right audience, from the post-modernist "good is bad, bad is good" 1980s to the present day, but back then I doubt it would have been endearing to say you could have drawn something even more pornographic (in the wide definition of the word), when you were trying to make people believe you're not pornographic at all.

[mattx110]

I only half-remember the exact quote as well, "it would have been bad taste drawing the woman's severed head with the neck facing the reader", and I interpreted it the same you did. I remember reading it out of context and in context. Even in the second case, I still thought that was a good defense, until I remembered it was not a good idea given the setting ("red scare" America in the conservative 1950s).

Gaines' response would have been appropriate, even applauded, given the right audience, from the post-modernist "good is bad, bad is good" 1980s to the present day, but back then I doubt it would have been endearing to say you could have drawn something even more pornographic (in the wide definition of the word), when you were trying to make people believe you're not pornographic at all.
Well, I doubt it was smart, but I don't think Gaines and all had a chance, really. And it is easy to see in a romantic cavalier way. Or at least an uneasy rebelliousness.

[Steven Grant]

Well, I doubt it was smart, but I don't think Gaines and all had a chance, really. And it is easy to see in a romantic cavalier way. Or at least an uneasy rebelliousness.

Seriously? I don't think it was either. You have to remember that both Gaines and Feldstein believed their material was tastefully presented. Given the times, I doubt Gaines was dumb enough to smart off to a Senate investigation. It's more likely (and, indeed, I've got an old interview with Gaines around here somewhere in which he specifies exactly this, though there's always be possibility that could be revisionary) he was simply stating the truth: they had presented the material as tastefully as they could, and it just never occurred to them that they shouldn't present the material in the first place. Gaines was a smart guy in a lot of ways, but awfully naive in others. Don't forget it was Gaines who conceived of the Comics Code and preached it to other publishers. As far as he was concerned, it would the industry's shield against the outside world. Instead, Archie and DC, champions of "clean" comics, co-opted the idea and used it as a wedge to drive Gaines and other successful competitors like Lev Gleason (CRIME DOES NOT PAY)out of the business and a cudgel to force remaining publishers to do what they wanted by manipulating their distribution. Only Dell Comics, which had Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny and other comics that were both viewed as inherently "clean" and were very profitable for retailers, was able to successfully thumb its nose at the Code and its orchestrators.

But the Comics Code was Bill Gaines' idea. And when he came up with it, he must've thought it was a good idea. A rebel by nature he wasn't. That would be Kurtzman, who gave Gaines the safety net that kept him in business on some level and generated a reputation for Gaines as a counterculture icon, MAD. But Gaines was basically a businessman, and when he appeared before the Senate, he was scared, not rebellious, at least in his own telling of it. Though there was apparently a level of disbelief at their even bothering... which didn't make the situation any less serious for him...

(Not, we should always remember, that the Senate hearings amounted to anything, or that the Senate ever showed indications of taking any steps against comics. They were long over, without any threat of action, by the time the Code materialized, and the tide of public outrage over comics - never all that strong to begin with - was also on the wane by then.)

- Grant

[Paul McEnery]

Reminds me of the caricature of postmodernism that a comprehensible plotline is a sign of bad (read bourgeoisie) writing.

Fixed it for you.

[Drusilla lives!]

EC Comics was not singled out by the "powers that were" because of their horror line. And it wasn't even one of the covers to one of their horror comics that was the "star" of the US Senate inquiry (that was the cover to Crime SuspenStories #22). In my opinion they were singled out because of what was between the covers. Check out just about any issue of Shock SuspenStories while keeping in mind that they were created in the early 50's (McCarthy, racial inequality, the bomb, etc.) and you'll quickly realize how progressive they really were. I'm sure their were many people who wanted to see them silenced... besides DC Comics.

If Gaines had trouble explaining that cover what could he say about this one.

[Steven Grant]

EC Comics was not singled out by the "powers that were" because of their horror line.

If you're talking about the Senate, or Wertham, Gaines wasn't singled out by either of them at all. They "investigated" a broad spectrum of comics. Really, if you follow the Senate hearings all the way through they seem to have decided it was much ado about nothing and there were much better things to talk about, because the hearings just peter out with no conclusions.

If you're talking about the Comics Code, which was pretty much concocted by Archie Comics and rubberstamped by DC, EC was singled out (so was Gleason), with language inserted in the Code to make it impossible for them to get their most popular titles distributed. The whole point of the Code was to wipe crime and horror comics - and Gleason and EC were by far the biggest names in those respective genres (for many years, CRIME DOES NOT PAY regularly outsold SUPERMAN) - and clean out the newsstands for "nice" DC and Archie product. Dell was immune, and Atlas was also safe, for awhile, because Martin Goodman had his own distribution network, until he stupidly sold it off and went with a chain that promptly folded, forcing him to go hat in hand to DC to get any distribution at all through DC's sister company IND.

MAD, of course, ended up eventually being bought by Warner Communications and Bill Gaines became a secret advisor to DC Comics, putting an ironic little capper on the whole adventure.

- Grant

[Drusilla lives!]

If you're talking about the Senate, or Wertham, Gaines wasn't singled out by either of them at all. They "investigated" a broad spectrum of comics. Really, if you follow the Senate hearings all the way through they seem to have decided it was much ado about nothing and there were much better things to talk about, because the hearings just peter out with no conclusions.

If you're talking about the Comics Code, which was pretty much concocted by Archie Comics and rubberstamped by DC, EC was singled out (so was Gleason), with language inserted in the Code to make it impossible for them to get their most popular titles distributed. The whole point of the Code was to wipe crime and horror comics - and Gleason and EC were by far the biggest names in those respective genres (for many years, CRIME DOES NOT PAY regularly outsold SUPERMAN) - and clean out the newsstands for "nice" DC and Archie product.

Funny how things work out don't they... censorship by proxy is just as effective and far less messy. But you're probably right... and I really don't buy into conspiracy theories anyway... no one was on the grassy knoll.

I'm of the opinion that eventually even EC would have run out of good ideas... they might have faded on their own (Weird Science and Weird Fantasy become Weird Science-Fantasy, etc.) but the push they got actually solidified their position as innovators... they went out on top, so to speak. That's why people still discuss EC and not Gleason.


Dell was immune, and Atlas was also safe, for awhile, because Martin Goodman had his own distribution network, until he stupidly sold it off and went with a chain that promptly folded, forcing him to go hat in hand to DC to get any distribution at all through DC's sister company IND.

BTW, this topic was covered nicely in Strange and Stranger.



MAD, of course, ended up eventually being bought by Warner Communications and Bill Gaines became a secret advisor to DC Comics, putting an ironic little capper on the whole adventure.


Even some blacklisted performers eventually regained some clout and a modicum of career success... years later.

[bartl]

Only Dell Comics, which had Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny and other comics that were both viewed as inherently "clean" and were very profitable for retailers, was able to successfully thumb its nose at the Code and its orchestrators.
Getting personal here, let's not forget Gilberton, which publicly opposed and never gave in to the Comics Code Authority.

[bartl]

Funny how things work out don't they... censorship by proxy is just as effective and far less messy. But you're probably right... and I really don't buy into conspiracy theories anyway... no one was on the grassy knoll.
I'm certain that you might be convinced otherwise (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=badlands+%22steven+grant%22&btnG=Google+Search).

[Drusilla lives!]

I'm certain that you might be convinced otherwise (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=badlands+%22steven+grant%22&btnG=Google+Search).

:o

Sorry, I missed most of Grant's work... 1983 to 2006 covers a lot of material. I only know him by way of his columns of the last few months. I just happened to run past an interesting one a few months back regarding comics as "artifact" vs. comics as "literary works"... if I remember correctly. Good stuff, better than the usual drivel you find on CBR... been reading his column since. I also find the comics cover challenge enjoyable as well.

[Steven Grant]

Funny how things work out don't they... censorship by proxy is just as effective and far less messy. But you're probably right... and I really don't buy into conspiracy theories anyway... no one was on the grassy knoll.

I think what Bart is referring to re: my work, beside BADLANDS, which is all about the first Kennedy assassination, features a recurring underlying theme that we're all on the grassy knoll. (Reiterated as an overt theme in my unpublished short story, "Lee Harvey Oswalds.")

Censorship is an opinion enforced by an organization.


I'm of the opinion that eventually even EC would have run out of good ideas... they might have faded on their own (Weird Science and Weird Fantasy become Weird Science-Fantasy, etc.) but the push they got actually solidified their position as innovators... they went out on top, so to speak.

Certainly EC would have slid into their own recurrent ticks had they continued for long, since all companies do and they had already started to do that a little by their demise. But Weird Science and Weird Fantasy merged because neither of them sold very well. And became Incredible Science Fiction because Weird Science-Fantasy didn't sell very well. "Pure" science fiction has traditionally been a very hard sell for comics.


That's why people still discuss EC and not Gleason.

Mmmm... it's a little more complex than that. People still discuss EC because EC, alone of all comics pre-Silver Age DC, generated a small but rabid fandom that published fan magazines for each other, etc., patterned after science fiction fandom. That fandom remained active long after EC perished from this earth (like the dinosaurs perished, leaving birds, in the form of Mad Magazine and its little empire behind). But what people mostly discussed and still mostly discuss are heyday ECs, not what they crawled to a halt doing like Psychoanalysis or Shock Illustrated. The material was also reprinted in mass market paperbacks in the '60s, and when both the Warren horror magazines and the Wood-centric THUNDER Agents showed up, memories of EC got a lot of play from both, so comics audiences were kept aware of EC Comics on some level. Gleason comics didn't have any of that, but they didn't exactly go out on the slide. They just didn't have any mechanism in place for keeping themselves alive. Had Jim Warren launched magazines featuring Gleason-style crime comics instead of EC-style horror/suspense comics (I know Archie Goodwin would have been equally capable with both - and Archie was one of those old EC comics fans, by the way) Gleason might have come back into the vernacular instead of EC.


Even some blacklisted performers eventually regained some clout and a modicum of career success... years later.

Well, Bill Gaines' ties to DC Comics go a lot further back than that, seeing how his dad was a co-founder of the company...

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

Getting personal here, let's not forget Gilberton, which publicly opposed and never gave in to the Comics Code Authority.

The Classics Illustrated people? That's true, but their newsstand distribution became extremely spotty in the wake of the Code, and they clearly went other directions; when I was a kid I only used to see them in a hardware store. They argued that they were adapting classic, authentic literature so "protection" from them was unnecessary, but it wasn't long into the '60s before they stopped producing new material and not that much later gave up the ghost. They ducked the Comics Code but didn't exactly thrive outside the system. TREASURE CHEST was the other comic to buck the Code long term, but it had its own distribution system via the Catholic Church that freed it from such considerations.

But if you had any inclination to get a comic distributed through regular channels from the late '50s through the early '70s, and you weren't Dell, you needed the Code seal or it just wasn't going to happen...

- Grant

- Grant

[Imaginos666]

I think what Bart is referring to re: my work, beside BADLANDS, which is all about the first Kennedy assassination, features a recurring underlying theme that we're all on the grassy knoll. (Reiterated as an overt theme in my unpublished short story, "Lee Harvey Oswalds.")

Censorship is an opinion enforced by an organization.


Mmmm... it's a little more complex than that. People still discuss EC because EC, alone of all comics pre-Silver Age DC, generated a small but rabid fandom that published fan magazines for each other, etc., patterned after science fiction fandom. That fandom remained active long after EC perished from this earth (like the dinosaurs perished, leaving birds, in the form of Mad Magazine and its little empire behind). But what people mostly discussed and still mostly discuss are heyday ECs, not what they crawled to a halt doing like Psychoanalysis or Shock Illustrated. The material was also reprinted in mass market paperbacks in the '60s, and when both the Warren horror magazines and the Wood-centric THUNDER Agents showed up, memories of EC got a lot of play from both, so comics audiences were kept aware of EC Comics on some level. Gleason comics didn't have any of that, but they didn't exactly go out on the slide. They just didn't have any mechanism in place for keeping themselves alive. Had Jim Warren launched magazines featuring Gleason-style crime comics instead of EC-style horror/suspense comics (I know Archie Goodwin would have been equally capable with both - and Archie was one of those old EC comics fans, by the way) Gleason might have come back into the vernacular instead of EC.


- Grant

I remember a story in Creepy (or Eerie, I get them confused) where a character based on Graham Ingles returns to take a gruesome revenge on a Wertham-like villain for ruining his career.

Always wondered what Ingles thought of that. His lack of contact with fandom since EC's demise has made Steve Ditko look like a shameless self promoter.

[Drusilla lives!]

... But Weird Science and Weird Fantasy merged because neither of them sold very well. And became Incredible Science Fiction because Weird Science-Fantasy didn't sell very well. "Pure" science fiction has traditionally been a very hard sell for comics. ...


As one can easily deduce from many of the correspondence (letters) page pleas by Gaines for readers to subscribe to the titles... especially in the last years when the distribution squeeze was stepped up in earnest. As far as "Pure" sci fi being a hard sell, well what isn't a hard sell in comics?



Mmmm... it's a little more complex than that. People still discuss EC because EC, alone of all comics pre-Silver Age DC, generated a small but rabid fandom that published fan magazines for each other, etc., patterned after science fiction fandom. That fandom remained active long after EC perished from this earth (like the dinosaurs perished, leaving birds, in the form of Mad Magazine and its little empire behind). But what people mostly discussed and still mostly discuss are heyday ECs, not what they crawled to a halt doing like Psychoanalysis or Shock Illustrated.

My appreciation of the body of work left behind by EC is not due to any fanzine... it rests on the work itself. Honestly I didn't know much, if anything about fanzines until I read the Ditko book. I discovered EC thirty years after the fact by way of a chance encounter with an issue of Incredible SF and later the same year via the 1979 Price Guide. I happened to be in my local comic shop browsing around when a guy came in with a stack of comics to sell. As the shop owner flipped through the stack an amazing looking comic popped out... I now think it was ISF #33. Shocked at the color and detail I remember mumbling "wow"... to which the shop owner (with whom I had a good rapport) quickly said "please, it's not exactly an example of their best work." Needless to say I never saw that issue up for sale in the showcase. The next encounter was with the 79 guide, I saw that fantastic cover by Wood and bought a copy... they had a nice work up on EC and some bio info on Wood.


The material was also reprinted in mass market paperbacks in the '60s, and when both the Warren horror magazines and the Wood-centric THUNDER Agents showed up, memories of EC got a lot of play from both, so comics audiences were kept aware of EC Comics on some level.

I eventually collected most of the EC works by way of Russ Cochran's EC Library... but I never saw an actual newsstand copy again since that day in 79. I've never seen a comic like that and don't think I ever will. After getting some of the Cochran volumes I lost all interest in the comics I had been reading up to then (except for the Warren mags) and quickly left comics altogether.


Gleason comics didn't have any of that, but they didn't exactly go out on the slide. They just didn't have any mechanism in place for keeping themselves alive. Had Jim Warren launched magazines featuring Gleason-style crime comics instead of EC-style horror/suspense comics (I know Archie Goodwin would have been equally capable with both - and Archie was one of those old EC comics fans, by the way) Gleason might have come back into the vernacular instead of EC.


I don't know Gleason comics at all so I can't pass any judgement about their quality or worth... I am of the opinion that no one has yet to touch what EC did and did on such a consistent basis in so many genres. And it is also my opinion that there will never be a collection of talent (both writers and artists) of the caliber found at EC. Although Warren had a good go at it for a while.



Well, Bill Gaines' ties to DC Comics go a lot further back than that, seeing how his dad was a co-founder of the company...


So what's new... Goodman founded Western with Silberkleit which eventually became Atlas and then Marvel under the daily direction of Goodman's nephew (by marriage) Stan Lee. Silberkleit went on to establish Archie comics which later was run by his sons. Again, covered very nicely in Strange and Stranger. It was a strange little niche business run by a few families... but getting bach to Gaines, who else would he work for but for a business with old family ties... it's not like he could go to work for Marvel.

[Steven Grant]

As one can easily deduce from many of the correspondence (letters) page pleas by Gaines for readers to subscribe to the titles... especially in the last years when the distribution squeeze was stepped up in earnest. As far as "Pure" sci fi being a hard sell, well what isn't a hard sell in comics?

Science fiction has usually been an especially hard sell, though, because Science Fiction Fans had a tendency to view themselves as, er, Slans who were above the hoi polloi, not to mention above comic books. So the closer comics moved to "real" science fiction the more the material alienated the basic comics fan - the ones who got all the science fiction they wanted in superhero comics, thank you very much - but still didn't attract the science fiction fan who disdained the medium. It's only in the last couple decades that there has been any sort of serious interlacing of the two fandoms...


I eventually collected most of the EC works by way of Russ Cochran's EC Library...

And the reason you were able to collect them is that Russ was a longtime EC fan and part of that fandom who really wanted to see that material collected and preserved, and did a great job of it.

It's hard for most people today to realize, but Will Eisner was basically a forgotten man before Jules Feiffer wrote THE GREAT COMIC BOOK HEROES in 1965. Then Harvey Comics put out two reprint issues of THE SPIRIT in 1966 that sold absolutely nothing (though they did greatly affect a number of upcoming comics superstars, including me; I still recall running across them in an Osco Drugs in downtown Green Bay, Wisconsin that I wasn't supposed to be in while my parents were shopping in a Prange's across the street, and I had to figure out how to get them into the car and back home - we were on vacation at the time - without my parents figuring it out; somehow I did) and Eisner was the completely forgotten man again until 1973, when Denis Kitchen resurrected The Spirit yet again in semi-underground comics that led to Warren reprinting the strips. But in the 1960s I'd be very surprised if 5% of the comics fans had ever even heard of Will Eisner...

Now, of course, it seems he has always been lionized...


but getting bach to Gaines, who else would he work for but for a business with old family ties... it's not like he could go to work for Marvel.

He had a job. He was publisher of MAD, and ridiculously successful. He only became an advisor to DC as a favor to Carmine Infantino...

- Grant

[Drusilla lives!]

Science fiction has usually been an especially hard sell, though, because Science Fiction Fans had a tendency to view themselves as, er, Slans who were above the hoi polloi, not to mention above comic books. So the closer comics moved to "real" science fiction the more the material alienated the basic comics fan - the ones who got all the science fiction they wanted in superhero comics, thank you very much - but still didn't attract the science fiction fan who disdained the medium. It's only in the last couple decades that there has been any sort of serious interlacing of the two fandoms...


I hope I don't come off as one of those sci fi snobs... I've found both superhero comics, "serious" sci fi and everything in between enjoyable. When they wave the magic wand in superhero comics I don't mind... my sensibilities were never ruffled because there was never an attempt to explain in detail the chemical composition of Spidey's webbing. But they were if the story was rendered incoherent by too much faux science rambling. What was great about EC in this regard is that they always masterfully used science fiction as a vehicle to explore what was important and unchanging, namely the human condition. This is also what's important in superhero comics as well. If people can't get that, well what can I say.



And the reason you were able to collect them is that Russ was a longtime EC fan and part of that fandom who really wanted to see that material collected and preserved, and did a great job of it.


But I wouldn't have ever bought any of it if I wasn't blown away by it in the first place.



It's hard for most people today to realize, but Will Eisner was basically a forgotten man before Jules Feiffer wrote THE GREAT COMIC BOOK HEROES in 1965. Then Harvey Comics put out two reprint issues of THE SPIRIT in 1966 that sold absolutely nothing ... Eisner was the completely forgotten man again until 1973, when Denis Kitchen resurrected The Spirit yet again in semi-underground comics that led to Warren reprinting the strips. But in the 1960s I'd be very surprised if 5% of the comics fans had ever even heard of Will Eisner...

Now, of course, it seems he has always been lionized...


I remember The Spirit in the Warren mags... it was an interesting addition... those issues are hard to come by now. This is what TPB's are for in my opinion... retrospective material. If Russ is listening, Gleason comics needs you.



He had a job. He was publisher of MAD, and ridiculously successful. He only became an advisor to DC as a favor to Carmine Infantino...


As a ten year old I was aware of Mad and their chubby lovable editor... I wasn't aware of his connection to EC Comics (and their science fiction, horror and crime comics) until the 79 price guide, although I did suspect something was up. I mean all those "free" Mad comic book inserts in the annuals must have come from somewhere and likewise all that material in the paperbacks.

[bartl]

The Classics Illustrated people? That's true, but their newsstand distribution became extremely spotty in the wake of the Code, and they clearly went other directions; when I was a kid I only used to see them in a hardware store. They argued that they were adapting classic, authentic literature so "protection" from them was unnecessary, but it wasn't long into the '60s before they stopped producing new material and not that much later gave up the ghost. They ducked the Comics Code but didn't exactly thrive outside the system. TREASURE CHEST was the other comic to buck the Code long term, but it had its own distribution system via the Catholic Church that freed it from such considerations.
They also distributed through bookstores, as the product was marketed more towards the parents than the children. They also went head-to-head with Fred Wertham in the media outlets at the time; their PR person (and one of their writer-editors) was an attractive, young well-spoken married woman who they felt would appeal to young mothers.

[Drusilla lives!]

To briefly sum up and end the discussion of GN's (at least for me, if anyone wants to take up the thread feel free to do so) I think it would be useful to comment on some interesting points raised by Timothy Callahan in his "When Words Collide" column (August 6th, 2008) regarding superhero comics and the assumptions that many people have about them. Some of Callahan's discussion points have no direct baring on GN's in my opinion. Namely that superhero comics are endlessly repetitive, inbred monstrosities that feed on their own pasts. These problems should never plague GN's. It is my opinion that the stories told in GN's should, by their inherent nature, be of a type that should not lend themselves to this creative trap. What are some of the issues that Callahan discusses that are of direct baring? That (1) GN's like comics, are usually collaborative and not the work of a single creator (and therefore cannot be considered "serious" art), (2) GN's like superhero comics are juvenile, and lack the sophistication of true literature and (3) GN's are too exaggerated to relate to real life today... (2) and (3) are related, with (2) being the more serious misguided assumption in my opinion.

Yes, some GN's will in all likelihood have material that will be considered juvenile. But what's wrong with that if that's what the artist intended. If the material was intended to be over the top, or exaggerated, then so be it, the fault lies in the observer. If it was intended to be a serious work and is taken otherwise then perhaps the fault lies in the artist, but the observer should not draw any conclusions about GN's in general from just one example or even several. Unfortunately ingrained bias, opinion and predisposition are hard to overcome overnight and as is made evident by even the confusion as to what type of material should be considered a GN (the last six months of X-Men comics or Black Summer), GN's have a long muddled road ahead before finally shaking off the yoke of preconceptions festooned upon them by their comic cousins.

When speaking of intention or motivation, one normally thinks of an individual, not a group. So is the process of producing a GN, which will most likely be a collaborative endeavor, really art? It is to me, as long as all those involved agree to the final product. That is, the final work reflects the collective intention of the group (in the end it may not matter all that much, since perceived intention trumps actual intention in all but the most explicit of works). Nevertheless, the collaborative nature of the GN raises a number of interesting questions as to who owns the final work and who is owed credit for what. Clearly the writer owns the character and story, but does he have rights to images created by the artist? Does the artist (penciler) owe anything to his inker? Even a great such as Ditko struggled with the latter issue... so much so that he chose to destroy some of his work (in his later years he utilized some of his older, returned art work as a makeshift cutting board instead of selling it). Should collaborators enter into legal agreements before working together? This is akin to a groom asking his bride to sign a prenup on their wedding day... surely this will not bring forth the best work of all those involved. These are all open questions that haven't been addressed in the comic industry as it exists and will haunt GN's as well.

Again, it is my opinion that the GN format eventually should liberate the creator from the shackles of continuity and space, allowing for the artists intention or vision to be fully realized. Again, for me this does not necessarily portend the demise of the standard "pamphlet" format for comics (as it is so gleefully referred to by it's detractors). Both formats can exist, for that is all they are really, formats. It is or more importantly, should be, at the discretion of the artist which he or she feels is the most appropriate vehicle for their work. This freedom of choice may not occur within the existing comics publishing structure dominated by the "big two" and maybe not even by way of the independents, but through the direct distribution of the internet.

And one more thing... never forget...










Bender rules!... meat bags. BOOHAAAHAAA...

[Imaginos666]

EC Comics was not singled out by the "powers that were" because of their horror line. And it wasn't even one of the covers to one of their horror comics that was the "star" of the US Senate inquiry (that was the cover to Crime SuspenStories #22). In my opinion they were singled out because of what was between the covers. Check out just about any issue of Shock SuspenStories while keeping in mind that they were created in the early 50's (McCarthy, racial inequality, the bomb, etc.) and you'll quickly realize how progressive they really were. I'm sure their were many people who wanted to see them silenced... besides DC Comics.

If Gaines had trouble explaining that cover what could he say about this one.

Yeah, I have trouble believing that violent/salacious content had anything to do with the real outrage over these books. People remember the first half of the 20th century how Hollywood presented them. The reality was that pulp magazines were presenting stories and art much, much more intense and disturbing than anything published by EC. Many of these magazines might not have been in print as the 1950s rolled on, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a nasty precedent for this kind of material. Zombies and vampires pale in comparison to images of women being tortured, decapitated, etc. Where was the morale outrage over that?

[Steven Grant]

Since Kefauver was involved, and his main interest in Congress was beating up on organized crime, I always suspect his investigation into comics was intended to be a wedge against the distributors, who were ridiculously mobbed up... When he finally worked out that there was no real leverage there, his interest dried up... or so my theory would go...

- Grant

[Drusilla lives!]

Well, I went over to GCD to take a look at some of the Gleason comics, and in particular the "Crime Does Not Pay" covers. I don't think they came close at all to what EC was doing... but I can see they did have their own simple raw "feel" for the material and I can understand their appeal, although people always seem interested in crime stories. That guy Biro (whoever he was) had a very sparse, clean quality to some of his cover work (very 1930's, I get the same feeling when viewing DC material from that period). It's an aesthetic which in my opinion enhances the mood and their message about crime... much like the sober tone of TV shows like Dragnet, and The Untouchables.

Some covers (courtesy of GCD)...

[Drusilla lives!]

BTW, I picked those covers out because they stood out in my opinion... there were a few others from the early CDNP years which would have also made the cut. Except for that one sadistic "Crime and Punishment" cover most from this series were very staid, as well as most of the 50's CDNP covers... nothing to write home about (although there were some nice "pulp fiction" type painted CDNP covers done in that period). The immediate thought that popped into my head was "gee, these comics must have been a big hit with law enforcement... they must have been a good read when on stakeouts." Some of the covers (probably from the late 40's) to CDNP boasted sales in excess of six million copies... not bad for a comic, but then you realize that's pretty much the only title they had... although they seem to have also had a "Daredevil" superhero comic. That latter title seems to have metamorphosed into a really lame children's comic by the 50's.

Again, some covers (courtesy of GCD)... note the Daredevil one, how many times have I seen that cover motif done in comics...

[Steven Grant]

BTW, I picked those covers out because they stood out in my opinion... there were a few others from the early CDNP years which would have also made the cut. Except for that one sadistic "Crime and Punishment" cover most from this series were very staid, as well as most of the 50's CDNP covers... nothing to write home about (although there were some nice "pulp fiction" type painted CDNP covers done in that period). The immediate thought that popped into my head was "gee, these comics must have been a big hit with law enforcement... they must have been a good read when on stakeouts." Some of the covers (probably from the late 40's) to CDNP boasted sales in excess of six million copies... not bad for a comic, but then you realize that's pretty much the only title they had...

Gleason published a number of titles: Daredevil, Boy Comics, Crime Does Not Pay, Crime & Punishment, all of which sold extremely well for most of their runs. But it was a very small operation publishing them, basically Lev Gleason, with Charles Biro and Bob Wood as his editors and main writers. (Wood later came to a bad end in a story right out of Crime Does Not Pay, but you can go dig that up on line.) It's true that the art was rarely as good as what was found in the best EC comics, but Gleason's books did change with the times, publishing Joe Kubert, Alex Toth and other relatively slick artists. (Remember that Gleason's comics were based in the '40s while Gaines' were based in the '50s, when a much cleaner and illustrative style was coming into vogue; for what was being produced concurrently by other companies at the time, Gleason's art was often quite polished and progressive.) Later they added various other titles like Black Diamond Western, Boy Meets Girl and Lovers Lane, on the common publisher's misconception that if you had four titles that were making you rich, just think how rich you could become on ten titles. Biro disagreed with this approach, but it wasn't his decision to make. But few of the new titles they published made anywhere near the inroads the other four did.

That said, Crime Does Not Pay and Crime And Punishment both easily outsold by a huge margin anything Gaines ever put out besides Mad. Then again, as I said, Gleason did his best business in the '40s while Gaines was '50s, and they really had different playing fields. (And the early ECs, before the horror and suspense comics and Frontline Combat and Mad and all the other stuff, weren't so hot artwise themselves. Nor storywise, usually.)

Gleason and Biro were also a million miles ahead of the pack with Tops, a slick magazine format comic (or "illustories," as Biro tried to market them for an older audience) aimed at adult readers, specifically those millions of men who'd "grown up" reading comics during their WWII military service. Biro reasoned, correctly, I think, that they were comfortable with the comics format but their tastes in material had likely matured beyond the basic kid stuff comics kept churning out, and a magazine designed for and marketed to them, with a format that separated it from "standard" comics (though not, as far as I know, Standard Comics) was something to try. So they did, with Tops, in 1949.

http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=340106&zoom=4

A concept waaaaaaaaay ahead of its time (Gaines would later try it himself with the abortive "Illustrated" magazine) that was doomed by their inability to get distribution. Interestingly, the real victor in that market was the cheap mass market paperback, sporting lurid titles and covers, and skyrocketed to amazing profitability in the late '40s-early '60s. They also put the pulp magazines out of business.

By the way, when you're selling six million copies of anything per month (and don't forget both SUPERMAN and CAPTAIN MARVEL ADVENTURES both boasted they sold over one million copies a month during the war, the highwater mark for superhero comics, with one or two brief exceptions that elude me right this instant) you really don't need to publish anything else. But they did, and those sold well, too.

At any rate, my point still stands that, whatever you may think of the relative merits of their art, EC was long-remembered and influential because it had a dedicated and vocal fandom that kept the memory of the company alive. There is plenty of other really good looking comics art - much of it in Atlas comics of the time, by guys either just as good as or identical to the guys who worked for EC (Williamson, Krigstein, Severin, Davis, Wood, Gray Morrow, Angelo Torres, Reed Crandall, Gene Colan, etc.) that's all but forgotten today, even by Marvel - produced in the '50s that isn't remembered by much of anybody. The main reason EC is honored by many today is its art and stories, but the main reason it's remembered, and companies like Gleason's aren't, is its very vocal fandom that kept preaching in the wilderness.

- Grant

[Drusilla lives!]

Gleason published a number of titles: Daredevil, Boy Comics, Crime Does Not Pay, Crime & Punishment, all of which sold extremely well for most of their runs. But it was a very small operation publishing them, basically Lev Gleason, with Charles Biro and Bob Wood as his editors and main writers. (Wood later came to a bad end in a story right out of Crime Does Not Pay, but you can go dig that up on line.) It's true that the art was rarely as good as what was found in the best EC comics, but Gleason's books did change with the times, publishing Joe Kubert, Alex Toth and other relatively slick artists. (Remember that Gleason's comics were based in the '40s while Gaines' were based in the '50s, when a much cleaner and illustrative style was coming into vogue; for what was being produced concurrently by other companies at the time, Gleason's art was often quite polished and progressive.)

Biro's unique stylings didn't go unnoticed by me. In fact, now that I think about it, the leggy females found on the noses of many a WWII fighter plane look very Biro inspired.



Later they added various other titles like Black Diamond Western, Boy Meets Girl and Lovers Lane, on the common publisher's misconception that if you had four titles that were making you rich, just think how rich you could become on ten titles. Biro disagreed with this approach, but it wasn't his decision to make. But few of the new titles they published made anywhere near the inroads the other four did.


Can't argue with that... Black Diamond Western looked very lame by any standard. But that doesn't mean there weren't good stories to be found within... but I wouldn't have known, since the cover art really reeked and I wouldn't have ever bought it... sorry, that's my opinion.



That said, Crime Does Not Pay and Crime And Punishment both easily outsold by a huge margin anything Gaines ever put out besides Mad. Then again, as I said, Gleason did his best business in the '40s while Gaines was '50s, and they really had different playing fields. (And the early ECs, before the horror and suspense comics and Frontline Combat and Mad and all the other stuff, weren't so hot artwise themselves. Nor storywise, usually.)


Yes, I agree with that. To put it lightly, EC in the late 40's was not so hot until Gaines revamped the lineup.



Gleason and Biro were also a million miles ahead of the pack with Tops, a slick magazine format comic (or "illustories," as Biro tried to market them for an older audience) aimed at adult readers, specifically those millions of men who'd "grown up" reading comics during their WWII military service. Biro reasoned, correctly, I think, that they were comfortable with the comics format but their tastes in material had likely matured beyond the basic kid stuff comics kept churning out, and a magazine designed for and marketed to them, with a format that separated it from "standard" comics (though not, as far as I know, Standard Comics) was something to try. So they did, with Tops, in 1949.

http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=340106&zoom=4



That's a really nice cover... excellent I'd say. The shadow of the trees are nearly perfect and used to great effect. Biro really did a wonderful job on that one.



... At any rate, my point still stands that, whatever you may think of the relative merits of their art, EC was long-remembered and influential because it had a dedicated and vocal fandom that kept the memory of the company alive. There is plenty of other really good looking comics art - much of it in Atlas comics of the time, by guys either just as good as or identical to the guys who worked for EC (Williamson, Krigstein, Severin, Davis, Wood, Gray Morrow, Angelo Torres, Reed Crandall, Gene Colan, etc.) that's all but forgotten today, even by Marvel - produced in the '50s that isn't remembered by much of anybody. The main reason EC is honored by many today is its art and stories, but the main reason it's remembered, and companies like Gleason's aren't, is its very vocal fandom that kept preaching in the wilderness.


And I still say it was the overall quality of the art and stories... I guess that's what you're saying also. It's the legacy of the talent behind the company, not the company itself. But as long as fans talk about EC the next natural question is "what else was out there." So by saving EC from obscurity they saved the others as well, for any thinking person will eventually always ask that next question. The fact that great work goes unloved and under appreciated is a crime... but that's why we're here to discuss it.

[Drusilla lives!]

"Can't argue with that... Black Diamond Western looked very lame by any standard. But that doesn't mean there weren't good stories to be found within... but I wouldn't have known, since the cover art really reeked and I wouldn't have ever bought it... sorry, that's my opinion."

"Reeked" is to strong a word... I wasn't there and I have no idea if the artist tried doing his best work with the skills in his possession at the time. I failed to realize that sometimes there are other factors that effect quality. The covers would indeed "reek" by todays standards, but that's because today even a mediocre artist has a lot of formal training in their background, and can muddle by on technique alone. Back then it was a rarity to have such a background... and I'm sure many "trained" artists of the day wouldn't consider working in the comics field anyway. It was the GI Bill which leveled the playing field, giving opportunity for the talented (but not well heeled) aspiring artists. It was this bigger societal change that really brought about the "slick" comic art era. To judge these earlier works to them is in a way comparing apples to oranges.

For those interested I found a good write up on the crime comics of the era here...

http://www.crimeboss.com/history02-1.html

[Steven Grant]

Biro's unique stylings didn't go unnoticed by me. In fact, now that I think about it, the leggy females found on the noses of many a WWII fighter plane look very Biro inspired.

I guess. Biro was really a much better artist than you'd guess from his comics. I'm not the biggest fan in the world of Biro's art myself. But he could construct a story like nobody's business.


Can't argue with that... Black Diamond Western looked very lame by any standard. But that doesn't mean there weren't good stories to be found within... but I wouldn't have known, since the cover art really reeked and I wouldn't have ever bought it... sorry, that's my opinion.

And I wouldn't disagree with it. Biro was very clearly uncomfortable with westerns, I don't think he had much natural aptitude for or interest in them, and Black Diamond is a pretty transparent Lone Ranger knockoff. But he apparently didn't draw, or even write, most of the interiors, whose art was done by a variety of artists like Dick Rockwell, William Overgard, Norm Maurer and Jerry Grandenetti. Checking, I see he didn't even do most of the covers past the first couple dozen, though he probably laid them out, and there are a few gems in there, esp. the ones by Bob Fujitani. I've read a few Black Diamonds, and for early '50s comic westerns they weren't bad. (I'd rank on above EC's Gunfighter.) But Black Diamond Western was very clearly no labor of love at Gleason; probably the best western being produced at the time was Prize Comics Western, with Colin Dawes (I'm not sure I have that name right), John Severin and Will Elder drawing American Eagle.


That's a really nice cover... excellent I'd say. The shadow of the trees are nearly perfect and used to great effect. Biro really did a wonderful job on that one.

Tops was a labor of love for Biro, and I think he was very much trying to achieve a much slicker adult style than he used in the comics. I've seen non-comics art than he did and much of it is really quite stunning.


And I still say it was the overall quality of the art and stories... I guess that's what you're saying also. It's the legacy of the talent behind the company, not the company itself. But as long as fans talk about EC the next natural question is "what else was out there." So by saving EC from obscurity they saved the others as well, for any thinking person will eventually always ask that next question.

But that was clearly not their intent, since if you read EC fanzines from the '50s and '60s, there's a very, very strong "EC were the only comics ever produced that are worth paying attention to, so let us pay attention to those alone" undercurrent. And I would guess most fans don't ask "What else was out there?" The general feeling has always seemed to be "If it was any good, someone would have mentioned it by now." But over the past few years I've discovered a boatload of great 50s comics (art, if not story, and the stories often weren't bad either) from all kinds of companies nobody remembers anymore: Prize, Gleason, Dell had tons of great stuff but you really had to look for it because they had a whole lot more not great stuff, Mainline, Atlas, Standard, St. John, lots more. None of them produced great stuff across the board, and most didn't last all that long, but, man, when they burned they burned brightly. (Not that there weren't a lot of '50s comics companies turning out pure swill across the board, but the '50s were nowhere near the comics cultural wasteland they've traditionally been made out to be, usually by superhero fans - but EC fans did their share to project that image too.)

- Grant

[Drusilla lives!]

One last thing about that Tops cover by Biro... it really doesn't need that text balloon. I think this is a good example of what you were talking about in your column a ways back about "thought balloons" (although technically this isn't a thought balloon... I think). The context of the situation with the backward glance of the woman's face tells the whole story. There is no need for her to explain the fear she is experiencing in my opinion. I was reading up on Biro and apparently this was his style... very verbose. But I still think it's an excellent cover nevertheless.

Again, I wasn't there so I really would never know, but maybe it reveals an insecurity that Biro might have had about his work. That is, he was more confident as a writer than an artist and tried to overcompensate.

[Steven Grant]

One last thing about that Tops cover by Biro... it really doesn't need that text balloon. I think this is a good example of what you were talking about in your column a ways back about "thought balloons" (although technically this isn't a thought balloon... I think). The context of the situation with the backward glance of the woman's face tells the whole story. There is no need for her to explain the fear she is experiencing in my opinion. I was reading up on Biro and apparently this was his style... very verbose. But I still think it's an excellent cover nevertheless.

Again, I wasn't there so I really would never know, but maybe it reveals an insecurity that Biro might have had about his work. That is, he was more confident as a writer than an artist and tried to overcompensate.

I think it was just more the tradition of the time. This is 1949 we're talking about. It might not even have been Biro behind it, it might've been Gleason or some distributor wanting exactly what was going on to be clearer. All kinds of wacky stuff like that in comics. especially when it comes to covers, which until 1982 or so were universally considered by the business to be not works of art but a book/magazine/comic's main sales tool. I don't know that I'd say Biro was an especially verbose writer, but he certainly didn't object to being verbose...

- Grant

[Drusilla lives!]

... This is 1949 we're talking about. ...
- Grant

What does that mean? The size of the pile depends on how far one is willing to dig... the more I dig the more I find that it really wasn't all that different back in 1949. They just seemed to take the "high road" whenever they could... by "they" I mean the ruling elite of the day. What we're left with is the illusion of what things were like... the ideals that they wanted us to remember them living by, not how they actually lived. IMHO.

[Steven Grant]

What does that mean? The size of the pile depends on how far one is willing to dig... the more I dig the more I find that it really wasn't all that different back in 1949. They just seemed to take the "high road" whenever they could... by "they" I mean the ruling elite of the day. What we're left with is the illusion of what things were like... the ideals that they wanted us to remember them living by, not how they actually lived. IMHO.

Boy, now I haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about. I doubt one person in a thousand worried about what posterity would think of them in the '40s, or even considered that comic books would still be around 60 years later. What I meant was it was common in the '40s to write comic books like the audience was composed of imbeciles. Biro didn't write like that - he did assume a certain level of intelligence in his audience, though there were books he wrote aimed more at kids, like Daredevil and Boy, and the crime comics he felt had a broader audience, but he always tried to avoid writing down to his audience and I suspect that meant less aversion than most writers of the day toward verbosity, that's all.

But I suspect most comics creators in the '40s, and almost certainly the '50s, when the form seemed almost certainly on its (at least commercial) deathbed, just did what they did without much concern for how future generations would perceive them. My guess is most of them didn't think future generations even know their names (since many comics were published anonymously or with pseudonyms attached) let alone remember them...

- Grant

[Drusilla lives!]

Just stressing that there was never a period without crime or strife... not even in the 1940's.

[Steven Grant]

Just stressing that there was never a period without crime or strife... not even in the 1940's.

Back in the '40s, they'd've beaten you up, taken all your money and killed you for saying that...

- Grant

[Drusilla lives!]

In addition I would be imprisoned for ninety-nine years hard labor for using the term "ruling elite." :) So things must be getting better.