CBR: When Words Collide - Feb 28, 2011

[CBR News]

Tim considers narrative voice in mainstream comics and comes up with five thoughts that may redefine the way we look at the relationship between art and writing. Or maybe it's just an excuse to write about the Hulk...


Full article here.

[Trey]

Art is King.

And I've noticed that my favorite characters or stories have iconic imagery.
The multicolored Infinity Gauntlet
The Silver Surfer
Thor and Asgard and its multitude of characters/beasts/legends
Punisher and his skull insignia
Batman and his costume
Wolverine with his distinctive mask/hair and internal weapons.

[bongoes]

I think the impact of the artist is even clearer, when looking at someone you don't like. When the writing is good but the art is bad then the comic suffers greatly to the point where it may be a horrible comic even if the writer is great. But when the art is good and the writing is bad the art can make it seem better than it really is, if it has great art, something bad might become enjoyable. I've rarely seen it work the other way. That's why I follow artists too, I do follow some writers but I'm always drawn towards something with art I like more.

[Trey]

I think the impact of the artist is even clearer, when looking at someone you don't like. When the writing is good but the art is bad then the comic suffers greatly to the point where it may be a horrible comic even if the writer is great. But when the art is good and the writing is bad the art can make it seem better than it really is, if it has great art, something bad might become enjoyable. I've rarely seen it work the other way. That's why I follow artists too, I do follow some writers but I'm always drawn towards something with art I like more.

Agreed absolutely.

I really don't understand why so many comics are 95% dialogue.

I mean nobody would want to read a short story or a novel if it were all dialogue.

The best comics had narration/caption boxes that reinforced the art. And the art, reinforced the words. Thomas/Buscema, Frank Miller,

And its absolutely difficult for new readers to fully grasp the tone/narrative of the comic, if they have to rely on the art for the only cues. Experienced readers? Yeah, it does not bother us.

Roy Thomas describes a moonlit night, with raiders scuttling among the trees, and you see Buscema draw a perfect representation, that's where you get narrative drive, that's where you get a story, panel to panel. Where the art reinforces what I'm reading. And the best art, then adds something more. Buscema would use amazing, varied camera angles, etc. Dialogue alone is not enough. The 5 minute read is proving to be less satisfactory, every year. Thanks a lot Bendis!

Maybe that's why they are only selling in the 50,000 range on average.

[rstay]

I think Tim makes lots of good points. I remember reading an ASM recently in which the panel-to-panel artwork completely failed to narrate the script and ruined the whole issue.

But I also wonder whether he does underplay the writer (and inker, etc.). We Westerners always like to find the individual most responsible for something, but perhaps it's best to see comics (and movies, etc.) as genuinely collaborative exercises rather than identifying some supposed main cause. Plus, I would expect that writer/artist collaborations differ greatly depending upon the people involved.

For instance, The Unwritten seems to be a genuinely collaborative effort, and I can't imagine the book with either Carey or Gross out of the picture. On the other hand, I can imagine Invincible Iron Man without Larroca but not Fraction. That's not to diminish Larroca's contribution: it would be a very different, and perhaps inferior, book without him. But as good as the art is in IIM, it doesn't seem as central to the narrative and characterization as is the case with The Unwritten.

Then again, maybe I'm just full of hot air.

[Derrick Fish]

The points raised in this article are perhaps best applied to assembly line comics more then, say, an individually made, creator owned book, but only so long as it's the work of a single creator. BONE as it was originally published versus the Scholastic color editions, for example. Once a colorist is brought in, the act of interpretation is automatic.

But even in the case of something, like say BONE again, you still have a singular writer and artist interpreting their own imagination, so in a way, you still have the element of interpretation brought into the process. I don't know any artist, myself included, that will say that what they drew was EXACTLY what they pictured in their imagination.

It's a facinating process.

[hpops]

Really enjoyed reading that. I totally agree with the other comment that Dialogue led comics without the additional narration are sadly missed.

[Bells214]

We might say, "Aaron Sorkin writes good dialogue" and "Paul Haggis writes bad dialogue," but in both cases, the quality of the dialogue is almost completely dependent on the skill of the actor to make the dialogue "believable" and the skill of the director to make the dialogue fit the tone of the movie appropriately.

I think you're quick to (not) judge here. When you read something by Sorkin, you can see the skill in it. The back-and-forth has a flow. People speak naturally, not in plot points. Sure, it's a romanticized dialogue where everyone is clever and pithy and is never at a loss for words,

Also, I think you're forgetting a big part of the equation - the reader. The writer gives the words. The artist shows you the face (emotion) of the speaker. But it is the reader who actually verbalizes (if only in their head) the words. The reader chooses how playful, angry, or apathetic the character's tone is. The reader is the real actor here.

I mean nobody would want to read a short story or a novel if it were all dialogue.

People read play scripts all the time. Most are easily 99% dialogue.

[NickFury90]

But when the art is good and the writing is bad the art can make it seem better than it really is, if it has great art, something bad might become enjoyable.

Not for me. I don't care if Ed McGuinness is doing some incredible job on the artwork, I read four issues of that Red Hulk series and I had enough. Similarly, I'll put up with horrible rush-job Igor Kordley artwork as long as Morrison's words are on the page. When worst comes to worst, artwork that initially seems unappealing to me(John McCrea on Hitman, for example), I'll grow to love over time because Garth Ennis' mastery of dialog and fully-realized characterization made me stick around.

I realize how important the artists are(and not just the pencillers, I'm talking the inkers, the colorists, hell even the letterer), but if its Frank Quitely and JH Williams III on a Jeph Loeb/Chuck Austen collaboration book, you won't see me slapping down money on it.

[videofarmer]

I think Tim makes lots of good points. I remember reading an ASM recently in which the panel-to-panel artwork completely failed to narrate the script and ruined the whole issue.

But I also wonder whether he does underplay the writer (and inker, etc.). We Westerners always like to find the individual most responsible for something, but perhaps it's best to see comics (and movies, etc.) as genuinely collaborative exercises rather than identifying some supposed main cause. Plus, I would expect that writer/artist collaborations differ greatly depending upon the people involved.

For instance, The Unwritten seems to be a genuinely collaborative effort, and I can't imagine the book with either Carey or Gross out of the picture. On the other hand, I can imagine Invincible Iron Man without Larroca but not Fraction. That's not to diminish Larroca's contribution: it would be a very different, and perhaps inferior, book without him. But as good as the art is in IIM, it doesn't seem as central to the narrative and characterization as is the case with The Unwritten.

Then again, maybe I'm just full of hot air.

I agree completely. Epting art on Captain America still would have been amazing, but without Brubaker, Bucky would most likely still be dead (or even worse, he could have been brought back in a way that most readers ended up hating).

[Reptisaurus!]

Yeeeeeaaaaaaahhhhh....

I'm more of an artist guy for the reasons you said, and more. I think that in collaborative, factory system comics you're getting the artist's view of reality - Or entering the artists' world - much more so than the writer's.

I agree completely. Epting art on Captain America still would have been amazing, but without Brubaker, Bucky would most likely still be dead (or even worse, he could have been brought back in a way that most readers ended up hating).

Huh. I think all the *continuity* stuff tends to come from the writer.

If you're reading comics as a series of events that define a fictional universe, THEN does the artist matter?

[JayPhonomancer]

Though I'm a "writer over artist" guy in general I agree with most of what Tim says here. The artist obviously has huge control over how we read the story.

However I will always stick with a story I'm enjoying even if I don't particularly care for the art. Sure, the artist changes on Morrison's New X-Men could sometimes piss me off but once I started reading it didn't really matter all that much. And some artists I have grown to like when my initial response from a quick glance at their work was off-putting to me.

For instance the first Hellblazer book I read was Dangerous Habits. The artwork didn't particularly appeal to me but I had heard good things so I went ahead and bought it and thoroughly enjoyed it. Will Simpson's art is not all that bad but the colouring is very dull, dreary and not very inviting (I know you could say dull and dreary artwork suits a story about a man discovering he has cancer and spending his time drinking and dealing with supernatural horror but how and ever). It was the quality of Ennis' writing and yes, his dialogue and characterisation made any reservations I had about the art unimportant to me after a while.

Of course I have heard people say that Will Simpson's heart just wasn't in it as these type of stories weren't really his thing and the title took off when Ennis was teamed with Dillon but I still find the early stuff excellent too. I suppose it depends on an artist working with a writer who understands them well and knows how to serve them best.

[bill4935]

"Governor Tarkin, I should have expected to find you holding Vader's leash. I recognized your foul stench when I was brought on board."

[Bridegroom]

I categorically disagree with Callahan. Really, I think he conflagrates the POV argument. I think he is considering POV in a perspective context when POV will be defined mostly by the common denominator of which character is in the scene the most and what character is central to moving the plots and subplots forward. Who is responsible for this? The writer. This would be analogous to an actor suggesting blocking changes in a play. That actor is not changing the perspective of the play. Callahan even says that the POV never changes, it is the same 99.99% percent, right? The impact of the artist is negligible in this case. His Ahab reference is emblematic. An artist is not going to change the perspective in the manner, that would be like the Fantastic Four being told through the perspective of Willy Lumpkin. Artists cannot make this change. This is the difference between Civil War and Front Lines. Does the artist make this distinction? No way.

Secondly, as far as selling the acting, this is the mark of a good artist. This is not a case wherein the artist somehow out-creates the writer. The analogy here is between an a movie director and an actor. A good actor has an understanding of the general mood of the story and can probably deliver the dialogue and action without too much direction or in the case of comic books, the script.

I think in Callahan's case, if you want to look at one page divorced from the whole story, he might have a point, but when considering the necessity for a fairly rigid and consistent perspective (how many perspective changes have there been in the fairly progressive Daredevil? Maybe quite a few, but is that because of the artist or the writer?) and importance of convincingly moving the plot forward and establishing a consistant mood and tone, the writer is important. I will say equally important just to make nice.

[rev sully]

Tim, what a column! Thanks.
It took me three reads to grok in fullness. You lay down a lot of law & break it down for We Of The Cheap Seats. ^_~

I really enjoy how this article presents the standards of criticism.
It's one thing to extoll & bemoan continuity superhero funnybooks, "skinny legs & all" as Robbins coined.
Then it's completely a separate matter when it comes to Storytelling Devices; what works & what doesn't, which writers & writer/artist batteries succeed or fail & why.

Tim...you're turning out to be the Carl Sagan of Comics. Skepticism Rules!

crea shakti,
Rev Sully

Eric O'Sullivan
Boston, MA USA