Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

NYT Magazine: Are Comics The New Mainstream Novels?

Posted by Hemos on Mon Jul 12, 2004 08:01 AM
from the well-duh-yes dept.
securitas writes "The New York Times Magazine cover story this week is a (typically) long feature about the rise of comic books and graphic novels into mainstream culture, with writer Charles McGrath (former editor of the Book Review) stating: 'Comic books are what novels used to be -- an accessible, vernacular form with mass appeal ... perfectly suited to our dumbed-down culture and collective attention deficit.' McGrath cites the mid-1980s birth of a movement that began and fizzled with Maus (Art Spiegelman), Love & Rockets (Hernandez Bros.) Watchmen (Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons) and Batman: The Dark Knight Returns (Frank Miller). The current renaissance in graphic novels include non-fiction Palestine (Sacco), non-fiction Persepolis (Satrapi) which has sold 450,000 copies, Ghost World (Clowes), American Splendor (Pekar), Road to Perdition (Collins) and Chris Ware's Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth, which won the 2001 Guardian Prize for best first book and has sold 100,000 in hardcover. McGrath interviews Marjane Satrapi, Julie Doucet, Joe Sacco, Art Spiegelman, and Alan Moore, among others. The article also has a multimedia interactive feature with many of the graphic novelists (registration required) in the magazine article."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Manga? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CommanderData (782739) <kevinhiNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Monday July 12 2004, @08:03AM (#9673671)
    The author of the article barely makes mention of it except to crack a joke. Manga has been mainstream entertainment for people of all ages/social status for years in Japan, and accounts for about 1/3 of all books and magazines published there (and several billion US dollars in sales). Where 'Comic Books' are considered Geeky in the US, Manga is read by everyone from children to housewives to businessmen.

    It's about time we started catching up...
    • Re:Manga? (Score:5, Informative)

      by JBdH (613927) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:09AM (#9673729)
      Not only in Japan, but also in Western Europe - most notably in Belgium, France and the Netherlands - have comics been mainstream. Everybody in These countries knows Tintin and most take it serious. Other serious yet popular comics are the comic-version of voyage au bout de la nuit (journey to the end of the night) - the novel by Louis Ferdinand Celine and made into a comic by Tardi. Also in Holland have major novels been turned into comics.
      • Europe has a very long tradition of doing great comics, to say the least.

        I think we should thank Heavy Metal magazine for bringing attention to quality European comics and graphic novels, even if what we see in Heavy Metal is strongly adult-oriented. I remember reading an English-translated Barbarella serial there, and it was vastly more interesting than the movie.

        By the way, Disney comics published by their Disney Worldwide Publishing (Italia) division are extremely popular and well-regarded in its nativ
    • Re:Manga? (Score:5, Informative)

      by davejenkins (99111) <slashdot AT davejenkins DOT com> on Monday July 12 2004, @09:02AM (#9674177) Homepage
      Where 'Comic Books' are considered Geeky in the US, Manga is read by everyone from children to housewives to businessmen.

      Well, Manga come with their own social baggage here (Tokyo) also: sure, readership cuts across social class, age group, sex, and educational level, but a manga is not a book, it's something you read when you're on the train or having a smoke on your break.

      Frankly, people caught reading manga at their desks at work or in social situations are usually snickered at for being pedestrian or purposefully low-brow (much like the reception one would get reading a comic book in the US).
      • Yeah, but they're also run off on cheap newsprint there in black and white so the cost is very low. Graphic novels in the USA are slick glossies using fancy color techniques and cost as much as a nice hardcover. These two things are apples and durien for comparison.

        Have you ever considered that the higher production values of American comics is what's holding them back from becoming the "Everyman's" novel in America? The high production quality, slick graphics, and glossy paper of American comics transl
  • Adams (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mfh (56) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:05AM (#9673693) Journal
    > Are Comics The New Mainstream Novels?

    This may be true, although I have a slightly different perspective. I think we just really like the people who make comics, because they are expressive people; these same people could do anything else and we would like it just as much. For example, take Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert. I have been holding out for the next Scott Adams novel (not comic, read: handbook). I was greatly amused, and felt better protected against the weasels in society, after reading "The Way of the Weasel." This was a fantastic read, filled with cynical, yet practical knowledge, to help combat the weasels ruining our workplaces and our private lives. Sure Dilbert comics make an appearances in TWotW, to illustrate concise points, but they only accent the rest of the book and support points raised with classic Dilbert humour. His writing is stunning -- and wholly useful. I can only hope he writes another one of these because I found it totally useful, as I'm sure many of you have.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 12 2004, @08:05AM (#9673694)
    ...for all your dumbed down graphic-novel reading needs.

    Seriously, if you've never read it, it doesn't get more bloody or offensive than that... my favorite graphic novel by far.
  • by SQL Error (16383) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:05AM (#9673695)
    perfectly suited to our dumbed-down culture and collective attention deficit

    Yep, good old New York Times, never missing a chance to sneer at popular culture.

    After all, if people actually like it, it can't possibly be good.

    • by Otter (3800) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:24AM (#9673829) Journal
      Also, regarding the notion of a poetry->novels->manga devolution:

      1) My impression is that the growth of novels was driven by the availability of affordable mass printing, rather than an inability of readers to handle poetry.

      2) The ongoing disappearance of poetry is mostly a consequence of poets' writing for each other rather for an audience. The readers haven't gotten dumber; the poems have become inaccessible and ugly.

      That said, graphic novels are still dweeb candy. ;-)
      • The poets of today write in a different form than they did in the past centuries. They write them as song lyrics!

        Look at Dylan. He is more a poet than a singer...as he can hardly carry a tune, but so what? His words are powerful! These are simple tunes with simple chord changes with simple melodies yet very complex and beautiful words and ideas.
    • by Walt Dismal (534799) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:33AM (#9673906)
      I do NOT have collective attent... collective att.. collective..... er what were we talking about?

      (Turning back to my copy of Radioactive Commander Tacoman Comics.)

  • Dumbed-down (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alnya (513364) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:06AM (#9673703)
    Perfectly suited to our dumbed-down culture and collective attention deficit...

    I think that's a bit harsh for novels and graphic novels. Some of the comics cited above are difficult, intelligent stories with involved character development and a good story to tell.
    Calling that dumbed-down undersells the artists and the readership.

    I'm pretty sure someone was saying that about Dickens in his day.
    • Re:Dumbed-down (Score:5, Interesting)

      by lovecult (682522) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:30AM (#9673877)
      Funny you should say that.
      Some of Dickens work as serialized in newspapers, just as comics now are.
      Great Expectations was published that way.
      • Re:Dumbed-down (Score:4, Informative)

        by arivanov (12034) on Monday July 12 2004, @09:10AM (#9674245) Homepage
        Not just Dickens. 99% of what we consider to be 19th century classics were serialized in newspapers. All novels published by Balsacue, Dumas (son and pa), Jules Verne, Carl May, etc were newspaper serializations. Some of the characters (Grimo in the Three Musketeers) were brought in only to fill space as newspapers were paying per line. So there is nothing wrong in serialization and commercialization.

        There is definitely something wrong as far as commercialization is concerned. There is definitely someting wrong in dumbing everything down and making everything at the intellectual level of a marvel comic though...
    • I think that's a bit harsh for novels and graphic novels. Some of the comics cited above are difficult, intelligent stories with involved character development and a good story to tell.

      Please, are you kidding us? I read Batman: The Dark Knight Returns which was okay, but at the back it already admitted they basically made up the last two parts on the fly under pretty intense deadline pressure. And it shows, similar to the way Coleridge's Kubla Khan [virginia.edu] took something of a dive after he was bothered out of h [virginia.edu]
      • that depends on what you're looking for in literature. if you're looking for great prose and a mastery of the english language, you're absolutely right. you're going to find that in umberto eco and toni morrison and not in a graphic novel. however, if, as the previous poster cited, you're interested in a complex, interesting story and character development, you can find that in the watchmen, transmetropolitan, or any of a number of other comics. graphic novels are almost totally a different artform than literature, and i don't think it's fair to compare the two.
    • Graphic novels are almost always dialogue driven. This is a lot harder to write, since any exposition must be implicit. In a textual novel, the writer can easily go off for a few chapters and provide background information. With a graphic novel it is a lot more difficult, because exposition that is obviously exposition looks artificial and out of place. Calling it dumbed down definitely undersells the writers.
    • Perfectly suited to our dumbed-down culture and collective attention deficit...

      Maybe, who's gonna RTFA to find out?
    • Well for some acedemics, real lit is supposed to be unreadable dribble that post-moderniss and the modernists before them put out. If all modern novels were of the ilk that some in the acedemy read and consider highbrow I would read more comics for sure.
      • But in the more mature comics you get these really deep plot-lines that small children probably wouldn't get next to advertisements that target 8 year olds. Yet another case of the popular conception of the world being wrong. Mainly the American conception being wrong.

        This isn't a failure of "the American conception" of anything, it's a failure of Marvel Entertainment's marketing department. It's their job to explain to potential advertisers the target market for their product, and to solicit advertiseme
  • by erick99 (743982) * <homerun@gmail.com> on Monday July 12 2004, @08:08AM (#9673718) Homepage
    This is fairly long article at ten pages. I really wanted to know how many words are in a "graphic novel" versus a traditional novel. Do these novels get non-readers to read? Who are readers of these novels? I was disappointed that the article is largely about the writers with some consideration about how the books are laid out. The information about the authors is good, but the other stuff would have been very nice as well.

    Cheers!

    Erick

  • No way (Score:3, Funny)

    by obli (650741) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:09AM (#9673725)
    It might just be my imaginiation, but the golden age of comics is over, with all those web comics swamping the already broad selection it's hard to find a decent one.

    Not to mention cathy, someone shoot the creator already

    I kninda fell in love with Wulff Morgenthaler [wulffmorgenthaler.com] though, humour that's sick enough for me.
  • by Nadsat (652200) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:10AM (#9673735) Homepage
    that the most maintstream is political propaganda? It subvertedly cites how such media as Fox News is technically considered comic book material, somehow striking a chord for those looking for good old school girl pr0n.

    sigh--cap it all.
  • "dumbed down" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lovecult (682522) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:11AM (#9673744)

    I'm sure many of we lovers of the medium of comics will object to the "dumbed-down" comment"

    Comic reading implies a different kind of literacy.
    Not an illiteracy.

    We know many people who don't read comics because, as they say, "we don't get it".

    I pity the comic-illiterate, for the unique joy that they lose out on.
    And I question the implication that comics are "dumb".
    Many literary works of great sophistication, not to mention beauty, happen to be comics.

    • Re:"dumbed down" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by May Kasahara (606310) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:32AM (#9673891) Journal
      Maybe someone should whap the author upside the head with copies of Comics and Sequential Art and Understanding Comics (I know he mentioned the latter in the article, but if the misspelling of Scott McCloud's name is any indication, I have to ask myself if he's really read it).
  • by millahtime (710421) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:16AM (#9673768) Homepage Journal
    I just saw "Comic Book the Movie" staring and directed my Mark Hammil. I do believe that this movie does show many of the reasons why it does not hit major mainstream. I love comics but some of the people who are all about comics just plain creep me out. There is that stigma and it scares many self proclaimed (and they want to be that way) "normal" people away.

    Yes, I do realize those guys are prolly mods on /. so let the flamebait mods begin.
  • by johnthorensen (539527) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:17AM (#9673783)
    How can you have a post on graphic novels without including Neil Gaiman's "Sandman" series? ;)

    Seriously, this is some of the most amazing stuff ever to come out, both with respect to storyline and art. Gaiman is a master wordsmith and weaves elements of ancient religion, existential philosophy, and wry british humor into his works. More here [spray.se], here [holycow.com], and at Gaiman's Blog [neilgaiman.com].

    Seriously, check it out. This stuff is awesome :)

    -JT
  • by slimyrubber (791109) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:20AM (#9673808)
    The one I enjoy is a bit different from the dumb spandex wearing underwear fetish superhero comics, but conceptually more challenging fare. one real masterpiece of the comics medium I have seen in recent times is The Smartest Kid On Earth. It's an almost oppressively bleak look at the commonplace estrangements that make up much of modern life. There is a leavening of black humour however, and the outstanding art is a delight in itself.

    Mucho recommended
    • by Tyler Durden (136036) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:30AM (#9673876) Homepage
      It you liked The Smartest Kid On Earth, you should check out some of Ware's older stuff in The Acme Novelty Library as well. Those things are both hilarious and deeply disturbing at the same time.

      They're worth it for some of the twisted advertisements on the edges alone. Also, I think every comic had these elaborate, workable 3D cut-out assemblable projects on the very edges. I guess they meant for people to buy 2 copies of each issue.
  • One flaw... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tverbeek (457094) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:20AM (#9673810) Homepage
    The only thing wrong with this theory is one tiny factoid: hardly anybody reads comic books. Their main retail outlet (comics specialty stores) are visited mostly by die-hard fans of the superhero monthlies, and graphic novels are just starting to get some shelf space in bookstores... most of which is dedicated to translations of Japanese manga series, not the books cited by the submitter (many of which have shifted only tens of thousands of copies nationwide).

    Don't get me wrong: I'm a lifelong fan and reader of the medium, I've done a little on the creative end of it as well, and continue to do so as an avocation. But it is not (yet) a phenomenon of mainstream media.

  • I just wonder are comics part of the growing trend within drama and literature to 'spice up' the story, by adding in shall we say supernatural elements.

    For instance many new shows star vampires, dead people, are set in space or have oodles of compuers and special effects lathered all over them. Which isn't to say that some aren't good. Similarly, there arn't a lot of comics just about regular joe bloggs action. Much more likley to find mutants or flying superheroes than cops and robbers. Dick Tracey was phased out for superman, MacGuyver for Star Trek.

    Personally I think people prefer to have the added spice of exotic setting or characters. It's OK, but I think a lot of modern pop culture is being sold on the cherry topping alone by exec types catering to the L.C.D. Which isn't to say good stuff isn't there. It's just that old signal to noise ratio falling again.
    It still enjoy a good old fashioned detective story, complete with mudane setting and plot. I just gets more riveting!
  • Literary Snobbery (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fostware (551290) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:23AM (#9673823) Homepage
    I find graphic novels paint a mood in an instant without resorting to pages of descriptive text. In an fleeting moment, you can sum up the scene perfectly. Try doing that in a full page of text.

    There is also the fact that the graphic novels are usually serialised, thus keeping the interest from one issue to the next - not a constant build-up and single climax as with most "modern fiction".

    It also seems easier to spot reused plots in graphic novels :P
    • >Try doing that in a full page of text.

      great writers can. so what you're saying is that authors of graphic novels can be crap and still get their point across. woohoo....

      also, often what makes something more powerful isn't what the author says, but what they don't say - what is left to the immagination, the blanks the reader fills in with personal details which leads to a kind of bond.
  • No (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anita Coney (648748) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:24AM (#9673832)
    Comics will never become novels any more than a bicycle will become an airplane.

    What's happening is that comics are becoming more popular while novels are declining in popularity.

  • Blame Hollywood (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ClubStew (113954) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:25AM (#9673838)

    Is it that comics are growing in popularity for our "dumbed-down culture", or that Hollywood - having run out of new ideas long ago - has renewed interested in comics because they're remaking so many comics - both new and old - into movies?

  • In a word... (Score:5, Informative)

    by RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) <taiki.cox@net> on Monday July 12 2004, @08:25AM (#9673844)
    No. Sure, I'm echoing an AC's sentiment, but here, I'm not being a jackass about it.

    if Comics really were an influence in American culture, then why is the industry itself in the shits? If it wasn't for comicmovies, Marvel probably would've filed for bankruptcy AGAIN. I'm looking here and seeing bankruptcies in 1996 and 2002. That's not healthy under ANY measure.

    Not just that, but I've been observing the comics industry, and I'm sorry to say that it's devouring itself alive. Alternative book saren't selling, so they have to really press on old, rehashed characters, which inturn turns off non-geek types who'd normally be turned on by alternative books.

    They're playing only to thier base, which is getting smaller in terms of population percentages rather than try to diversify. I mean, I'd hate to say it, but the American industry could learn a thing or two about the Japanese industry. Not by using big eyes and other cliches(like Marvel did, fucking mangaverse bullshit), but rather, instead by trying to diversify the market to the point where there's a story for everyone, published in a cheap, easy to access form. Japanese monthlies are about 600 yen(about 5 bucks, I think, it's been awhile since i've priced the bigass phonebook style compilations, i'm probably off base here) and come with between 10-20 or so stories. Some publishers even run weeklies. In America, for about that much, you can get two seperate books which probably havee thick, and I mean THICK, continuity. And you're stuck with ONE genre. Super-hero action-adventure. Even though most compilations are typically gender/themed(Nakayoshi comes to mind, where SailorMoon and MKR was published), you tend to get a mix of stories.

    Not to mention that those books play to only one group, and those are the comicbook fanboys. As much as comic books are for supposedly for kids, these days they're more for 15-20something fanboys who tend to do poorly socially(my crowd, I never got the whole comic thing though).
  • Why do all the old line types insist on trying to make any media that is more visual typcast as being less intellegent. Every mass media goes thru a few stages in it's evolution. 1-"Golden age"-Only the elite have access to it, so it is focused towards the interests of the elite. 2-"Silver age"-Less lofty in content, but popularity grows rapidly, usually this is when people say it will "revolutionize the way people communicate" 3-The "Porn age"-least lofty content as the money guys come in and the lowest common denominator is applead to 4-The "ho-hum" age-the media becomes an acepted part of everyday life and overlooked. Print, radio (one with am, once with fm)the internet, and each iteration of the media (like, print went through it with paperbacks, then again with desk top publishing, the internet went thru it with the first net, then with wireless) it haapens again and again, now it's comics turn. Tv went thru this twice, once with broadcast, once with cable, then a minor progression with satlletit, and again with digiatal cable.
  • by xutopia (469129) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:31AM (#9673888) Homepage
    "perfectly suited to our dumbed-down culture and collective attention deficit."

    Sadly I find our culture is all about working too much and not having enough free time to have a real culture. No wonder we have an attention deficit, we can't even sit down and have fun that the week end is already long gone.

  • by fudgefactor7 (581449) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:42AM (#9673991)
    Now, I know what you're saying "Fudgefactor7 has gone off the deep end...again," but hear me out.

    A novel, let's say has 100 to 200 thousand words, and about 400 to 600 pages, all text. It's in a readable language (for instance, English) and has characters, development, a plot (one hopes), evokes moods (like anger or sadness or joy). It's a difficult thing to write a good novel.

    By comparison, a graphic novel has to accomplish roughly the same thing in fewer pages (ususally there are 22 pages in a single issue, and usually no more than 20 issues in a miniseries, thereby making the number of pages no more than 440 pages, at the very most.) This, naturally, will not be all text, but mostly images with some sparse text and narration bubbles. The mood of the comic is depicted not by a paragraph of words, but by imagery. Choosing good words in a nvoel is hard, yes, but an image is worth, as they say, a thousand words--you have to get it right. And you have to get it right every page, every panel, every frame. In a written text, you can be given leniency in word choice, you can break the mood for narration purposes, or as a flashback--in a graphic novel, you can't ever break the mood or you lose the story and potentially the reader.

    In a way, you have to deal with style and substance instead of style over substance, that a tratitional novel has as a restriction.

    Plus to make a good graphic novel you have to have a good writer and a good artist. With a traditional novel, you need only a good writer (which sometimes is hard enough.) Combinations of good writer and good artist are magical when it comes together, and an abomination when it does not.

    Finally, a traditional novel, if it sells 100000 copies is a pretty good deal, but that few comics can mean the death of an entire series--millions are printed and many more need to be sold just to make the publisher more happy. And on top of that, the creativity of a comic has to be repeatable throughout the entirety of the storyline, over months of work; a traditional novel only needs to be initially creative and not necessarily creative throughout. (How many of you read a novel that started great, then immediately became a rehash of some other, better, idea? I know I have. Sure, comics fall prey to this as well--as is evidenced by the amount of crud out there--but by far they're a more creative and vibrant force than the "real" authors in the bookstore.)

    That's my 2-cents anyway...
  • Not dumb! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zijus (754409) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:45AM (#9674023)
    ...perfectly suited to our dumbed-down culture and collective attention deficit...

    Well... It all really depends on where you are reading comics. Am leaving in Ireland now. And here, it's impossible to get people to realize that comics is not just for kids, silly simple minded stuff. To be honest I failed systematicaly in trying to explain that. I am actually from France. In that place the main stream of comic sale is targeted to adults. Not always light easy-goi'n stuff, meaningless, efortless.

    I strongly disagry with this idea it's necessarily easy. One example only. Read the Meta-Baron caste by Jorodovski and Jimenez. Read especially the out-of-serie issue of this saga. You will notice that comic scenario can be quite complex, deeply rooted into theories (psycho-analysis, social...). The drawings are nothiong fare from art. Read about the way Jimenez things about front pages as paintings before starting. The inspiration he got from samurai times, mixed with soap-opera style... I discovered in amsterdam he draws the nun after Brugel. I think it's quite interesting.

    No. Sorry, no, comics can be rather demanding in understanding. About previous example, I'd say you probably need a 3 reads before you kind a get an overall picture. And this is just one example. Right now I think about others comics dealing with human being identity, genetics, cloning... I can't help thinking for some BD's (comics in french), as pieces of art, with the same insight that SF can have.

    A bit the same way information is turned into something ridiculous on TV, comics can be as well. It's just up to us no to make crap out'a good things. Likely as well, if you'r brain-dead with not an inch of background stuff, you won't even see the richness, the references...

    I don't know why in france, comics are considered as adult material as valid as any other books can be.

    Maybe the article author is dumbed-down? Or else he's making a paper on sales, which is pretty irrelevent to what comics are.

    Ciao ciao.

  • Here you go Slashdotters, my two cents. I'm sure you'll have some good criticisms of this letter as well:

    Dear NYTimes,

    I'm glad to hear that comics are showing a renaissance and newfound respectability right now. It would seem from the piece that this is largely the result of major bookstores assigning more particularly-labeled sections to the 'graphic novel' section, and also the product of indie film adaptations of indie comics gracing our theaters in the last few years; this rather than, say, increased sales of comics, the expanded potential for creation and distribution that software tools and the Internet has brought, or the success of comic-derived or influenced films such as Brian Singer's X-Men series, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man series or the Matrix trilogy (and to a lesser extent manga such as Tezuka Osamu's manga Metropolis or Masamune Shirow's Ghost in the Shell). Point being, with Spider-Man 2 having something of an edge on the recent adaptation of Pekar's American Splendor in terms of viewership, I might argue that Spider-Man would have been worth a mention.

    That is, it would have been worth a mention unless the renaissance McGrath speaks of has nothing to do with the volume of "comix" or "sequential art" readership, but only the volume of a certain narrowly defined artistic content that lies within the pages of some comics. It's good to know that, as in mainstream fiction lit, comics with a sci-fi or fantasy theme (especially super-hero comics "churned out in installments by the busy factories at Marvel and D.C.") have escaped the title of 'high-art'--perhaps then those comics will also continue to escape the hubris of mainstream art-lit as sci-fi has. Based on the piece, it would seem as though comics as high art didn't really happen until Mr. Spiegelman put out Maus. Or maybe we should go back to R. Crumb, who seems to provide the alienated loser blueprint for the majority of artists examined in the article (forgive my gross generalization; I recognize their talent and own some of their works). It would seem that in this alternative comic universe, Stan Lee is exclusively a pulp writer with no complexity or lasting impact and Will Eisner doesn't even exist (the omission of any mention of Will Eisner I find to be one of the strangest inconsistencies in the entire piece).

    I'd like to point out that writers such as Brian Michael Bendis, Grant Morrison, Warren Ellis, and Kurt Busiek (among many others, like the incomparables Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore) are all accomplished and talented, and dare I say it, they occasionally make art. The scathing socio-political satire of "Transmetropolitan," the postmodern philosophical complexity of "The Filth," the film noir dialogue and themes of "Alias" and "Powers," the super-hero drama of Astro City--all of these were worth Mr. McGrath's time, especially considering the lack of range of the artists that were profiled--are (semi-)autobiographical alienation stories the best or most important of what comics can express? And while I could go into greater depth on this item, I think Mr. McGrath should consider his implication that the 'assembly line' artists working with such writers are interchangeable. He might also have discussed Neil Gaiman's veering back toward the 'real novel' world with his publication of some books without pictures...but then perhaps we're back at the 'sci-fi ain't literature' dilemma.

    Finally, and perhaps most importantly, in his conclusion Mr. McGrath unbelievably suggests that "this is a medium probably not well suited to lyricism or strong emotion." I find this ironic considering the elegant sample from Seth's "Clyde Fans: Book One" that was included in the piece and especially in regards to the depth and complexity of emotion in the McSweeney's sample from Chris Ware. I've also found the work of Adrian Tomine (whom you profiled two paragraphs above this absurd statement!) to be some of the most gut-wrenching and real stuff I've ever read or seen, in any format--and there's many more writers out there. How could one say something so foolish after reading even a smidgen of the collection of serious work in this medium?

    Sincerely,
    Dave

  • Literary bias (Score:4, Insightful)

    by f00zbll (526151) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:58AM (#9674146)
    It sounds like the author of the article has a academic/literary bias against comic books. Although some comics are dumb and stupid, many of the most celebrate comics have writing that is more poetic and of higher quality than traditional non-graphic fiction. If I compare the best comics to the grocery store paperback romance novels, comics blow then away. For a long time, literary critics and academia have taken the attitude that comics books are "not serious literature."

    It is about time people like Bendis and Stan Lee get credit for creating the wonderful works. If I compare comics to the numerous trash magazines, I'll take a good comic any day.

  • To use "Dumbed-Down" and "Maus" in the same breath is to show both complete ignorance and stupidity.

    Maus (which won the PULITZER prize) is one of the most powerful books EVER written about history's worst crime, The Holocaust.

    Just because it's a "comic-book" does not mean it is "dumbed-down" or any less than a novel. Is "The Godfather," "Gone with the Wind," "Lord of the Rings" or "Shrek" any less of an art form because it is in motion picture form as opposed to the written word?

    Maus is amazing. My dad got it for me in 7th grade and I have re-read it more than any other book is history.

  • bah (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cherokee158 (701472) on Monday July 12 2004, @08:59AM (#9674156)
    Video is more likely to replace mainstream novels than comic books.

    More people watch TV than read (sadly), and given another decade or two, we should all start having a very portable way to view video directly from the net.

    I think comics may well be supplanted by home-brewed animation. A technically literate illustrator can create his own animated short in about the same amount of time as it once took to complete a monthly comic, using today's tools. As the tools evolve, it may become even easier. (Right now, programmers still don't seem to fully grasp what it is artists need from their tools. But more and more traditional artists are finally beginning to cross over into the digital medium, so I expect they will make themselves heard, and the tools...and the content... will improve.) We are also seeing more and more hybrid electronic formats, which look less like comics and more like animation all the time.

    Forget dead trees. We will all be publishing ourselves electronically before long.
  • by buckhead_buddy (186384) on Monday July 12 2004, @09:17AM (#9674322)
    What really stinks about comics are the way the one genre of teenage masturbatory power fantasy has taken over everything. I quite enjoyed those as well, but if 97% of the marketplace recycles the same plot pieces then it gets really boring. Imagine how boring a world with 97% of one genre of music would be (rap/country/classical). Whatever appreciation you had for the genre will die in over-exposure, simplistic plot lines without end, and just plain ennui.

    Looking at movie storyboards (and by extension movies), it's curious why they're so varied in content while comics come no where near that level of diversity. As much as I like Alan Moore's Watchmen and Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, they aren't really groundbreaking. They use some variations of the suparearo genre that aren't typically allowed (aging characters, indifference to humanity, continuity ended).

    There is a spark left with titles like In the Shadow of No Towers [forward.com], 52 Timil Deeps [timildeeps.com], Larry Gonnick's Cartoon History series [larrygonick.com].

    I just wish it didn't seem like the whole of mainstream comics was awash with variations on the 47 plotlines dealing with superpowers.
    • I know this retired film maker. We were talking about "Road to Perdition". I asked, "Since it's a comic book or graphic novel - whatever - , I guess the film makers didn't have to story board the movie, and as a result, saved some money."
      He said, "That's right. It make things a lot easier and cheaper."

      There you go.

    • My attention span and imagination is limited by the number of colours in comics..

      Heh. [sarcasm]Most comics nowadays are done in full digital colour (usually with Photoshop), so if you consider an attention span of the full CMYK range to be short, you've got high standards indeed...[/sarcasm]

      (grrr..stupid bloody slashcode doesn't allow entities...I can't use angle brackets, dammit)