| Author |
|
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 4525
|
| Posted: 16 March 2018 at 2:36pm | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
I was reading an old interview with Gil Kane (1977), and he seemed to be making a point that the comics form was at best very unlikely to attract the best writers because there is a huge mass medium for just text, that it pays better, has more respect perhaps, is held to a high standard, is able to have a lot of creative control. So comics will get it's best writing and thus advancement of any sort from whatever it's artists are capable of because they would be the only ones who would be attracted to the form involving both words and pictures. Obviously there are a lot of nuances to be taken for granted in even discussing something like this, factoring out say fine arts as a possible place for could-be comic artists, perhaps we should call them illustrators, but I think it's a valid point that the highest generally agreed upon standard of comic 'art' if not necessarily complete maturity has been from such as Milt Caniff, Will Eisner, Harvey Kurtzman, Rose O'Neill, George Herriman, Windsor McCay, Hal Foster... okay, I'm going back a long way and a lot of it outside the comic book whiuch has tended to not actually reach the broadest audience... so how about Jean Giraud/Moebius, Art Spiegelman?
Something I've noticed a lot in learning about and talking with comic book creative people over the years is the stories about being totally disrespected at times by editorial or even co-creative people. John Byrne having heads redrawn, dialogue agreed on changed or re-written without any consent sought. It reminds me nothing of how authors are treated in general fiction publishing, except for how it was in the distant past in genre publications like Horace Gold running Galaxy for so many years, and some of the paperback houses known for sf/f. We may hold Robert heinlein and Phillp Dick in high esteem as fans, but editor-in-chief Gold thought nothing of rewritting however he pleased and Heinlein's novel were cleaned up for publication by removing sometimes entire sections (compare the skinny Puppet Masters paperback of the '50s-'60s to the much later restored version).
Back on point, the above would pretty much either warn off 'serious' writers, or cause their exit fairly quickly. So you are going to get the people staying who can't find what they are looking for in anything but the comic story medium; the artist-writers. Comics by John Byrne, Frank Miller, Jim Starlin, (I would say Larry Marder and his Beanworld) are the best you're going to get. But I'm not sure, I think there have been some high quality writers in the big commercial area. J.M DeMatteis has written some pretty interesting stuff to me within the super-power melodrama form, and Chris Claremont however uneven brought a standard to characterisation at times that touched on the adult with more than one co-creator artist. Denny O'Neil tried honestly to widen the scope, and Gerry Conway and Alan Moore were able to touch on more mature anxieties I felt in some of their work without rupturing the form and making it look totally awkward. All had serious run-ins with heavy-handed editorial dictation too, and perhaps it's just the luck of having another company existant that kept them around at all sometimes? Others will know more about Doug Moench, Steve Englehart and Steve Gerber, and more recent names that are just names and runs of issues to me unfortunately.
If I have War In Peace in me, what would I need with comic books? But, if I have a visual story to tell and can draw at some level... and if I'm not willing or able to raise the money and gain the connections to do something on film... well the question I'm asking is are comics inherently unbalanced toward the visual? Is it better, or more likely, to have comics with great illustration and lesser story quality than something approaching the a mature literature people like Gary Groth or whoever feel should be the goal? Or put more bluntly, are comics mainly always going to be viable as something kids because they are visual first and literature a distant second?
I say yes... that the most adult type of comic story is going to be uncommercial, and not just because the best writers will go elsewhere 999 times out of a thousand, and not just because people associate the form with something that has to be visual (read: vicarious, immediate). American Splendour was never going to be more than an isolated experiment and in spite of all kinds of attempts at it by others following after and the renaming things as graphic sequential narratives, it's a fool's task. No visual hook, no pretty pictures; no audience. Monsters and Gods and talking-animals and super people are what it's going to be about... and putting boobs and explicit gore and swear words all over those things just makes things look something worse than something 'for kids'.
That's where I am with things. This is why these old costumes and logos stay around forever; because they're inherently visual just like the comic book form. Someone is always going to go back to or bring back this stuff. In Belgium it's purple skin, in Japan it's purple hair, and in America it's a purple costume.
Returning to Gil Kane, in the same interview he mentions how he talks with other professionals on a level he can't talk to fans at conventions, that the fans really can't have anything to offer that way anyway. Given how many writers come from the ranks of being fans, of it being pretty much demanded to have followed x amount of years of continuity to even write for the largest companies, it's probably more true than ever you will not see the great literature appear in a mainstream comic from a person who only writes, and almost as unlikely from a smaller circulation specialist (even Maus had to have the visual of talking animals).
Edited by Rebecca Jansen on 16 March 2018 at 3:48pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 4525
|
| Posted: 16 March 2018 at 3:51pm | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
Now I'm thinking re-reading old Comics Journals might be a waste of time. If I or anyone wants to write or draw something we should just do it and have fun. I fit nowhere anyway... not with graphic novel snob types, or funny-animals having sex types, or angry superheroes who kill types, or underground everything is a target for ridicule types.
Edited by Rebecca Jansen on 16 March 2018 at 3:52pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 8515
|
| Posted: 16 March 2018 at 8:18pm | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
A thoughtful and well-written post, Rebecca. I have yet to meet anyone who shares my exact taste in comics. I've talked comics with a lot of friends over the years, and while there is a lot of overlap in places, no one is with me every step in the way. One fellow threw me out of his car for my views on Kingdom Come. Fortunately, we were parked at the time.
I have a deep appreciation for some of Eisner's work, enjoyed Cutey Bunny and Omaha (although I'm not of the lifestyle :-) and have a nice collection of undergrounds. The angry super-heroes who kill is where I struggle to find one I enjoy, and they were the backbone of the industry for ten years or more. Comic fans eat that stuff up with a heart-carving spoon. ("Because it hurts more!") Early Wolverine, I suppose? Perhaps up to and including the mini-series, but not much after that.
No one that I know, Rebecca, fits in everywhere. If there's something you want to write, you can rest assured that not everyone will like it, especially if it's something new. If it's some sort of departure from an existing model, well, that becomes problematic in its own way. Ultimately, you're either left writing for yourself or your editor anyway. It's undoubtedly best to do so bravely and preferably in a non-Scott Snyderian fashion. :-)
With fans taking over the industry, I imagine Gil Kane found fewer and fewer professionals with whom he could reminisce and extemporize. Even if they knew the people and studios he talked about, they were never there. If they understood his art theories, they did not have the same approach to work nor share the perspective of the professionals who built the industry. He may have enjoyed talking with the new ones coming aboard for a number of different reasons and been able to share insider information with them, things one cannot comfortably do with outsiders, but that's not quite the same thing as being able to talk about what Lloyd Jacquet was like or how things were at Funnies, Inc. back in the day.
An unavoidable effect of time everywhere, but especially striking in comics, I would think, where a rabid fan base came to dominate and define the culture they loved growing up. I'd say we were lucky to have professionals like Kane still around to bring the gap.
More to come...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 8515
|
| Posted: 16 March 2018 at 8:52pm | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
Comics as an art form are inherently weighted towards visuals and the products that are best loved are those that serve that side of the equation most ably. However, Independent works and publishers frequently serve as autobiographical platforms that have little to recommend them visually except perhaps a naive charm. Even in cases where visuals are slight and basically present a stage play in pictorial form to the reader, the comics form nevertheless dictates the timing of the reveals and pacing of the dialogue. As such, visuals remain intrinsically tied to the overall product. Poorly thought out or executed, the written word will suffer if the artist does not understand the basics.
Will a truly great novel ever emerge from the form? It's hard to say. Certainly commercial factors are limiting as far as the big publishers go. The idea that most characters are designed to be ongoing is a bit prohibitive. Dark Knight works largely because there isn't a "be back next month" built into the mixture. And the entire concept of costumed crimefighting and super-powers is a gigantic gimme that many readers will simply not accept. Or will they? They seem to like them onscreen. I do wonder sometimes if today's Marvel movies are the Busby Berkley musicals of tomorrow. In any case, to date, there have arguably been no truly great works produced that rely on even make mention of such conceits.
Of course, that leads us to questions of what constitutes truly great work, and I'm content to leave that one for the historians. Watchmen makes a game bid for the top and has its champions, to be sure. Love and Rockets has done wonderful stories of magical realism, but can it escape its roots in pro-solar robot repair in the eyes of future generations? For that matter, who the **** do future generations think they are anyway? I can barely put up with what passes for thought among the generations coming up today. I can't imagine having any use for what their kids and grandkids are going to have to say. Just as well I won't be around to be bothered, I suppose... :-)
It's possible, albeit unlikely, that the true classics have already been written. The future may find no more edifying and thoughtful works in the dustbins of their history than the work of Stan and Jack or the Fourth World. Ernie Bushmiller's "Nancy" has already developed a kitsch appeal in some circles. What will the parameters for works to be seen as truly great actually become? And will those definitions stand? Heck, what's actually great today? Dickens? Steinbeck? Comics mirror the old-style distribution system for chapbooks, which were often profusely illustrated. Can a "Grapes of Wrath" be written in a post-apocalyptic world of lurching, killer robots and hungry mutants? I'd say no, but it's not going to be up to me.
Ultimately, we're left to create work that truly moves and inspires us, or offers insights and painful truths that illuminate who we are and why we do the things we do. Comics can do that. Issues of visuals vs. text do not prevent the artists and writers from searching themselves and struggling to produce work that is of value. Commercial publishers may not be the most encouraging of patrons and insist upon compromises that ultimately dilute what is produced past the point of tolerance. One of the reasons Moore feels his "Killing Joke" was a mistake is that there is no psychological truth in either the character of Batman or the Joker. Writing about their defining conflict serves commercial ends but little else. It's entertainment, not insight. Then again, there's nothing to say quality won't sell once it comes along.
If you do have a "War and Peace" in you, it's likely going to be a work of text, as was the model you cite. Whether future critics will be kind to newer forms and genre leanings, well...? Go try and please a critic. It's a mug's game, at best.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 4525
|
| Posted: 16 March 2018 at 11:14pm | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
Thank you for the feedback Brian! I really liked the Palomar stories of Gilbert Hernandez, but I wonder if I hadn't been very into a lot of the same movies as him (Wages Of Fear, Black Orpheus) would I have enjoyed things less... or maybe more (thinking him more original perhaps)? Going way back Percy Crosby's Skippy is another comic with a lot of that slice of life ladled on top which I also admired and could reread and enjoy at many times of life. It's as though the form at best can be The Last Picture Show only with aliens or gorillas on horseback... there always has to be some visual element, exaggeration, shorthand that is immediately appealing to make the connection.
Then again I remember some of Gil Kane's western comics for DC, even Rex The Wonder Dog, and also comics by Alex Toth and Joe Kubert with no colorful costumes really but still a page turning comic story! There is something about many of the old line of artists that they often could draw real things more or less realistically and still make it interesting. Some of the DC war comics were little masterpieces, I never saw anything of the same caliber in a romance or sf title unfortunately (sf at EC though, definitely, especially the Bradbury adaptations). I've never seen the Kirby romances though, he invented the form I think, perhaps I've really missed something there! They say Hank Williams drew upon such comics of the late '40s and early '50s as song lyric material (harkening back to the Last Picture Show).
When I think about the independent comics I was excited to follow... Scott McCloud's Zot and Wheatley & Hempel's Mars, one of the best things about them is a strong and original comic art style. For Marvel & DC it's the same though, the more individual the art the more I seem to like it... Gil Kane inking himself, John Byrne the same, Steve Ditko, there was a such character. Maybe Jim Lee and some of that wave had character but I saw some '90s X-Comics obviously influenced by those new young stars, and where I had admired Jan Duursema and Terry Shoemaker in the '80s they were absolutely horrible in these comics trying to copy the huge muscled men and helium chested broken-baked posing females... you couldn't imagine such work came out of any caring for the audience. For the sake of argument say there was a good story under there, it was ruined, and by artists who earlier did work on Arion Of Atlantis and Legion that I had admired.
I guess the key is to become as aware of what comics can do that other things can't, and see if you have something that can work with that rather than against it. Not to let the form or genre constrain, but allow the inherent character to shape things organically. The Marvel 'system' of old where the artist is a co-creator seems the best for that if it can't be all one person. So many of the DC's, even with good sf-ish ideas by a Gardner Fox, would come out stiffly as if destined to a small number of results and then repeated. The Stan Lee/Marvel approach seemed to allow more space and growth and happy accidents even. I think Kurtzman and Kanigher war comics were a big exception to that though. I probably never would have seen those but for an older brother and his friends, and one friend at school. Enemy Ace is probably more full of pathos and visual drama than 90% of the super characters. It's amazing how many people have missed reading those early issues.
Edited by Rebecca Jansen on 16 March 2018 at 11:16pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2175
|
| Posted: 17 March 2018 at 1:15am | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
Writing for comics means something a bit different than writing for novels or even writing for film. As a distinct medium, "Greatness" in comics writing to me involves (beyond subtextual and idiomatic strength) embracing rather than rejecting the peculiarities of the form. If a great wordsmith tries to leverage their ability to paint a picture with words on top of imagery that already carries a lot of information, it can sandbag the pace to a crawl, burdening the reader with an unintentional info-dump. The written word is certainly part of comics, but it isn't the only part, nor the most important part.
Still, the writer is responsible for the visual elements being there in the first place, if not their composition and execution. A story with wordless pages didn't have "wordless page" and no other guidance on the script. Wordless or no, there can be real power in what the artist has been asked to draw.
I'm not sure any popular media, whether it be comics, TV, movies, or even music are naturally conducive to the production of Great Art. Great Art has no obligation to be entertaining as such, whereas popular media surely does. Commercial demands are a significant constraint, and perhaps negative one for no other reason than "commercial" may mean "superficial" to a lot of artists, regardless of medium. In much the same way that most TV shows, even the "serious" ones rarely produce Civilization Defining works, popular comics are unlikely to either, but sometimes it happens, even in superhero books.
All that said, Greatness can be a really hard thing to pin down, with inevitable subjectivity involved. The simplest things can elevate a work for me, sometimes a single line at the right time, or even elegant expressiveness from the line art (e.g., Bill Watterson). But can great writing happen in comics? Absolutely. Beyond commercial concerns, the main enemy to it happening may be as simple as snobbery.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 17 March 2018 at 4:02am | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
Thought-provoking post, Rebecca!
I suspect there are as many answers as there are people.
It is a visual medium. ALL-STAR BATMAN (Miller/Lee) had a storyline that I thought was awful - if it was meant to be satire, it failed for me - but for the issues I did buy (I gave it up on principle due to the delays), the art was certainly beautiful.
I'd recommend the graphic novel FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, MARIE (about the life of a gay Catholic woman). The two-tone colours/art are okay, I guess, but I don't think I'd want to own any pages to put on my wall; however, the writing is brilliant, thought-provoking, poignant, touching, etc, etc. So for me, that's a graphic novel that succeeds mainly due to the writing. I'd have imagined it working as a novel just as well.
No-one ever walked into a comic shop and said, "That comic looks well-written." The art attracts folk. The art is important. The art, as I said, made ALL-STAR BATMAN a little bearable. But the writing can and should be important.
Not sure if that answers your questions.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
|
| Posted: 17 March 2018 at 7:23am | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
I think there is no need for great writing, of the level of War and Peace, in comics. Because unlike novels, comic books is mainly a team effort. If everyone does their job and their chemistry is right, they create great stories that they wouldn't have been able to on their own.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 4525
|
| Posted: 17 March 2018 at 1:06pm | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
I've long been suspicious that there is no 'Great Art' in me to give. I find it intimidating when people (Comics Journal intellectualists) approach things from that standard. They tend to hold up examples of single creator comics as the highest pinnacle though (Herriman, Crosby, Kurtzman, Crumb, Hernandez bros.). I myself of course admire those and others (Kubert, Toth, Kane, Byrne, Steacy). So while I'm pretty much down with the 'merely entertaining' commercial view of things, and that great comics aren't necessarily meant for never mind aimed at the Louvre or ye olde cannon of the English language rubbing endpapers with Shakespeare... can a separate writer and illustrator team do what the seamless all-in-one creator can?
Maybe I'm just trying to throw off decades of intimidation so I can enjoy myself, and/or not feel guilty for actually really liking '70s company owned super character Marvel comics? I'm thinking when John Stanley was writing and drawing his Little Lulus and Carl Barks the same on behalf of the Disney ducks, they did it anonymously (though they got recognition later on)... I think I could be happy making stuff for whatever kids and adults out there would want some humble entertainment, minus the conventions and personal appearances to make friends with fans, minus the having a big name to go down in the history of the artform, yatta-yatta. If someone like Gil Kane and John Byrne, who made/make it look easy to create about the best comics you could ask for, wondered/wonders about their place in things, then I'm feeling really alienated that there could be anything for me ever, and yet that has nothing whatsoever to do with the form of telling a story with art and words. How did Jeff Smith do it with Bone? Or Stan Sakai with Usagi Yojimbo? Or the Pinis with Elfquest? They made a place for themselves. I wish I had a tenth of just that self-confidence never mind talent. I can see superhero fans who want to be professionals often seeking a sort of permission or secrets to 'break in' and I'm not into that whole bag, I want to do my own things that aren't like something else that is proven, but I don't fit into the serious graphic sequential narrative things with some underground residue what so over any more then it was my 'dream' to see my name on character Z one day.
Maybe it's about an audience as much as anything, and this is besides the whole can only a combined writer-illustrator in one person do something great in the form... Scholastic? I followed Trina with her various girls' comics ideas, and Go Girl which was like the Supergirls I read as a kid (and Mary Marvels she read). She doesn't even want to draw for the last long while because of comments from the typical comic shop buyer who her stuff was never aimed at. I hope it's okay to say this. I kind of pinned myself onto her lack of success (not fitting into but having friends in the naughty underground comic scene, not being against but not totally focused on super powers and costumes). I think she did such a lot of great stuff as a writer-cartoonist, that's what I'm like but I don't want to get slagged off for not being Neal Adams or also not Robert Crumb.
I have done some work in comics in the past and aside from enjoying the doing, it paid atrociously, the deadlines were horrible especially as I had to keep a day job in a retail business I was a third owner of, and... I blew a fuse at it (I'll say this much, there was a 25-28 page monthly b&w that had been sold before they had any of the art team, and it was a company owned 'property'). I remember desperately trying to get a local fan artist I met as a convention guest to be my assistant to try to catch up but he was too good for that and probably never worked anywhere as the main star he dreamed he was. Later I showed and did try-outs at DC and that was going extremely well but I guess I blew that too as they seemed to want me only to do this thing Lobo which from what I saw of it was everything I disliked. It could be that Neil Posner and Dean Motter left suddenly or something too.
I still find I love the humble comic book. It's a lot of work, and like one of the first pros I ever knew told me, if everyone could do this they'd be doing it, not talking (or writing like I am right now) about it. :^)
Oh, and also I don't know if my drawing ability is half as versatile as it would need to be, so the writer side of me (published short stories in sf/f and lapsed member of SFFWA) would be writing to what the artist me can do more than I would like. I loved working with others and learned tons though. I sure hope the comic book can survive for me to maybe be ready again, I also hope there is a chance at an audience that's not the collector that never opens the comic lest it be devalued!
I'll keep digging on these John Byrne comics as it does get my 'stoke on' like it did when I was sick in bed as a kid, and where I'd thought it had gone out years ago. I must love them as some of those back copies are bloody expensive now (and e-copies is not the same, I tried that). I have that wanting to make a physical thing part to me as well.
Thanks for the space and the sounding board. You are all truly very cool! Never feel embarrassed to like what you like, there's nothing wrong with that. :^)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 17 March 2018 at 1:33pm | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
I hope you get back into doing what you wish to, Rebecca. You mention atrocious pay and deadlines (among other things), but it sounds like there is still something in your head/heart that wants to return to that.
Let us know how you get on!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 4525
|
| Posted: 17 August 2018 at 11:35pm | IP Logged | 11
|
post reply
|
|
Well, I found out fairly recently that Neal Pozner died in June 1994... about when he wrote me saying there'd be some assignment on it's way that never came followed by silence. I can't believe I have been so incredibly dim or something as to not get this info until relatively recently. I misunderstood that my negative reaction to the Lobo character was what was behind the sudden silence, and silence from people after when I did try to get some info.
My life would've been very different with that job for DC. I would've been working for a rate that meant I could leave my day job where working for a small publisher I simply couldn't (and it was 26-28 pages b&w monthly, more than DC would need in a month by quite a few pages and with extra shading involved, I was taking six weeks while still working a day job). Different life, not saying better or worse, but I got flack from other artists that I was making things up or exaggerating even with the super character stationary in my hand making it clear I was about to get an assignment of some kind and contract papers, and the various trial pages done under real conditions to show. As it was I had zero contact really with anything comics related from I'm thinking 1996 up to a couple of years ago. I was angry and kind of bitter, and it was not what I thought all this time.
R.I.P. Neal. :^(
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Bill Collins
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 May 2005
Location: England
Posts: 11249
|
| Posted: 18 August 2018 at 12:39am | IP Logged | 12
|
post reply
|
|
There are good and bad writers in all fields, there are
some brilliant writers in comics, our host being one of
them.
Look at Bendis, he was a writer of novels and i don`t
think he`s ever really converted his style to suit the
comics medium, too many talking heads and languid
pacing, not to mention a lot of disrespect for the
characters.
That`s a sad tale of what might have been Rebecca, sad
also, that nobody informed you of Neal`s death and
ignored the fact you had work in the pipeline.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
|
|
