Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 1244260" data-attributes="member: 151">I'm responding specifically to this:       I don't disagree with that.  I also believe that, right now, outside of comics fans, most folks don't agree or care.  Most people still think of comics in the pop-art form of Lichtenstein and have a idea in their mind what comics are, regardless of how divorced from reality that image is.  And with a few noticable exceptions, in the U.S., there is little to dissuade them.  Comics is considered an artistic ghetto.  "Maus" is considered closer to performance or traditional art than comics, despite Art Spiegelman's desire to the contrary.  I'm not saying comics can't be great art.  They can, just that so far, they're rarely viewed as such.  Will Eisner once said it best: "Comics are just word and pictures.  There's nothing you can't do with word and pictures."      I'm saying you can't fairly compare them with the same criteria...any more than I'd compare a New Jedi Order book against "For whom the Bell Tolls".  They have different goals, not just different genres.  To paraphrase Homer Simpson: "Barney's film is deeply moving, but Moe's film has a man getting hit by a football in the crotch."   To me, it's nonsensical to claim that the first issue of Justice Society of America, from 1940, should be held to the exact same critical criteria that Maus should.      I didn't say that.  Critics don't get to determine what art is, but they get to recommend what they think is, in their opinions, good art.  And even then, it's just opinion.  The Cat in the Hat movie has gotten horrible reviews...but it still debuted to a strong opening.  People take critical commentary with a grain of salt...but they do take it.   Critical review beyond "I don't like it." is non-existent in the comics world.     It's not the mulitplicity of people...it's the lack of unified involvement.  When a novelist is edited, the author is still the author.  The editor does not usually rewrite the work without the author's knowledge and consent (however grudging).   It's not a question of reviewing 'Superman: The Movie' versus a run of Wolverine....it's a question of reviewing all four Superman movies (and future ones) as one piece versus every Superman issue ever written.  Stevelabny seems to imply that DC, 60 years ago, should have been writing with an eye toward continuity...something that seems to ignore a great deal of real world history.      Strip comics are another argument, entirely, IMHO.  Graphic novels are selling well...often to the same folks who bought the original issues.  Total circulation is still way down.   In the mid-80s, Uncanny X-men was selling close to 450,000 issues a month....now they're lucky if they're clearing 100,000.  The only reason comics are still keeping their heads above water (and some years only barely) is because the cheapest comics are now $2.25, instead of .50.  And so far, I've only seen two webcomics that are supporting their creators full-time with any sort of real income...so I'd say they've got a while to go, yet.   But that's not really an apples-to-apples, is it?  A professional oil painter doesn't just do portraits exclusively, he does other artwork, as well.  I've never met or seen anyone who exists exclusively on portrait painting...not even the caricature artist at the local mall.  I don't think comics will disappear, but I think the comics I enjoyed when I was younger are rapidly disappearing...and that the industry is due for another implosion.   I don't think you got my point, because I don't think I made it clear.  My kids will never enjoy comics like I do because I can't share them with them.  When the Hulk kills people without thinking, the Ultimates have wife-beating rapists on their team, the X-men have psionic adultresses blurbing more sexual innuendo than a Jeremy Bruckheimer TV show, the Avengers have death camps, and Superman's greatest enemy becomes president, it's just not appropriate for younger readers.  You may feel differently.  I appluad that comics are now written for an older audience...but I wish that there were titles for a younger one.  My son loves Superman and Batman...and yet I can't let him see their current incarnations.  The Joker gunning down Commisioner Gordon's fiancee in No Man's Land is fine for me...but I'm not letting a 3.5 year old even see the pictures.  Comics decided to mature with it's audience...but left no provision for growing a new one.</blockquote>

Verification