Review: Reinventing Comics

There are bigger, better, more in-depth reviews of Scott McCloud's Reinventing Comics out there, so I will keep this relatively short.

While most people feel that this follow up to Understanding Comics is either excellent or terrible, I rather think that it STARTS as excellent, and slowly goes downhill so that, by about 2/3 through the book, you're ready for it to end.

Scott begins very strongly. His first couple chapters really captivated me, because he spoke to my heart -- bringing up issues in the study of comics as art, how this movement to take the medium more seriously is important in developing art awareness and thus bring about greater empathy in society. I really was fascinated by his description of how the current business model for the comics industry has come into place and the impact it's had on the prominence of the superhero genre and commercialism of the form. This is all in the first 1/3-or-so of the book, and I loved every bit of it -- it really made the entire book worth reading.

However, as he begins to describe the road to the Digital Age and where comics need to go from here, he begins losing his footing. He rapidly covers the development of the Internet, oversimplifying its history, and then knowingly jumps into predictions and theories that he is aware will soon be outdated due to the rapid rate at which technology moves forward (the book was written in 2000). Some of his predictions are spot-on, some are way off, and his conclusions are questionable.

McCloud challenges the notion that a physical comic book will always be more appreciated than a digital comic, stating that the desire to actually hold a comic in ones hands merely exists because that is what we're used to, and that as we embrace digital comics we will soon abandon that sentiment. This fails to address the concept of ownership that prevails in western culture. How many of us prefer to own a physical CD than just a hard drive loaded with mp3's? There's something inside us that will always want a copy of our media that we can rely on, that is unique and "mine." I don't think this notion will change in a matter of decades.

Another strength he attempts to declare is that digital comics have the potential to allow the reader to see an almost-infinite canvas all at once, not having to limit panels to what can fit on one page at a time. While I certainly see his point, I think this is flawed reasoning. First of all, the reader is limited to what he can view on his monitor. If you create a comic that is large enough to cover the roof of the Pentagon and tell your readers to have at it online, they still will only be able to read portions at a time, and an attempt to see it all at once would result in an image severely scaled-down in order to accomodate a realistic canvas size for a home computer, rendering it impossible to really distinguish images and text. Secondly, is it not an inherent part of the medium to have pages that you flip through? I believe the physical flipping of a page, feeling a slight breeze as it passes your face, sending a wiff of ink and freshly-cut (or musty-old) paper to your nose, is part of the experience, psychologically and emotionally.

I certainly am not against digital comics -- I have been getting more and more into webcomics lately -- but I am rather skeptical of any movement that would suggest that the best path for the medium of comics as a whole is a series of 1's and 0's, that we need to get over this need for a physical comic book -- which is a Marxist idea of unlimited accessibility and lack of individuality in creation and distribution.

As the book went on and on, I found myself more and more ready to put it down. McCloud's easy flow with which he seemed to write his first book was lost in the last half of this sequel, leaving me clueless as to where he was going or how we even arrived to some of the topics he started bringing up, making me have to re-read previous panels so much that by the end I had given up.

I definitely recommend this book due to the excellent illustrations McCloud made (both visually and intellectually) in the beginning, but be aware that it won't leave you as satisfied as some of his other writing may.

Review: Maus: A Survivor's Tale

After letting it sit in my reading list for about 5 years, I finally took the time to read both volumes of Art Spiegelman's Maus, critically acclaimed and widely recognized as a highly influential work in bringing about an awareness of a graphic novel's capabilities as substantial literature. If you're even remotely considering giving comics a chance to be taken seriously, you need to read this book for its artistic and historic significance.

The true-life story of Spiegelman's father surviving as a Jew in WWII Nazi prison camps (including Auschwitz) is not a new one (there are many holocaust survival tales out there), but is nonetheless important, insightful, and engaging! Yes, be prepared to experience the emotions of horror and sadness as the author recounts some of the hell wrought by Hitler and his goons, but also prepare for some thought-provoking questions that will give you something new to mentally chew on.

For me, some of these new questions/learnings were:

• With all of these tales about holocaust survivors, we tend to put them on a pedestal and laud their bravery and tenacity, among other amazing qualities. But what of those who DIDN'T survive? Are they less deserving of praise/recognition, any less brave/strong? It seems like there is a simple answer at first, but how does society generally, really respond to this question? Maus reminds us that, while willpower and strength played a part in the ability to survive the terrors of WWII prison/labor/death camps, perhaps the largest factor that determined who lived and who died was mere luck of the draw.
• Does holocaust survival really "end" with the end of the holocaust? What of post-holocaust life, recovery, and endurance? And how does the holocaust affect the next generation -- the survivors of the survivors? Maus certainly gives some interesting insights into this and makes this horrific part of world history more personal, while at the same time more impacting as we see the lingering effects of mass murder and torture still raging in the world over 50 years (at the time of the book's writing) after it was stopped.
• What is the purpose of writing about the holocaust? How does it affect the author, and what does our (as a nation) reaction to it influence its message (specifically in a negative connotation)?

Perhaps one of the more refreshing visual aspects of this work is Spiegelman's simple-yet-effective art style. While more commercialized comics publications emphasize a very detailed, pure drawing style, Maus keeps it to the basics. Certainly the author has an eye for art, as displayed in his pacing and layout techniques, but he uses cartoons like you'd see in the morning newspaper to address a very serious topic. I'm positive there are several reasons for this, but here are a couple that I thought of:

• Basic cartoons with minimal lines generally make it easier for the reader to associate with the characters therein. Don't believe me? Imagine if Garfield were told with photographic realism. Putting yourself in the shoes of Jon Arbuckle would be much more difficult, psychologically, because the detail doesn't allow for your mind to fill in the gaps and be quite as interactive. If Jim Davis used photographs instead of drawings, his readership would likely be very different. (I hesitate to say that the readership would drop, because I don't think a higher level of photorealism is bad -- it just expresses itself differently and would probably affect the thematic and narrative content of the comic).
• Similarly, given Spiegelman's desire to use animals to represent real-world people, more simplistic line art makes such otherwise-fantastic scenes easier to take in. If he'd drawn the fur and bone structures more realistically, and thrown in various gradients of shading, the reader would constantly be aware of how ludicrous it is to have cats and mice walking upright, wearing clothes, and reenacting scenes from the Holocaust. It's just more effective this way for this particular story.

I recommend Maus to literally everyone -- its subject matter is far-reaching and accessible to many age groups, and it's an important case study in the argument for comics as art. Go give it a read!

Rob Liefeld Art Criticism

Back in the early nineties, comic book art in pop culture took a turn for a more edgier, grittier look and feel than it had previously been (and is now), reflecting, perhaps, the stereotypical generation x-er that the publishers were catering to. Writers began focusing less on the shining, boy scout do-gooder heroes and produced stories that more prominently features the anti-hero. Characters like Wolverine, Catwoman, Lobo, and Deadpool became popular for their sarcastic attitudes, no-holds-barred approaches to attaining their goals, and their lack of self-righteousness and morality that seemed to drive the more melodramatically angelic Superman and others who had been conceived in the golden and silver ages of comics.

In this period artists like Rob Liefeld stepped into the limelight, capitalizing on their ability to mass produce gritty, "cutting edge" work that teenagers were going for, stuff that wasn't as clean-looking and handsome as what they were used to being exposed to.

While it's certainly interesting to study Liefeld's work as a reflection or influence on readership and the medium, this is an interesting article that, to me, exposes some of the issues raised by lack of appreciation for comics as a potential to be more -- both by creators and publishers who are looking for the most efficient ways to squeeze pennies from consumers, and by a readership that didn't demand more than mass-produced, superficial entertainment in return for their hard-earned money. For example, ake a look at Liefeld's interpretation of Captain America. What on earth is going on with that chest? Could he not see from the initial stick figure pose that this was going to turn out looking like Cap had shoved a love sac down his shirt and drawn pecs on himself with a sharpie?

I think that Liefeld was/is a talented artist, but I also think he knew he could get away with less than 100% of his effort and still make a fortune. Additonally, as he was in high demand at the time, he probably stretched himself too thin with a heavy workload in the interest of making a few more bucks.

In any case, I think the criticism is a fun and insightful read, but be warned: there is some language in there that you wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable repeating at next Sunday's services.

Confession

I unfortunately wasn't able to make it to the Small Press Expo earlier this month as I stated I would in the last post, and therefore won't be able to post any reactions to the panels. I had other plans already made for that weekend that I thought I could get around for a day, but in the end felt better about going with my original schedule.

If you're a new reader who happened to attend SPX '09, please feel free to comment on any thoughts or insights you gained regarding comics as literature.

I do have a couple more book reviews to post soon, which may or may not be up today. It depends on how busy the rest of my day is -- I have a few projects I'm working on that need to get wrapped up.

Event: Small Print Expo 2008

This weekend is the Small Print Expo at the Marriott Bethesda North Hotel & Conference Center in Maryland.

From the website:

In its thirteenth year SPX now serves as the preeminent showcase for the exhibition of independent comic books and the discovery of new creative talent. SPX will bring together over 400 artists and publishers to meet their readers, booksellers, distributors, and each other.

I'm excited to say that I will be attending the expo for my first time, though I'll only be able to be there on Saturday. But look at the list of scheduled panels at the show! There should be some excellent opportunities to hear good discussions about what comics are and what they can become, the artistic potential they can reach. I'll be sure to report what is discussed next week.

The Ignatz Awards ceremony, recognizing outstanding experiments in comics art, will take place that evening, but due to prior commitments I am unable to attend. I do recommend the event, however, as an opportunity to see what non-commercialized comics are doing to be expressive literature.

Baltimore Comic-Con 2008: Webcomics Panel

Last Saturday I had the fortune of attending the Baltimore Comic Con and sitting in on the webcomics panel, which included moderator Scott Kurtz, Brad Guigar, Dave Kellett, and Kris Straub, who comprise the Halfpixel group that wrote How to Make Webcomics and host the podcast Webcomics Weekly. These four creators, as well as the panel's topic, were my major draw to the forum, but to add to the hodgepodge of expertise we were also treated by the participation of Scott Sava and Danielle Corsetto, whose work I had hitherto been unfamiliar with.

The panel was the highlight of the convention for me. For coverage of the general

Halfpixel members Scott Kurtz, Brad Guigar, Kris Straub and Dave Kellett.

discussion that occurred, you can read CBR's brief article. I simply enjoyed how these personalities mesh and have fun together in front of an audience, re-hearing their arguments for webcomics and why they have a place in contemporary media. When the floor was opened for questions, I found that the audience seemed to be focused on learning the technicalities and business details of the webcomics industry. Determined to get a more artistic-based question in there, I raised my hand and was lucky to be the last person to be able to pipe up!

The first thing that naturally came to mind to discuss was my most recent blogpost (that's right, the one just before the post you're reading), so I asked for their insights on the topic.

Below you will find the YouTube clip of the end of the panel, which begins with my question (the rest of the panel is viewable in five other parts under the same channel). A big "thank you" to the gentleman sitting right in front of me who recorded everything with his blackberry. It's not high quality audio and video, but it was enough for me to provide a transcription after the embed and be able to provide you and myself with the context of the discussion.



The Shark = (me)
Scott Kurtz = SK
Scott Sava = SS
Danielle Corsetto = DC
Brad Guigar = BG
Dave Kellett = DK
Kris Straub = KS

(me): This is more of a “theory” question. In your last Webcomics Weekly you were talking with Mike from Penny Arcade, and, from what I understood, he feels that webcomics are as much about drawing well, as well as writing – and I’m wondering your thoughts on that. For example, xkcd is very simplistic, very minimalist … So I’m just wondering your thoughts on that, if one is more important than the other, if you should polish your look more, or…

BG: Of course we feel that way, because we’re all cartoonists and we take this from a different angle than normal people. Doesn’t matter what we think, it matters what the readers think. xkcd may be a comic that I don’t personally follow, although my wife does religiously, if you listen to the podcast. But it doesn’t matter what I think, it doesn’t matter how I think, it matters what all his readers think, and that’s the only important thing, and if it’s working for him then it’s working, and it’s wonderful. Really, it is.

DK: And I think it’s as big, if not bigger than Penny Arcade … Anyways, for a drawing that is, uh -- “minimalist” is one way to put it – it’s amazing to me that, well, as Brad said… I remember we had a podcast where we talked specifically about xkcd … as artists, of course you’re going to say that … and I personally still feel that the writing is more important than the art overall, that there are people that are specifically drawn to the art, that will go to Frank Cho and look at his art no matter what he writes and say, “He’s just trying out a pimple today,” alright, well that’s kind of a dodge on writing anyway, but people love that. There are people who are visually oriented and people who are writing oriented, but overall I think that the net weight would fall on the writing. There’s a reason why Dilbert can do well; Cathy can do well; Callahan, who I think is paraplegic and not quadriplegic and draws with his teeth, can do well; …

SK: He still draws more than stick figures! ... I’m just sayin’, I’m just throwing that out there!

DK: But I think it’d be interesting to hear (if these guys) know anything about it.

DC: I feel that the writing is more important, but at the same time … the communication effort’s in both. I mean, you got xkcd, which is excellently written, and it’s very clever and very unique, and those little stick figures … still got the body language and are still getting across exactly what they’re trying to get across and it’s so funny!

KS: What’s funny, though, is that I was a computer science major, and that is the way that even I drew in the margins. That’s how you draw in the margins when you’re making up jokes with your friends in class. You draw just the head, you draw the stick figure. So I think, for that audience, it’s like immediately in that medium. And they don’t have to come at it 50/50. If xkcd was drawn really well, I don’t think it would be as charming.

SK: Now I’m going to be serious, ‘cause I’ve been joking around. We’ve met the guy who does xkcd and he’s a really nice guy. If that guy wrote a column, like xkcd was a column or essay, we would all be just in awe, you know? … We wouldn’t question the validity of it. It’s kind of sad, the fact that he’s decided to pack this content that he has into a comic strip form, it kind of … hurts him a little bit, because (one) immediately questions the validity of the content. You know, you can’t separate what a comic is: a cartoon is art and words. And he’s got the words, and he doesn’t have the art. It doesn’t mean his words aren’t great, it’s just that he’s packing it into a (visual) thing. … Because, you know, it’s like comparing apples and oranges, almost. I mean, I have not talked to him about it personally, about whether he knows he’s making a comic or he’s making a cartoon, as opposed to “I have this content and that’s how I visualize it,” but I actually do feel kind of bad for the guy because…

KS: When we met him at San Diego, I have a feeling that in our circle he’s like, (muttering) “I’m Randall Munroe, I do xkcd,” … (can’t understand enough of the rest of Kris’s line here – discusses how he seems to be frowned upon by other cartoonists)

SK: … It’s wrong (that we’re elitist like that) – I admit that, it’s irrational. Not that admitting makes it better, I’m just saying I’m aware of it. (There’s a) personal pride in what I do, and there’s a part of me that’s like, “Yeah I’m proud of what I do, step off, stick figure!”

SS: I’m the only guy here who’s not drawing his own comic book. I mean, everything’s done on a computer …

SK: Yeah, but I’ve seen your art, pal. Come on. …

SS: Yeah, but what I’m saying is… Regardless of what medium you use, I mean, you can do stick figures or whatever… Figure it’s 100% of the comic book, for the most part it’s a 50/50 split, I mean, if you’re doing something like… x… ?

KS: …kcd

SS: Thank you. Whatever. His writing has to be at, like, 90%, and the 10% is the art.

SK: I struggled to make the writing good (for PvP). …

SS: (a few lines that aren’t totally intelligible) The thing is, there are some webcomics out there that are 80% - really good art, but you just don’t really get into the story.

SK: Now that I look at your work, you are kind of ham and eggin’ it.

(ham and egg jokes)

DK: I think Brad (said it best) when he said that regardless of what you or I think, if he has an audience, he’s clearly doing something right. It’s kind of like movies. Someone’s going to say, “I can’t believe that Iron Man made all of this money, but The Green Mile, or some beautiful movie –" (The Green Mile is the one I picked?!) … unbearable as it seems, it’s not doing well, but Iron Man (is). … There’s a sense of elitism no matter what angle you want to look at it: from the acting, from the directing, from the writing of a cartoon to the drawing of a cartoon to the marketing of a cartoon to what company is it with; is it better with Dark Horse or if it’s with Image? Is it better to pick DC or Marvel? At the end of the day, if readers respond to it, it just doesn’t matter. Unless you’re a critic for Yale and you’re writing something for… I don’t know where I’m picking references today. So if you’re writing about The Green Mile as a professor at Yale….

SK: There’s also a very small chance, very small – micron – that we’re super jealous of xkcd. I’m not saying we are. Maybe a little. …

DK: If we were jealous – and I’m not saying we are – but (if someone can) crank out that comic strip in under five minutes and have it up to 30 million page views in a day, I could see how you might be jealous.

SK: (something funny about crapping out a pun)

(end of panel)


If I could go back and tweak my question, I'd have changed the wording to (a) not be so xkcd-intensive and include other examples of simple comic visuals and (b) drive the discussion a little further away from a business context. Anytime the panelists started expressing that it only matters what the reader thinks, I felt they were thinking too along the lines of marketing and selling a product as opposed to the art of comics creation and what that means to them. Not that they didn't touch on this -- in fact, I was largely satisfied by the discussion that my question sparked.

I think Scott Sava really summed up the heart of their side of things: no, you don't have to have perfect drawing, but your writing better make up for it in that case. I do think there needs to be a proper balance, and strips with less emphasis on the visual prettiness need to be aware of this.

However, what more can be said about the stylistic decision to purposefully keep your art from developing into something ornate and finer-detailed? I think Kris was beginning to touch on this as he mentioned that he didn't think xkcd would be nearly as charming without the stick figures. Later, at his booth, I talked to Kris about how his own strip, Chainsawsuit, utilizes simplicity in an effort to be a commentary on indie comics and the lack of real thought or effort that often goes into them. As much as xkcd lacks better drawing because its creator lacks the skills, I think there is a little more to it -- just a little. I think the charm lies in the fact that the doodles, as Kris mentioned, bring us back to high school and college courses when we'd draw silly things in the margins and be so content with ourselves for doing so. It's a language we're all familiar with.

Anyway, this is the closest I've gotten to a professional interview regarding the topics discussed on this blog, and as such I feel like it's a great followup to the last post. How do you feel this panel addressed the discussion? Do you agree or disagree with any of the panelists' thoughts?

The Potential of a Medium

Penny Arcade is known for its refined styles in pencils and coloring.

Yesterday I was listening to episode #47 of Webcomics Weekly, a podcast hosted by Brad Guigar, Dave Kellet, Scott Kurtz and Kris Straub, a group of webcomics authors who give their insights on building and maintaing a webcomic business and answer fanmail. In this particular installment, Mike Krahulik of Penny Arcade, currently the most renowned online comic strip, joins the crew as a special guest, throwing in his opinions on what's worked for him and his business, how he's managed to become so popular, etc.

What really grabbed my attention was a topic that was brought up some time into the episode, where the guys are discussing the roles of writing and drawing a comic, separately from each other as well as cooperatively. Krahulik eventually mentions that some comics, such as xkcd, utilize very minimal visual art yet implement very intelligent writing.

xkcd uses mere stick figures to draw attention to its dialog.

He continues (in a way that I'm sure wasn't meant to be a slam on the example he gave) to explain his philosophy that comics are a very visual medium, and thus the creator(s) should aspire to a higher level of art that would require some sort of training or practice to develop, where a certain quality of skill shoud be apparent in the illustrator -- coupled with good writing and storytelling ability.

Chainsawsuit's use of basic line is a commentary on indie comics.

This expression got me thinking. "Should" a comic creator aspire to a polished, more detailed skill in drawings, or is it sometimes sufficient to use stick figures or other simple figures?

When I was a film student at Brigham Young University, I took a documentary production class

Edison's studio housed a locked-down
camera and rotated to control light.

where we discussed a similar question. Bearing in mind the unique capabilities of film and its basic components (sound and a moving image), which is more important to focus on in manipulation of the medium: audio or video? We discussed this quite a bit, and I remember being somewhat torn. Though I seemed to immediately side with the video argument ("What other media exist that utilize a moving picture?"), I couldn't help but remember Thomas Edison who, in spite of all his accomplishments in the invention of the movie camera and Black Maria, was most pleased with his achievements in audio, more than anything else he had invented. But we had always been told that video should be able to stand alone from the audio in storytelling -- that the viewer should be able to tell what's going on if everything is muted, that music can be

Edison's phonograph.

manipulative and dangerous!

In the end my wise professor calmly stated that BOTH were equally as important. He seemed to take the side of many theorists who believe that any given art medium should focus on and exploit what is exclusive to that specific medium (I don't have my notes from my film theory class with me -- otherwise I'd be able to sound really smart right now and rattle off a few examples). But I'm not sure I entirely agree with that mindset.

It seems to be a pretty purist mindset to tell any medium that it must consider what makes itself that particular medium and equally and fully make use of those aspects in whatever it does. Perhaps I can agree that doing so is to truly make itself representative of the art form, but some of the best films I've ever seen have been more visual than otherwise. Charlie Chaplin continued to make silent films even after the advent of talkies. Did this make him less of a filmmaker? He catered to the strengths of visual storytelling, and was magnificent at it. In fact, in some of his talkies that I've seen, I've found myself wishing that he'd just shut up ("Limelight," anyone?). And the same can be said of the opposite. I've seen films where the audio just blew me away and seemed to say more for the movie than the video did at times (one example being "Dan in Real Life," where I credit the sound mixers and foley artists for making me sense the title character's down-to-earth outlook on the world around him).

Projecting this conversation onto the Krahulik sentiment, I'm not sure I can fully agree that EVERY comic should equally focus on refined writing AND drawing skills.

Firstly, though, I will concede that a worthwhile comic cannot exist without some sort of writing ability. This

Dinosaur Comics reuses the same digital
images and layout in each strip.

doesn't mean that you need to have a Pulitzer, but a comic creator should be able to communicate his or her ideas prettly fluently, however he's going to do it -- whether that be through conventional narrative storytelling, or perhaps an even more mosaic approach where seemingly unrelated images are juxtaposed and clash/merge to convey meaning.

That being said, I question whether or not a refined visual presence is entirely necessary. The beauty of xkcd is that its simplicity draws the reader to the writing and dialog more. Others, like Dinosaur Comics, essentially utilize a template of digital images to add text to, showing how the same images can deliver individual stories on a regular basis. Scott McCloud, comics theorist extraordinaire, invented the "24-hour comic," a challenge to comics creators of every skill level to crank out a comic from conception to finish in a strict 24-hour time period. Take a look at some of the results in the collection on the website. There is some pretty rough artwork in there due to the time limit, but does that make some of them any less a comic than an issue of Green Lantern?

An excerpt from Scott McCloud's first 24-hour comic, A Day's Work.

There are visual laws that need to be learned when any comic illustrator enters the arena (i.e. telling a visual story, how much space to leave for dialog, layouts, gutter spacing, etc.), but I feel that as long as the artist is consistent in his technique within the given series of comic strips/books and the writing isn't hindered, why not show us new and different ways of visually supporting your writing, even if those ways aren't as seemingly polished as a Davinci?

Is this more a comic than
the likes of xkcd?

What do you think? Are the roles of writing and visual presentation equal in comics? Should a comics creator strive to develop a clean, detailed visual style to support his writing? Discuss!

(In his defense, I am not insinuating that Mike Krahulik would oppose the ideas I raise in this column. He didn't clarify or flesh out his argument enough for me to state that he is against what I have to say -- for all I know he and I could see eye-to-eye on some or most of these points.)