|
Post by badwolf on Sept 21, 2021 10:37:24 GMT -5
I've never read one of those, but it seems like they are a cross between an illustrated text and a comic?
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Sept 21, 2021 10:47:56 GMT -5
It's not illiteracy if someone doesn't want to read pages and pages of clunky exposition and bombastic cheesy dialogue squeezed into every blank space on the page. I personally want comics to be comics, not prose with illustration. Obviously, there is a lot of room for variation there, and some were better than others, but you are saying you accept there are different sensibilities and then dismissing them in the next breath.
I can't speak to all comics, so I will just go with what I know. It's not just the style of comics that has changed, but the cultural context, too, in a lot of cases. Early Marvel stuff has a lot of misogyny and whizz bam POP Zap Pow dialogue that just feels very campy in 2021. Doesn't mean there weren't some great stories, but it can be hard for a modern reader used to more contemporary and realistic dialogue and modern cultural awareness to go back and read that stuff. To say nothing of how different society is from before the huge technology boom in the 80s to now. Again, not that it's not possible to get into it, but it can be a lot to get past.
As for the wordy thing, I came up on 80s and 90s X-MEN, so written by Claremont. Calling that stuff wordy was underselling it. It was so, so much exposition, thought bubbles, dialogue, and a lot of it repetitive and clunky. I understand the thinking of "every issue is somebody's first" so having some explanations can be convenient, but it got exhausting reading every character describe their own powers to themselves or anyone who is listening every single issue, not mention the clunky dialogue that he never quite updated with the times.
That said, while he was very verbose, often needlessly so, he was also pretty good at prose when he was in his prime, and some of his long setups were pretty good. He was definitely the best at his style that I've read, so when he was removed from the X-Books and other people copied his style but weren't as good at it, it was excruciating to read.
I know not all classic writers are Chris Claremont, and not even all Claremont is equal, but comics from that era can be a damn chore to get through, and when it's more a tedious slog than a fun escapist adventure, they tend to lose my interest.
I think this phenomenon is more apparent in video games, too, with how fast technology advances. There is stuff in the early 3D era that was revolutionary at its time that I enjoyed, but coming from modern advances and expectations, trying to play it now is painful.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Sept 21, 2021 10:49:12 GMT -5
I've never read one of those, but it seems like they are a cross between an illustrated text and a comic? I remember those types of things, and even as a kid feeling they were BSing me trying to dress up a book as a comic book, but there was plainly not enough comic book.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Sept 21, 2021 10:51:35 GMT -5
Ah, I see that Classics Illustrated belongs to the "Pitch" persuasion. Tsk. Well, I'm showing my age again. What is this pitch thing you speak of?
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Sept 21, 2021 10:54:28 GMT -5
It's not illiteracy if someone doesn't want to read pages and pages of clunky exposition and bombastic cheesy dialogue squeezed into every blank space on the page. I personally want comics to be comics, not prose with illustration. Obviously, there is a lot of room for variation there, and some were better than others, but you are saying you accept there are different sensibilities and then dismissing them in the next breath. I can't speak to all comics, so I will just go with what I know. It's not just the style of comics that has changed, but the cultural context, too, in a lot of cases. Early Marvel stuff has a lot of misogyny and whizz bam POP Zap Pow dialogue that just feels very campy in 2021. Doesn't mean there weren't some great stories, but it can be hard for a modern reader used to more contemporary and realistic dialogue and modern cultural awareness to go back and read that stuff. To say nothing of how different society is from before the huge technology boom in the 80s to now. Again, not that it's not possible to get into it, but it can be a lot to get past. As for the wordy thing, I came up on 80s and 90s X-MEN, so written by Claremont. Calling that stuff wordy was underselling it. It was so, so much exposition, thought bubbles, dialogue, and a lot of it repetitive and clunky. I understand the thinking of "every issue is somebody's first" so having some explanations can be convenient, but it got exhausting reading every character describe their own powers to themselves or anyone who is listening every single issue, not mention the clunky dialogue that he never quite updated with the times. That said, while he was very verbose, often needlessly so, he was also pretty good at prose when he was in his prime, and some of his long setups were pretty good. He was definitely the best at his style that I've read, so when he was removed from the X-Books and other people copied his style but weren't as good at it, it was excruciating to read. I know not all classic writers are Chris Claremont, and not even all Claremont is equal, but comics from that era can be a damn chore to get through, and when it's more a tedious slog than a fun escapist adventure, they tend to lose my interest. I think this phenomenon is more apparent in video games, too, with how fast technology advances. There is stuff in the early 3D era that was revolutionary at its time that I enjoyed, but coming from modern advances and expectations, trying to play it now is painful. Too much EC in your diet can get tedious, too.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 21, 2021 10:56:32 GMT -5
Ah, I see that Classics Illustrated belongs to the "Pitch" persuasion. Tsk. Well, I'm showing my age again. What is this pitch thing you speak of? The original folio said "...enterprises of great pith and moment", which is the version this curmudgeon goes by!!!
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Sept 21, 2021 10:59:02 GMT -5
I get that sensibilities change but the complaint I hear most about "our" comics is that they are "wordy." Like, there are too many words. That's just plain illiteracy. That and them being "dated"...I don't think anyone actually knows what that word means. In some of the foreign Poe comics I've been translating into English, I reference the original story's text for more accuracy, and in a few cases, make room for MORE text than was in the actual foreign comics. I like to see how much "Poe" I can squeeze in.
Also, regarding certain words or phrases that even I don't understand, I figure it's authentic to the original text and the period, and should be looked on as "educational". (It's EASY to look stuff up and learn what it means.)
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Sept 21, 2021 11:02:23 GMT -5
I get that sensibilities change but the complaint I hear most about "our" comics is that they are "wordy." Like, there are too many words. That's just plain illiteracy. That and them being "dated"...I don't think anyone actually knows what that word means. In some of the foreign Poe comics I've been translating into English, I reference the original story's text for more accuracy, and in a few cases, make room for MORE text than was in the actual foreign comics. I like to see how much "Poe" I can squeeze in.
Also, regarding certain or phrases that even I don't understand, I figure it's authentic to the orignal text and the period, and should be looked on as "educational". (It's EASY to look stuff up and learn what it means.)
I feel like a lot of today's readers aren't capable of thinking "Okay, this book was made in 1975; it will have 1975 references and things that might not exist now, because that is when it was written and takes place" and if they see something like a phone with a dial they simply say "it's dated."
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Sept 21, 2021 11:08:18 GMT -5
As for the wordy thing, I came up on 80s and 90s X-MEN, so written by Claremont. Calling that stuff wordy was underselling it. It was so, so much exposition, thought bubbles, dialogue, and a lot of it repetitive and clunky. I understand the thinking of "every issue is somebody's first" so having some explanations can be convenient, but it got exhausting reading every character describe their own powers to themselves or anyone who is listening every single issue, not mention the clunky dialogue that he never quite updated with the times. THAT we can blame squarely on JIM "because I said so, dammit" SHOOTER.
As I recall, about the only writer around that time who made it even more awkward and painful to slog through that stuff was Bill Mantlo.
On the other hand, Jim Starlin got into the habit of spending the first 4 consecutive pages of every issue of DREADSTAR updating people on the long storyline, in such a blatent way, after awhile, I just started skipping whole pages to get to the "new" stuff.
By extreme comparison... while over at DC, once Denny "drag 'em thru the mud" O'Neil took over as Batman editor, they began to focus relentlessly on the murder of his parents in seemingly every single story, back during the Adam West BATMAN tv series, I counted exactly 3 references to his origin over 120 episodes across 3 seasons-- once each tv season. And one of those, you had to pay attention to even realize they were doing it.
"I'm gonna make the streets SAFE for little children to play on."
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Sept 21, 2021 11:17:22 GMT -5
The Adam West Batman TV series was not the comic, and certainly no indicator how the established and influential death of the Waynes was to be referenced.
...and by the way, the murder of Bruce's parents was mentioned or seen in flashback throughout the Golden and Silver Age, well before O'Neil's time on the title.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2021 11:19:35 GMT -5
I think its a matter of some having a generational bias and a closed mind, like moviegoers I recall from the 80s saying they could not get into or even appreciate films of the 1930s or earlier. Personally,I never had an issue with thoroughly enjoying work created several decades before I was born--including comics. I'm with you there. There are young(er) people who simply will not watch a black and white movie, for instance. To them it's simply unwatchable, unthinkable even, that anyone could or would film a movie in black and white. I was lucky to have grown up without color TV and in an era when much of the programming on weekends conssited of the movies of the 30s and 40s; I wound up loving black and white movies. I always showed David Lean's "Great Expectations" and Hitchcock's "Rebecca" to ninth graders after they'd read the novels; I'm not going to say that they all became b&w aficionados, but as with any other art form, once they'd been introduced to them and realized the strengths of filming in b&w, they realized that they were not something to be feared and loathed. yes but how do you feel about silent films? -M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2021 11:24:15 GMT -5
I get that sensibilities change but the complaint I hear most about "our" comics is that they are "wordy." Like, there are too many words. That's just plain illiteracy. That and them being "dated"...I don't think anyone actually knows what that word means. "Why do you need pictures at all to read, if you need pictures you must be illiterate!" I had this complaint hurled at me so many times when I was younger and people found out I read comics or enjoyed illustrated prose. It's not an objective criticism at all but a matter of preference and bias, as is your dismissal of complaints about the wordiness of earlier comics by contemporary readers. And since bias can affect the experience of anything, it can hinder one's enjoyment of comics form an earlier era quite easily. -M
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Sept 21, 2021 12:45:48 GMT -5
I don't think its fair to assume that just because someone doesn't want to read a wordy, 50 year old comic from a different era with a different style and context that they don't understand that it's from a different era or that it would take work and time to get up to speed on the context to fully appreciate it.
In fact, I bet a lot of the time, knowing it would be why they don't want to read it. Sometimes people just want to use their limited free time for entertainment to be entertained without having to put in work. Not saying there's not someone who would, or a time or place, but very easy to understand why someone would not want to.
Also, a comic from the 70s reflecting the context, politics, style and jargon of the 70s is quite literally dated in 2021. It's possible to enjoy something that is "dated" but that doesn't make it not so.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Sept 21, 2021 13:00:32 GMT -5
I don't think its fair to assume that just because someone doesn't want to read a wordy, 50 year old comic from a different era with a different style act and context that they don't understand that it's from a different era or that it would take work and time to get up to speed on the context to fully appreciate it. In fact, I bet a lot of the time, knowing it would be why they don't want to read it. Sometimes people just want to use their limited free time for entertainment to be entertained whiteout having to put in work. Not saying there's not someone who would, or a time or place, but very easy to understand why someone would not want to. Also, a comic from the 70s reflecting the context, politics, style and jargon of the 70s is quite literally dated in 2021. It's possible to enjoy something that is "dated" but that doesn't make it not so. Yeah, I'm perplexed by that statement. If a book is from the 70s, particularly a book dealing with then contemporary matters, it is, by definition, dated. An individual may or may not want to put in the effort to read it, but it's going to take more effort by virtue of it being dated. Certain things that are taken for granted in, say, 1975 are completely foreign to someone born 25 years after that. For example, my youngest son has zero idea how to use a phone book or even why they exist. He's never had to use one. His friends give them his number and he programs it in to his phone. On the rare occasion he feels he needs to call a business he Googles the number. The very concept is dated.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Sept 21, 2021 13:04:39 GMT -5
For example, my youngest son has zero idea how to use a phone book or even why they exist. He's never had to use one. Surely he has opened one up, seen a name with a number next to it and could figure it out from there? Surely he understands we didn't always have internet?
|
|