|
Post by tonebone on Sept 27, 2022 14:19:44 GMT -5
"Sequential art" has always been a more fitting label for me than "comic" (which implies comedy and nothing else). Is it artistic and not just practical? Is it sequential and, therefore, advancing a story of some kind through its arrangement of panels/installments? That's what I'm a fan of! I'm even totally comfortable calling (some) animation a form of comic, for example. Really, the only difference is that the panels are being advanced for you and any narration/dialogue must be heard instead of read. Of course, a cartoon done without any trace of artistic expression would therefore not be "sequential art". The original Transformers cartoon is not "sequential art," but Transformers: The Movie sure is. Heck, I don't think it's a coincidence that so many classic comic fans here are also classic film buffs. In the truly high quality films, the frame is no different than a comic book panel, meticulously and purposefully arranged to elicit an emotion and tell a story. So maybe film can qualify as "sequential art" too. But whatever the hell Kool-Aid Man #1 is, it isn't what I read and collect. It may be considered a "comic," but it isn't "Sequential Art" anymore than airline safety instructions are, regardless of its outer packaging. I've known at least 3 people in my life for whom Kool Aid Man #1 was their favorite comic of all time and each owned multiple copies of it to give away to people to share their fascination for that book. -M edit to PS-each was separated by time and geography, so I doubt they had ever met each other, so it wasn't a group shared experience or private joke thing. Two were from pre-internet days as well, so it wasn't a cultural shared meme thing either. Four. I loved Kool-Aid Man, and I still have my copy. I think there's a sort of Stockholm Syndrome that happens when you mail off for a comic that takes 8 weeks to arrive. You instantly love it after the traumatic experience of waiting so long. And as far as it not being a comic? Poppycock! It's a real comic, just like Famous Funnies #1, which was just a bunch of comic strips. Or Buster Brown comics, that were given away at shoe stores. Or Big Boy comics. Or Captain Tootsie. All comics are a commercial venture. Whether it's to sell comics, toys, underoos, or Kool-Aid.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2022 14:31:26 GMT -5
To me, a comic is a story using words and pictures arranged in panels and/or pages. That the medium. The format used to bring it to market is irrelevant. It's a medium, not a product. It is sold as a product in several formats, and also delivered to readers (without commercial considerations) in multiple formats from print to online. It's still all comics as long as its words and pictures arranged in panels and/or panels used to tell some kind of narrative. -M I feel like where it breaks from this paradigm is books like "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" which is largely prose peppered with cartoon drawings with word balloons. I don't consider this a comic, any more than an art book with occasional panels of comics. However, DOAWK is considered a "graphic novel" by bookstores, book lists, etc. Well by that token, Gil Kane's Blackmark wouldn't be a comic either. And by a lot of folk's definitions, Prince Valiant isn't a comic either. -M
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Sept 27, 2022 15:00:06 GMT -5
I feel like where it breaks from this paradigm is books like "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" which is largely prose peppered with cartoon drawings with word balloons. I don't consider this a comic, any more than an art book with occasional panels of comics. However, DOAWK is considered a "graphic novel" by bookstores, book lists, etc. Well by that token, Gil Kane's Blackmark wouldn't be a comic either. And by a lot of folk's definitions, Prince Valiant isn't a comic either. -M I would contend there's a difference between words/pictures working together to tell a story (meaning neither would stand entirely on its own), and a prose book with illustrations (Where the prose could stand on its own, but the pictures aren't necessary for the story). The books I'm referring to fall into the latter camp.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2022 15:15:23 GMT -5
Well by that token, Gil Kane's Blackmark wouldn't be a comic either. And by a lot of folk's definitions, Prince Valiant isn't a comic either. -M I would contend there's a difference between words/pictures working together to tell a story (meaning neither would stand entirely on its own), and a prose book with illustrations (Where the prose could stand on its own, but the pictures aren't necessary for the story). The books I'm referring to fall into the latter camp. So does large chunks of Kane's Blackmark. -M
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Sept 27, 2022 19:51:18 GMT -5
Is this comics? It's a set of mugs I have... I say yes--it's a series of images that tell a story. Is this comics? I say no. It's a picture of a comic book character.
|
|
|
Post by Mormel on Sept 28, 2022 0:11:31 GMT -5
I'm even totally comfortable calling (some) animation a form of comic, for example. Really, the only difference is that the panels are being advanced for you and any narration/dialogue must be heard instead of read. Of course, a cartoon done without any trace of artistic expression would therefore not be "sequential art". The original Transformers cartoon is not "sequential art," but Transformers: The Movie sure is. Bah! 'The Master Builders' and 'Microbots' both tell more compelling stories in 22 minutes, than that glorified music video did in its 85 minute runtime. (In all seriousness, despite serving partly as advertisement for a toy line, I think Transformers G1 had a bunch of scenes that were pushing the envelope for how action could be portrayed in Saturday morning cartoons. A lot of action cartoons that aired in its wake, took a page from its book)
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Sept 28, 2022 10:31:00 GMT -5
I would contend there's a difference between words/pictures working together to tell a story (meaning neither would stand entirely on its own), and a prose book with illustrations (Where the prose could stand on its own, but the pictures aren't necessary for the story). The books I'm referring to fall into the latter camp. So does large chunks of Kane's Blackmark. -M Ok... fine.. it's not a comic, then. It's illustrated prose.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2022 10:38:48 GMT -5
So does large chunks of Kane's Blackmark. -M Ok... fine.. it's not a comic, then. It's illustrated prose. by your standard perhaps. I consider it a comic and always have. But that's the point. The more restrictive and persnickety you get with your definition of what is a "comic" the more things that are intended as comics have to be called non-comics, especially when it is people experimenting with the medium and pushing its limits. Such experimentation should be rewarded, not met with "that's not comics" especially if such experimentation brings comics to a wider audience like the Diary of a Wimpy Kid books do. The future of comics lies in experimentation with form and format, not in the moribund periodical pamphlet of the past. It is in pushing the limits, not in setting them. Comics survive by evolving. They always have, and hopefully always will. -M
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Sept 28, 2022 12:07:13 GMT -5
Is this comics? It's a set of mugs I have... I don't know, but I'd love to know where you got them!
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Sept 28, 2022 12:36:54 GMT -5
This is how I break it down personally...and I am not saying this is gospel, just how I do it Comic = single issue floppy comic TPB = collection of reprinted comics in softcover format, usually from a run or series Graphic novel = an original comic text not in comic format Comic mag = a magazine that is a comic book Collected edition = a collection of comic strips in one place (ie Bloom County collected editions) Pretty much how I've always classified comics, etc. If you were to ask the broader population what is a "comic", I'm willing to bet they would point to a floppy first. How a medium (and/or sub-categories) are defined stems from the needs of the publishers, which made the distinction between a "comic book" and "comic strip", certainly taking firm root over the generations. With that, I've come across readers who were--shall I say--were "comic strip snobs" who believed there was a unique art and method of storytelling to strips, thinking its short, daily task to illicit some response (to stay and come back for more) in a few panels took greater storytelling talent than floppies. Some even think the strip format was more "respectable" and not as "overrun" by decades of superhero series (despite superheroes having their own strips).
While I do not agree with the snobbery of their position, it is easy to see strips as being an entirely different animal to floppies, with its own language. If people want to use the umbrella title "comics" for any sort of narrative work with art, they will do so, but there are categorization lines drawn in the sand by the various format camps, and I cannot say they are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Sept 28, 2022 14:02:18 GMT -5
Whenever we got the daily newspaper, the first thing I did was grab the last section and turn to the comics...
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Sept 28, 2022 18:34:11 GMT -5
If I was forced to define a comic, I would call it a printed story that uses words and sequential pictures.
Size doesn't matter, though I do typically mean a single issue when I use the word 'comic'. Things that have a binding I use the book store term 'Trade Paperback' or often just 'Trade', without differentiating between an original story in that format or a collection. "Manga' is it's own thing, which I would refer to by name, unless it was a US comic in that format, which I would call a 'manga-sized comic' (I know that doesn't make sense semantically, but it does to me).
|
|
|
Post by commond on Sept 28, 2022 19:06:05 GMT -5
If I was forced to define a comic, I would call it a printed story that uses words and sequential pictures. Are words necessary?
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Sept 28, 2022 20:19:45 GMT -5
For the most part, yes. I mean, for a one panel gag or tribute in the paper, probably not. But like when Marvel did the 'Nuff Said' issues, they just felt like posters to me. It takes a really good artist to pull that off.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Sept 29, 2022 3:38:52 GMT -5
If I was forced to define a comic, I would call it a printed story that uses words and sequential pictures. Are words necessary? No. Pantomime strips used to be quite popular (the first Little Lulu issue of Dell's Four Color included several wordless one-page gags) and Victor Moscoso's work for Zap Comix was almost always "silent" (and, brilliantly, non-narrative). No one would seriously argue that those weren't comics.
Cei-U! Anybody out there remember "The Strange World of Mr. Mum"?
|
|