Bound by Law?

In the non-fiction comic department, this is a well done piece explaining copyright law. I think it makes a good argument for the place of copyright limitations and freedoms have in society.

Books Galore

I got my first shipment of Meditations books the other day (outside of my proof copy), and I must say, I am quite pleased. The printing turned out awesome. The blacks are very black and the greys are very grey. Sa-tis-fac-tion!

So, I'll confirm it again: for graphic novels wanting to do print-on-demand, BookSurge is a good way to go.

While it isn't necessarily tearing up the charts, I'd like to say thanks to those people who have bought copies already (…and for those who haven't… at $16 for 258 pages, its quite a deal!) The amazon site is still a bit sparse though. From people who have read either the book or the works online, reviews are always welcomed…(hint hint)…

Probing "art" and "literature"

I belong to a "comics scholars" listserve that has been discussing whether there needs to be an established "Comics Studies" field (I say a resounding "no"). This has had me thinking about disciplines in general, and what it is that various fields actually study, despite their names.

I had a thought about the oft-stated presumption that "comics" are the merging of "art" and "literature." To me, this seems to miss the point a bit. Why bother tying it to such surface forms as art or literature? The base idea is about text and image, which don't necessarily have to appear in "art" or "literature." Its identifying the surface context without extending to the deeper forms of expression (drawing, writing).

Furthermore, underneath it all, I think the study of "literature" and "art" (and "film") are basically the same field. They all have the same basic characteristics of analyzing creative expression, usually with some sort of "looking for deeper meaning" bent to it (outside of their "how to" contexts that is). The only real differences between them are the manner by which this expression is made (words vs. pictures vs. moving pictures). In my view, this is somewhat discriminatory, since the basic processes are the same. To me, the differences between these fields are superficial.

This is partially why I don't think that "comics" belong in a discipline of their own, if the context is for "literature" type analysis. Of course, the fact that language can be studied for its various manifestations in an astounding array of departments simplifies the issue for me. Just use whatever field your analysis applies to, only do so with "comics" or "visual language" (depending on what you're studying of course).

Too Many Twos

I've got a short new piece up at Comixpedia for my ongoing "Comic Theory 101" column called "Two Many Twos." This one continues my series of short pieces where I try to illuminate issues involved with the intersection of “comic theory” and linguistics, here probing into the quandary called the "Problem of 2."

Like the last one, I've just tried to pose the issue and a little demonstrative visual puzzle, hoping that people might ponder/discuss it. Really, the whole thing just grew out of the last four panels, and I thought they'd be fun to work into a full piece.

I suppose this is also the first work I've done with my "avatar" as a narrator. Rather than turn myself into a kind of character, I've instead opted to keep it casual. I'd hoped for this to downplay the "me" in favor of the emphasizing the ideas more, but unfortunately in this case the ideas are demonstrated through the "me." Doh!