Legitimation of "comics"

Comics scholar Domingos Isabelinho posts a critique of Thierry Gröensteen's paper on comics' search for legitimation. Domingos keys in on this quote in particular, so I'll do the same:

“Although comics have been in existence for over a century and a half, they suffer from a considerable lack of legitimacy. To those who know and love it, the art that has given us Rodolphe Töpffer and Wilhelm Busch, Hergé and Tardi, Winsor McCay and George Herriman, Barks and Gottfredson, Franquin and Moebius, Segar and Spiegelman, Gotlib and Brétecher, Crumb and Mattotti, Hugo Pratt and Alberto Breccia, not to mention The Spirit, Peanuts or Asterix… in short, comic art, has nothing left to prove.”

His critique of this is that an analogy to literature would be ridiculous: why would literature have anything to prove?

However, we can take this one step further. In his work, Gröensteen conflates the socio-cultural "comics" with "sequential images with/out text". If he means the former part of this dichotomy (comics, the sociocultural phenomena) then Domingos' argument stands. If he means the latter (the expressive system of sequential images), the claim becomes even more bizarre:

Why would any type of expressive form (drawing, writing, etc.) need legitimation? Do we really have to have justification for why drawings (in sequence) are worthy of attention at all? From a cognitive perspective, this seems crazy: all of these things are just ways in which humans express themselves.

To exemplify this, try replacing some of those names above with friends of yours, and the last sentence as: "in short, English, has nothing left to prove."

The justification of English should be self-evident, and so it should be with the visual language of sequential images too.

Coherence-building in comics

Bridgeman, Teresa. 2004. Keeping an eye on things: attention, tracking, and coherence-building. Belphégor 4 (1).

Bridgeman's article discusses various aspects of coherence-building throughout comics structure — "coherence" being the discourse theory notion of a salience across various units. It thus joins various other works that apply discourse theory to comics, though dabbles in cognitive science a bit as well.

The piece covers a lot of ground over various parts of comic structure (style, color, composition, layout, etc), and it uses cognitive principles to at least elucidate the elements of structure fairly well, though it sticks to a fairly generalized notion of them. On the whole though, not much is "new" about the work presented here. It takes the fairly overt elements of structure and simply maps cognitive-theory-lite to them, while also drawing from a well-done mixture of McCloud and Groensteen's ideas.

McCloud and Groensteen's theoretical orientations are often put at odds with each other, yet this paper makes ample use of both of their theories. While I may not particularly subscribe to either of their theories (I do have my own ideas, you know), it's at least nice to see that not everybody falls into one camp or the other.

Partly though, the non-novel nature of the paper may be due to "intent," which is less to provide a cognitive analysis of the structure, so much as (it seems) to use cognitive principles for analysis. This seems to be an inherent disciplinary tension though. While I do think it succeeds as an application of cognitive theory to literary analysis (which most of the paper is devoted to), I'm also wary for whether it knows the difference between the two intentions.

Panoramic Comic

Via the TalkAboutComics blog comes a link to this very cool comic where the entire story is depicted using successive panoramic viewpoints. It's a very interesting use of the Infinite Canvas. Narratively, most of the comic is what I'd call "passive/negative entities" — just a non-active cityscape — though it oscillates with scattered glimpses of the character in the apartment (though does not show him doing a sustained activity. The text is primarily dominant, but the panoramic certain gives a narrative feel that feels fairly unique. Check it out!

The Comic Strip and Film Language

Lacassin, Francis. 1972. The Comic Strip and Film Language. Film Quarterly, 26(1), 11-23.

In this piece translated by David Kunzle, French theorist Francis Lacassin discusses the similarities between the "syntax" of film and comics, noting that they both use "shots" as their base units. For him, this includes various things, like various degrees of framing (long shot, close up, medium shot), dynamic use of what could be multipanel representations ("panning"), as well as semantic alterations, like subjective viewpoints. (I would argue that this isn't "syntax" at all... but that's a larger post).

He argues that though film and comics emerged around the same time, these techniques came first in comics — not the other way around, as is often argued — and that they may have been autonomous developments not influencing each other at all.

He writes: "It is more reasonable to suppose that comic strip and cinema have both separately drawn the elements of their respective languages from the common stock accumulated in the course of the centuries by the plastic and graphic arts." (14)

To this I would question, is it really through historical development, or is this just a reflection of the structuring of people's minds/brains?

He hypothesizes also that film and comics both accomplish their sequential meaning by use of the film theory of montage, which for Lacassin appears to cover most things that do not appear similar to real-world perception.

In his own section at the end, Kunzle criticizes Lacassin for claiming comics were invented before cinema, while those framing techniques are cited being used by authors two generations before that "birth" of comics. Kunzle then discusses the work of 1800s artists Töpffer, Doré, and Busch, noting that they used various techniques like close-ups and polymorphic representation (where one character is repeated in a single frame showing the unfolding of action), among others.

Comics definitions and distribution

A friend of mine and I were talking about comic distribution and some interesting points came up, including how McCloud's definition of "comics" might actually hurt the growth of the medium.

I'll get back to that one.

My friend noted that "comics" are coming to be split into two major groupings of mainstream works and graphic novels (largely dominated by memoir), and that "comics" were once again coming to refer to the latter as a more niche label of superhero/fantasy/sci-fi/-ish genres.

Part of our discussion focused on the inadequacy of the distribution to "comic stores" for appealing to customers who might not have any interest in that niche. I've argued at length before about how if someone were to write a compelling baseball "comic" that would appeal to baseball fans (which outnumber "comic" fans by a lot I imagine, when they aren't overlapping), only selling it in a "comic" store would not reach the real audience intended to buy it — you'd need to sell it in sporting-good stores, batting cages, baseball games/stadiums, etc. (in addition to non-niche places like grocery stores).

Now, when McCloud tried to define "comics" back in 1993 as "sequential images," I think (?) his intent was to move the label beyond its stereotyped niche. Using such a formalist/structural definition would seemingly let so many other things into the fold that superheroes/etc. would become just another genre.

But instead of "comics" becoming the superordinate category to the benefit of the medium, I think this has actually had a negative impact for those that have adhered to it. Instead, it seems as though it only cast a wider net for all those things that break the stereotype to be sucked into the associations of "comics." My hypothetical "baseball comic" would only get hurt by being called a "comic" and being carried in "comic" outlets because readers of said genre already have predispositions toward things called "comics."

Indeed, the only real growth areas in the industry right now are things that have both evaded those stereotypes and use new labels altogether: "manga" or "graphic novels."

With those new labels they have appealed to audiences outside the "comics" markets. I've heard stereotype-avoiding readers say "it's not a comic, it's a graphic novel" — which is why Marvel and DC are now trying to give a post-hoc association of their products ("comics") as being "graphic novels" so they won't be left behind by the new wave of readership. (I doubt it's working)

I actually think it's fine for "comics" to refer to a niche, since it gives it a reliable label. And, there's nothing wrong with that, especially if we have a notion of the sequential graphic communication system that is separate from the notion of how that graphic system appears socially. It's also fine for that niche to be found reliably in "comic stores," while other graphic works that don't need to be called "comics" can viably be sold in other marketplaces.

We shouldn't limit potential graphic stories and books to the labels and distribution venues of a niche they don't belong to. Doing so would only ensure that they never sell to their potential and that the medium never reaches beyond niche works.

Review: The Language of Comics by Mario Saraceni

Saraceni, Mario. 2003. The Language of Comics. New York, NY: Routeledge.

Saraceni's The Language of Comics is one of the few books that attempts to present a holistic theory of how comics work, and draws upon work from "applied linguistics" no less. The book is actually a stripped down version of his dissertation (as is his article "Relatedness" from the Graphic Novel collection). (And good luck finding the dissertation... I had to print it from microfilm on interlibrary loan).

Unfortunately, much of his approach seems to feel of grafting McCloud's work to ideas in applied linguistics in a simplistic (and uncited) way. For instance, he proposes a gradation between semiotic types (like symbols and icons), and can well be compared to McCloud’s Big Triangle.

He treats the sequential aspect of panels as equal to sentences, giving them a “discourse theory” type analysis (like the dissertation by Stainbrook). Saraceni claims meaning is created through commonality between elements in panels, alternating with successive new and given information. He also uses "semantic fields" (connected meanings: like how "snow, caroling, pine trees, and presents" invokes "Christmas") to unite panels not encompassed by this information structure.

However, in doing so, he eschews the role of linear sequentiality, yet provides no argument for why people do indeed read in consistent sequences. The result is essentially a watered down version of McCloud's closure — which it is: his dissertation has the theory in full, and exactly does shoehorn discourse theory onto McCloud's transitions. Some of his insights here are useful and enlightening, yet they deal entirely with "exceptions." He rarely discusses "run of the mill" things like the depictions of events, instead culling his examples from very experimental comics storytelling, like Peter Kuper's The System.

Other chapters cover things like word balloons (perceived as equivalents to direct quotes) and drawings of eyes to buttress a discussion of subjective and objective viewpoints. The final chapter is about computers, which seems out of the blue and has next to nothing to do with comics.

Since it uses applied linguistics, much of the book feels attuned to what might be useful for literary studies. To this extant it might work very well. However, as a theory of "meaning" it falls short, largely because it does not address any type of cognitive system, and lacks even McCloud's precision of surface categorization.

My biggest gripe about the book is that it is presented as an introductory textbook as part of the Intertext textbook series, has no citations outside a "recommended reading" list in the end, and is written with a matter of fact tone that presents it as an authoritative stance on the body of knowledge of this field. The truth is that no such body of knowledge exists at this point for "comics theory." Right now, we're in that period of science where lots of different viewpoints are popping up, just waiting for an encompassing paradigm shift to sweep in and take over.

Even if I were to come out with a book of my full theories, it wouldn't be a de facto textbook because it would be my views drawing upon that body of research. As a result, to those "in the know," the format and style make this book seem misleading in its intents for fronting Saraceni's views as well established scholarship.

To end on a good note: Though I think it fails in not using a cognitive approach, I do like that the book tries to use concepts from linguistics with "comics." It shows that this type of approach is not just intuitive to me, but to others as well, and locating the book in the broader field of linguisics is good for the field as a whole.

Remedial Comics

Poking around I found the Remedial Comics blog that does some theorizing about comics. It has some notable thoughts on what's necessary for "all ages" comics, as well as some stuff on page composition. For these he makes some pretty cool flash examples of comic pages where you can select different components like text, balloons, figures, panels, or reading paths to see how they combine or work together. It's an interesting take on the issues, and worth checking out if only to fiddle with the flash files for a bit.

Fun with framing

Today's xkcd makes great use of the recursive framing that I discussed in my latest Comixpedia article. I have no idea if Randall read the article, but I wouldn't put it past him to think up of this stuff on his own since he frequently plays with this type of formalist experimentation. He doesn't entirely use recursion in it, but the rebounding of the last two panels is a nice touch.

Photosynthesis!

Last year I did some work for a non-profit called CAST Inc. that develops technology to be used in education. I'm very excited to be able to go give a talk at their offices tomorrow, which only reminded me that I've kept forgetting to blog about them since I started this whole thing!

One of the projects I did for them involved making two separate "comics" that teach how photosynthesis works. One was a narrative version and one was expository. I'm not allowed to reproduce them in full, but here are clips of both of those works:



Educational comics on photosynthesis

Relatedly, I'll try to post on my thoughts about comics and education sometime soon. Next week is spring break, so hopefully I can get a smidgeon of a breather enough to write something up.

Grab Bag Comics

Back in like February of this year when I was living in Chicago, I went out to mail a package at the local UPS store. I happened to be mailing one of my Meditations books and the guy behind the counter, Chuck, started querying me about my interest in comics. It turned out that he had graduated from the Savannah College of Art and Design with a degree in sequential art! So, naturally we hit it off great, and he was one of the people I wish I spent more time with while I was back there.

Chuck recently began posting his online comic "Dumstruck" on his Grab Bag Comics site again after a bit of a summer haitus. I definitely recommend checking it out. He started the journal comic at the start of the Iraq war and has decided to keep on it until the conflict sees an end. (I hope you enjoy doing the comic Chuck, that might be awhile unfortunately...)

The strips now are reposting his summer entries that weren't put up before. Amusingly enough, I found I'm even in one! He does a pretty amusing version of me, complete with exuberance for linguistics and bandaged wrists from my bout with tendonitis earlier this year.

So yah, go check it out!

Links of note

Rob Vollmar has posted another installment of his "Rage of Angels" essays. This one examines some of Outcault's Hogan's Alley works. While I'm fairly ambivilent to historical-literary analyses of these types, I hit Rob with some pretty hard comments on his last essays, so I figured I should point out that this one reads pretty well. Nice to see him jumping straight into the material without the faux-neuroscience discussion; it gives a much cleaner read and analysis I think.

This webcomic is funny to no end: xkcd. Definitely worth strolling through the archives when you have some need of procrastination or manic laughter. And, to make this at least a somewhat theory related plug... After reading a bunch of them, the simiplicity of the stick figures really grows on me. It also lends towards an acceptance of the stick figure as a common conventional sign for person. I know this isn't "news" per se, but with so much variation due to iconicity in most of the Western tradition, I kind of like the consistency. (It also reminds me of the Australian systems I'm always talking about, which depict people as a "U" shape)

Oh, and if I remember to get back into the groove of uploading the files, my Meditations comics should return this Tuesday. Watch out!

Comic Strip Artist's Kit, and more

In the "tools for comic making with some thought behind it" category comes this blog, Temple of the Seven Golden Camels, by storyboarder Mark Kennedy. He's been posting several good entries of advice for cartooning and comic creation. Much of his thoughts come from Disney animators, as that seems to be where he works (or did work… not entirely sure).

Of particular interest was this Comic Strip Artist's Kit by famous Disney artist Carson Can Osten, which reminded me of Wally Woods 22 Panels that Always Work.



Like 22 Panels…, these pages contain tips for creation, described as being "created to help beginning comic artists deal with perspective problems and other drawing difficulties." It also seems to have been an industry meme that eventually had some parts end up in the book The Illusion of Life. Over seven pages he identifies several common problems that creators face in framing and representation, and then offers solutions and tips all around. Kindly, the pages are all downloadable in large printable sizes.

Other notable posts include these: One, Two, on Composition by illustrator Rowland B. Wilson. These also are downloadable and have some good advice in them, though they are less theoretical in my opinion than the Osten pages.

He also has a whole series on Design and Drawing. One of his comments stood out at me, because it contrasts with the opening sentiments of McCloud's chapter on character design in Making Comics. Kennedy advises in drawings to avoid symmetry, saying ," The human eye doesn't like symmetry. It's lifeless and boring." Contrast this to McCloud who calls symmetry "Life's Calling Card."

In other places, he and McCloud share opinions, like with proportions in frames, to which they both advise against symmetry and placing the focal action right in the center (though McCloud notes its uses as well).

As this post might intimate, the site is full of interesting posts and one can easily take up quite a lot of time reading it. Go: Read!

Update 9/22: It's been pointed out to me that Josh Farkas has created PDF downloads of many of Kennedy's writings and posted items. Lots easier than downloading all those jpgs at the blog, but still recommended to read the original posts too.

"Comics" is not a medium, nor a mode of expression

Academic Henry Jenkins has a couple outtakes from his book where he discuses "comics" as being a mode of expression rather than a medium, working off the McCloudian definition of "comics" as being equal to "sequential images with/without text."

Though I frequently hear statements of faith in McCloud's definition and the propagation of it. However, I have still not received any good argumentation for why "comics" equals "sequential images with/without text." Frankly, this hasn’t surprised me, since I don’t think its possible to reasonably make such a claim.

Most people, I assume, are arguing this definition by following McCloud’s lead. However, at least in Understanding Comics, McCloud never provides an argument for his definition of "comics" either. Rather, he takes Eisner’s abstract notion of "sequential art" and then (as Horrock's first noted) recasts it as the definition for "comics." The reasoning for this follows no explicit argument, reasoning, or logic, McCloud does this solely out of preference stating,

"At one time or another, virtually all great media have received critical examination in and of themselves. But for comics this attention has been rare. Let’s see if we can rectify the situation. Eisner’s term seems like a good place to start."

And from here he begins to construct his definition around the base of "sequential art."

But, notice that from the very beginning he assumes that "comics" are a "media" to begin with, on part with "written word, music, video, theatre, visual art, and film." When separating "form from content" he assumes that "comics" are the form, not content. He begins the discussion with his position already loaded to believe that "comics" are a mode of expression, not simply an object that uses a mode of expression. He doesn’t say that sequential art is the medium that goes into the object of "comics," he makes them into the same thing.

There is no argument here for why "comics" should equal "sequential images," it is just a definition that is constructed out of the already stated assumptions that "comics" is some kind of medium.

This all has also got me wondering when "comics" as abstract notion first started emerging. Is it attributable solely to McCloud? This would be the usage of "comics," a plural, as a singular. Suddenly, instead of just being a type of book, it is able to be a medium or mode of expression (or even a type of scholarship – with far reaching implications here).

For instance, people talk as if "comics" was some sort of overarching category that subsumes manga, graphic novels, comic strips, bande desinee, etc. — "oh, they’re all just 'comics.'" Contrast this with "graphic novel." We don’t project "graphic novel" as an abstract; it’s a thing – a type of book.

If you reject the abstract formalist view in favor of "comics" only as a social object, these labels become more distinct in their own right. Graphic novels aren’t just a "type of comic," they are a format and literary movement distinct from comics. The same goes for manga, though it has even more slippery issues signifying both native Japanese works as well as a burgeoning OEL community.

The interesting thing I find in Jenkins' writing is that he heavily focuses on the associated social context of comics, while conversely saying they are a "mode of expression" that cuts beyond cultural context.

Again, to call "comics" a mode of expression misses the point. The mode of expression is drawing "sequential images with/without text" (aka "visual language" combined with "written language"). It is this mode of expression that is used within comics... and graphic novels and manga, etc. Though if you think you can prove otherwise, I'd love to hear the argument for why.

Comics and Information Design

What with the chaos of getting ready to move, I'm going to skip updates on Meditations until I get settled into Boston in a week and a half. In the meantime...

John Soellner alerts me to his site comparing qualities of "comics" with information design. He has a nice set of links down at the bottom, though his writings seem fairly limited so far. I was a bit surprised by this, since I think there's quite a lot of overlap that can be discussed. Perhaps we can hope for more to come?

Robert Horn has made some to do about some of those connections, and Soellner seems to pick up on some of that at least (I do appreciate his using the term "information design" as opposed to Horn's meaning of "visual language" which is vastly different from mine).

Perusing some of the links there, I will vent that one of the things that bugs me about most discussions of "comics" from information design perspectives (though, thankfully, not here) is the sheer lack of treating the visual language as any sort of language. Since ID is mainly concerned with demonstrating data or information graphically, the intuituve aspects of the visual sequence seem wholly ignored for the properties of spatial juxtaposition (as if that's all there was to it).

My sense is that most of the people talking about these sort of things come from computer interface design or information design backgrounds, yet don't have much productive fluency in this visual language of "comics." In some ways, I feel like McCloud oversold the universality of creating "comics" to the point where people feel empowered to talk about it, even when they might lack the intuitions and expertise of graphic fluency. Perhaps this can be added to the list of illusions cast by that "veil of iconicity"?

Interestingly, his last post has a quote from Dennis O'Neil amounting to saying "images plus words in comics = a language." This "images + words = language" is roughly the same as the way Horn means it too. I have never understood this sort of reasoning... why should words, already a language, plus anything-else equate to some larger language (which, ahem, doesn't seem to have real intrinsic properties like a natural language)? Though perhaps less poetic, I far prefer to be accurate by saying that the visuals might become a language that then meets up with the written to become two languages working together in a broader multimodal communicative act.

This same trend has gone through gesture research too, with some people saying that "language + gesture = language". .... "1+1=1"? Huh? Why isn't it that "language + gesture = multimodalism beyond language"? This is yet another of those papers lying half written in my computer. Someday, I swear!

Just for the kiddies

This was a final thought that never got posted on the whole "Iconic Bias" kick. I started thinking about the old "Comics are for kids" misperception related to it all. On the one hand, I think we can all agree that this belief has come in part from the selection of genres and social contexts that propagated during the rise of the industry. But, on the other hand I think that a deeper issue might also be at work: the idea that pictures as a whole are somehow simple or lesser than (spoken) language.

We even see the derision of the graphic form in our speech, in idioms like, "Do you need me to draw a picture for you?" The phrase tacitly assumes that pictures are simpler than words, and hence drawing a picture will communicate the idea in a less complicated way. Now, this consideration of drawing could be considered a good thing ("Isn't it great how simple and understandable these complex ideas are presented in drawings!"), but here the tone usually remains derogatory towards graphics.

This "simplistic" perspective could also be related to the Iconic Bias issue: "If pictures just look like what they mean, how complex is that? …because we understand pictures just like we understand real life."

In this view, again, pictures are not conceptual (no mental system). Perhaps that's why people are always flabbergasted to hear that certain people or cultures have trouble understanding certain drawings or sequences of images (which does happen), as if it tears against the very fabric of their knowledge of drawings. The classic orientalist thing to do was blame the people, as if they were substandard or primitive, instead of (gasp!) seeing that their own system might be learned to a large degree and not as transparent as one would like to think.

Pictureless Byrne

Derik was sent a great series of pages from an old Marvel Alpha Flight issue by John Byrne that uses only words in the panels. I also second his observation about the mainstream character of the pages, despite no picture content. It's also fun to see a little formalist experimentation by such a mainstream artist like Byrne. Though, come to think of it, he has played with things like this before, like with several pages of panels shown entirely from a subjective viewpoint.

Re-un-defining "Comics"

Every now and then it's good to revisit the fundamentals. I had articulated the whole division between "comics" and "visual language" fairly well in a listserve discussion awhile back, so I thought it might be worth reposting it here for any (hopefully?) new readers that might have popped up since I started the blog…

The reality is that a notion of "comics" is not entirely grounded in aspects of structure (text/image, sequential images). "Comics" are not "juxtaposed sequential images," nor are they "text/image relations." I say this because there are examples of things that people call "comics" that fit nearly every possible distribution of these elements. Comics can have...

• wordless sequential images (should be obvious)
• text integrated with sequential images (should be obvious)
• text integrated with a single image (Family Circus, etc)
• text dominating non-sequential illustrative images (Cerebus "Reads" volumes)
• a single image (instances from various newspaper strips: The Far Side, Ziggy, etc)
• text with no images at all (Kenneth Koch's The Art of the Possible: Comics Mainly without Pictures, or "Panel One" by Alexander Danner)

This is the evidence: we call instances of all these things "comics." Given that all of these examples do exist, no precise definition can capture exactly what the label "comics" encompasses. At most, we can say that these aspects fall on some sort of graded range of prototypicality for how we determine what "are" "comics."

Yet, at the same time, there are also plenty of examples in society that do fulfill these distributions, but are not called "comics" because they don't fall into the proper social context: instruction manuals, advertisements, storyboards, illustrated books, etc. If one pursues a prescriptive definition, some of these things could be called "comics" – but that isn't the common usage by speakers of English.

Given this evidence, where does that leave our definition of "comics"? It leaves it ungrounded in structural concerns, but based on a variety of socio-cultural factors, including but not limited to:

• a physical object
• a sub-culture
• an industry
• a collection of genres (superheroes at the forefront)

The result is the realization that aspects of visual creation are entirely separate from the socio-cultural notion of "comics," despite their prevalent place used in that social context. "Comics" are written in a visual language the same way that novels are written in English.

BNS, an overdue plug

Much to my surprise, Joe Zabel gives me a little hat-tip in his excellent review of Butternutsquash over at The Webcomics Examiner. Joe makes some great observations, and I wish he dissected the aesthetic qualities of even more of the strips.

To be honest, BNS may just be my favorite webcomic, and really I could (and do) include their examples in many of my projects. At one point, Joe says "Whether you refer to that quality as “closure,” “VL” or something else, Butternut Squash has got it in spades." Well, I personally just call what BNS does "good writing," which is why you should go spend an hour or so perusing their archives.

"Graphic book"

This writer discovers the troubles of labels like "graphic novel" and "illustrated book." He eventually lands on "graphic book," and using "graphic" as a general adjective – which is interesting since I proposed much the same a year ago.

Some links

Dirk sends along his interesting interactive comic blog about his adventures in Japan. He's got a really cool idea where people can send him "assignments" about exploring Japan, and then he goes out and tries to do it, then writes a comic about it afterwards. Definitely worth checking out and maybe sending him some assignments.

I've also found this site that has maps of the US showing the population distribution of various religions. Noticably absent from the listing are most all Judeo-Christian religions like Hinduism or Buddhism (and, ahem, for all you Superheroes are myths people – none of those either :-P). Given that these were compiled from data garnered by a Catholic research center, I'd guess this is omission out of cultural bias not sufficient populations of those religions. I'd think there would be at least as many Hindus as Amish. Looks like other people noticed these absences too, and added the Pastafarians.

Superheroes are not Mythology

This was originally to be a blog post, then an article, and now its back to a (rather long) blog post. I hope it stimulates some good conversation. Enjoy!

I'd like to address a common thread among comic analysis/scholarship: the belief that superheroes are modern myths. While I usually refrain from discussing "interpretive" issues like this, I can confidently say that superheroes are not modern myths in any real sense comparable to the cultural functions that myths serve.

First off, myths provide an understanding of the world for people. They can be spiritually oriented, and can give insight to daily living. This is true as much for the myths followed by people practicing the dominating religions today as it was for ancient civilizations.

Often times, people think of myths as something in contrast to the belief systems we currently have, forgetting that myths are just as much a part of modern life as they ever were. At present, we have a variety of myths that have been popular for several millennia, featuring such memorable cast members as Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, Laozi, and many other figures. These myths inform and instruct their followers (and non-followers sometimes) on how to live good lives through the stories they tell.

Granted, superheroes might inform people's lives with moralistic advice, such as Spider-Man's "With great power comes great responsibility." However, the ethics they impart are not unique to the superhero genre, and don't do so any more than other forms of literature.

The second reason that this belief is troublesome relates back to my ever pervasive interest in language. Beyond a system of beliefs, myths also provided much more for many ancient cultures, where the stories began as oral traditions and only later became written down. For these cultures, myths created a memorization system to record and pass on knowledge.

In today's literate societies, when we want to know information, we can reference a book or the Internet. In a literate society, recording of events can be done with writing, so it can be looked up at a later date. Oral cultures lack this sort of permanent and fixed record, and in its stead myths can fill the same roles.

For example, some plants are poisonous. In our society, we can record which ones are dangerous in writing to reference and pass that information on to other people. Instead, an oral tradition might use a story of some god or spirit becoming that plant -- with some aspect of the story giving the reason for why the plant is shaped as it is.

Let me make up a myth to illustrate this:

A particularly stand-off-ish woman breaks the heart of a spirit because of her "poisonous" and "sharp" tongue. Out of despondency, the spirit transforms her into a plant with pointy leaves. Thus the plant is called a "heartbreaker," and is avoided at all cost.

Myths like this are found across the globe. It not only gives a name and reason that the plant is poisonous, but also offers a way to remember the plant through a purpose for its identifying features.

This is a practical function of mythology. These stories can then be passed on orally in a package that people can remember. It is far easier to remember a series of stories than to remember a catalog of encyclopedia entries.

Superheroes do none of these things.

Sure, superheroes may be a genre with fictional reflections of our culture. But saying that they are "myths" implies that the term means just "stories" of a fantastical nature. People have often emphasized how modern narratives follow the same structures as myths, like Luke Skywalker in the Hero role popularized by Joseph Campbell. However, this only means that these modern stories draw on the same "raw materials" as myths (or the myths themselves). It doesn't mean that they are myths. Literature and myth differ to the extant that they affect people's lives.

Of course, most myths are just stories -- but the cultural context of their use makes the difference in what distinguishes them. In many ways, I think equating modern comic book superheroes to mythology denigrates the belief systems and cultures of people whose lives are or were infused with mythology. If, and only if, superheroes can serve an equal function in modern society can they be thought of as mythological.

Once you consider the practical roles myths can play to a cultural system, superheroes carte blanche do not fulfill any of the same sorts of functions. Nor should they need to. Superheroes can do just fine as a literary genre reflecting the culture we currently live in, without needlessly attempting to be legitimized through unsubstantiated comparison to other inappropriate contexts.

Matilda's Dream on WCN

So, its not exactly new to the web, but I've added my 24-hour from 1999 (!!) Matilda's Dream to my webcomicsnation site. The story is still in the same place, now just with more sites aiming to it. Perhaps more people will read it now?

Plug o' rama

So, a couple weeks ago I finished reading Crashing the Gate by Jerome Armstrong (of MyDD.com) and Markos Moulistas Zúniga (of DailyKos) and I keep meaning to comment on it. I got the prerelease edition, but hadn't been able to get to reading it for a while after I got it. It is a very well written book with great substance to our current era in American history.

In my book with Thom Hartmann, We the People, we pointed out that the only way progressive voices can compete seriously is by taking over the Democratic Party, not by flocking to third parties, which are ultimately useless in the American politcal landscape. Crashing the Gate takes that ethos and dissects the current problems found in the Democratic establishment, while laying out a strategy for making it an effective political machine. The book is clear, concise, and a must read for anyone who want an insight into the broader political establishment and what must be done to return it to the hands of the citizens.

In other items worth plugging, Tim Godek alerts me that he posted a cleaner version of his story "One Night," which I find to be very interesting theory wise. The use of so many panels in a "iconographic" fashion (clocks, moon, sun, etc) creates cool effects to the extant that they are blatantly "concepts" as opposed to "narrative increments." I'll probably find good use for it in some future paper...



Oh, and more of my own "La Belle Dame Sans Merci" is up as well.

Oh "Graphic Novel", I hardly knew ye

I was in the kid's section of a bookstore the other day looking for a stickerbook for the 5 year olds I teach, and I came across a book titled "How to draw Graphic Novels" (or something like that). Yet, when I opened up the book (clearly aimed at young kids) it was all superhero stuff. Like, egregiously superheroes. Relatedly, in a Wired Magazine article about Paul Pope's upcoming Batman series, it says "DC Comics will release the first installment of his four-issue graphic novel."

These took me by surprise because my conception of graphic novels is as book length (not serialized) works, while escaping the specter of the superhero genre. It looks like people have missed the point entirely of the "graphic novel" movement, and the term is succumbing altogether to becoming purely an upscale synonym of "comics."

Quite frankly, I'm not surprised. This is what you get when you don't invoke an entirely different frame-of-mind with your vocabulary. New term, same baggage.

Though, I'm not wholly resigned about it. The term may beat the rap if enough focus and works shift away from the stereotype in order for a new frame to really be reached. But, we'll see how much weight the major comic companies throw around to prevent that from happening...

The Antecedent

I'm always one to plug good works, especially political ones, so here's the "press release" for a new monthly strip at Comixpedia:

Bryant Paul Johnson is a very talented artist who creates a regular comic (comics are not just for kids!) called Teaching Baby Paranoia that wonderfully blends history, fiction and footnotes.

His new series The Antecedent looks at events in American history that eerily parallel current events today. The first installment "Two Fisted Shenanigans" tackled fiscal conflict of interest in the Washington administration - Jack Abramoff was not the first scoundrel in the lobbies of government. The second, just posted installment "Seditious Acts" looks at the Alien & Sedition Act in the Adams Administration - the original Patriot Act in American history.

In my book with Thom Hartmann, we bring up several parallels between older and current politics, including the Alien and Sedition Acts. Nevertheless, I encourage everyone to check out this new strip!

Sequart

I recently found Sequart.com site that professes to be "for the sophisticated study of comic books and graphic novels." The term "sequart" is meant as:

Sequart (n.) -- seh-kwart -- the artistic medium of sequential static imagery, whatever its composition, typically combined with text. The term is employed to distinguish the medium itself from particular genres and formats, such as comic books or graphic novels. "Sequart's diversity may be seen from Peanuts to Spider-Man, from product manuals to the Stations of the Cross."

So, basically they mean something close to VL (I mention my problems with the term in this article). Yet, despite their stated goal of reaching beyond genre, they almost solely focus on the mainstream and superhero comics. For instance, their book review of Superheroes and Philosophy really has nothing to do with "sequart," and everything to do with genre.

I couldn't even find much of anything on any of the major graphic novel publishers (Top Shelf, Fantagraphics, etc), while ample space is given to things like superhero continuity, etc. Concerns for webcomics are also conspicuously absent.

It is encouraging to find more intelligently written works of writing on such things on the web, even if they don't live up to their own stated pan-genre intentions.

The Character of "Comics"

Recently, one of the elementary school kids that I teach found out that I “drew comics” after she mentioned that she wanted to be an artist. What intrigued me (besides a 10 year old girl's exuberance that drawing comics was “cool”) was her first response: “Have you made up any characters?”

Its rather striking that the defining feature of comics to kids is characters, as opposed to say, drawing one’s own book or writing a story. Though, this shouldn’t be too strange, since much of the industry of comics is permeated by a recurring theme of characters – in strips, in books, etc. Unlike stories, characters provide a foundation for merchandising, which is where the real money is. Marvel’s website directly totes them as “one of the world’s most prominent character-based entertainment companies.”

Characters versus story also becomes one of the defining differences, I think, between “comics” and “graphic novels.” As a form of literature, graphic novels are more plot/story based in contrast to the characters of comics. This difference underscores the business side of things too. Whereas publishers put out stories by authors, companies put out characters as corporate properties.

While these characters may undergo storylines, the characters are always the primary draw. No one reads X-Men or Batman because the character-titled books have a specific story that someone finds appealing. Rather, they read the books continuously because they like the characters, and seeing what various “creative teams” subject them to. And this is never ending, so the product can be pushed endlessly.

In contrast, the characters in graphic novels take a backseat to the stories. They exist solely as pieces in the greater whole of the conveyed narrative. And, it's a narrative that will have a conclusion at some point.

The web scene seems to balance both of these. Strips by and large remain character driven, while experimental and "artsy" graphic novel-esque works (like Derek Kirk Kim) remain story driven.

Japan meanwhile seems to have the best of both worlds. While they do feature very strong (and marketable) characters, there is almost always a specific story path that they traverse. No matter how much of a character oriented juggernaut Pokémon is, the outline of a story dominates those characters. The characters exist because of the story and don’t stray from its constraints.

This is different from say, X-Men, which merely creates a premise for having characters. The X-Men aren’t moving along some grand storyline, they just interact based on a theme that “mutants exist in the world as a superpowered minority” (and can thereby also cameo in other off-theme books).

Personally, I’d think that this can be added to the list of reasons why manga have seen success in recent years amongst American audiences. Its easier to get readers hooked onto good stories with interesting characters than by character driven soap operas where the plot is auxiliary.