Comments on: Defining Comics Again: Another in the Long List of Unnecessarily Complicated Definitions http://classic.tcj.com/top-stories/defining-comics-again-another-in-the-long-list-of-unnecessarily-complicated-definitions/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=defining-comics-again-another-in-the-long-list-of-unnecessarily-complicated-definitions The Comics Journal is a magazine that covers the comics medium from an arts-first perspective. Fri, 04 Mar 2011 23:56:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: angus77 http://classic.tcj.com/top-stories/defining-comics-again-another-in-the-long-list-of-unnecessarily-complicated-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-2186 angus77 Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:39:50 +0000 http://www.tcj.com/?p=26859#comment-2186 I think you meant we know "comics" when we see them, rather than "cartooning". Of course we do. But defining them in terms that are not universal to the medium isn't going to lead anywhere. I remember seeing kids in comic shops back in the '80s who were disgusted to see a B&W comic on the rack (I think it was Usagi Yojimbo---they called it a "colouring book"---not a *real* comic!). Obviously they had seen B&W strips in the newspapers before, but had defined comics for themselves as being "usually colourful", as millions once did (one of the traditional stereotypes of American comics was their garish colours, no? Which was also their appeal to millions). Who would have thought that B&W comics would become so prevalent (especially with the manga boom) when they had once been *expected* to be in colour? To the point where Marvel felt they *had* to colourize Akira in order to get people to buy it? And while we're at it---what makes Frank different from a rebus? It sure ain't the dialogue! I think you meant we know “comics” when we see them, rather than “cartooning”. Of course we do. But defining them in terms that are not universal to the medium isn’t going to lead anywhere. I remember seeing kids in comic shops back in the ’80s who were disgusted to see a B&W comic on the rack (I think it was Usagi Yojimbo—they called it a “colouring book”—not a *real* comic!). Obviously they had seen B&W strips in the newspapers before, but had defined comics for themselves as being “usually colourful”, as millions once did (one of the traditional stereotypes of American comics was their garish colours, no? Which was also their appeal to millions). Who would have thought that B&W comics would become so prevalent (especially with the manga boom) when they had once been *expected* to be in colour? To the point where Marvel felt they *had* to colourize Akira in order to get people to buy it?

And while we’re at it—what makes Frank different from a rebus? It sure ain’t the dialogue!

]]> By: R.C. Harvey http://classic.tcj.com/top-stories/defining-comics-again-another-in-the-long-list-of-unnecessarily-complicated-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-2182 R.C. Harvey Thu, 30 Dec 2010 13:43:56 +0000 http://www.tcj.com/?p=26859#comment-2182 Yours is a hypothetical not worth pursuing. Pantomime strips are not likely to become "usual." And if they did, we'd need a new description (definition). And, yes, my description is pretty flexible. But we know cartooning when we see it, eh? When we see it, it almost always includes words as well as pictures, and that's what makes cartooning different from a rebus. Yours is a hypothetical not worth pursuing. Pantomime strips are not likely to become “usual.” And if they did, we’d need a new description (definition). And, yes, my description is pretty flexible. But we know cartooning when we see it, eh? When we see it, it almost always includes words as well as pictures, and that’s what makes cartooning different from a rebus.

]]> By: angus77 http://classic.tcj.com/top-stories/defining-comics-again-another-in-the-long-list-of-unnecessarily-complicated-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-2181 angus77 Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:45:59 +0000 http://www.tcj.com/?p=26859#comment-2181 By that token, "usually" would mean that you could include *anything* not already explicitly included. Talk about a "flexible" definition! It also doesn't answer the question I posed---what if pantomime *did* become usual? If you drop the bit about words from your definition (as you would have to), you're left with "pictorial narratives or expositions". By that token, “usually” would mean that you could include *anything* not already explicitly included. Talk about a “flexible” definition! It also doesn’t answer the question I posed—what if pantomime *did* become usual? If you drop the bit about words from your definition (as you would have to), you’re left with “pictorial narratives or expositions”.

]]> By: R.C. Harvey http://classic.tcj.com/top-stories/defining-comics-again-another-in-the-long-list-of-unnecessarily-complicated-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-2176 R.C. Harvey Tue, 28 Dec 2010 03:44:44 +0000 http://www.tcj.com/?p=26859#comment-2176 To AACRO: Seems to me that a diagram is an image. But if by diagram you mean "layout," as you seem to, then we're talking about "strip format," "panel breakdown," etc. That's part of the image, but it also contributes something over-and-above image to the mix. I'll have to ponder that one some more. To Ian: I'm not excluding wordless comic strips; read my essay again. To Angus: In my description, I think I say that comics "usually" consist of.... certain elements. "Usually" doesn't mean "always"; so my description would include pantomime comics. To Leoc: Good point. The "time" that passes in a single panel while a character of characters is/are talking is a fascinating phenomenon in comics, no question. I don't think it can bridge the gap between my notion and Scott's, but the idea that time can be made to "pass" in a single panel image is provocative and worth further, er, study. Thanks, all, for making me think some more. To AACRO: Seems to me that a diagram is an image. But if by diagram you mean “layout,” as you seem to, then we’re talking about “strip format,” “panel breakdown,” etc. That’s part of the image, but it also contributes something over-and-above image to the mix. I’ll have to ponder that one some more.
To Ian: I’m not excluding wordless comic strips; read my essay again.
To Angus: In my description, I think I say that comics “usually” consist of…. certain elements. “Usually” doesn’t mean “always”; so my description would include pantomime comics.
To Leoc: Good point. The “time” that passes in a single panel while a character of characters is/are talking is a fascinating phenomenon in comics, no question. I don’t think it can bridge the gap between my notion and Scott’s, but the idea that time can be made to “pass” in a single panel image is provocative and worth further, er, study.
Thanks, all, for making me think some more.

]]> By: Blog@Newsarama » Blog Archive » Linkarama@Newsarama http://classic.tcj.com/top-stories/defining-comics-again-another-in-the-long-list-of-unnecessarily-complicated-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-2154 Blog@Newsarama » Blog Archive » Linkarama@Newsarama Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:30:15 +0000 http://www.tcj.com/?p=26859#comment-2154 [...] Two think-pieces of note: At Graphic Novel Reporter, Brigid Alverson discusses “The Pitfalls of Age Ratings,” while at The Comics Journal R.C. Harvey tries “Defining Comics Again.” [...] [...] Two think-pieces of note: At Graphic Novel Reporter, Brigid Alverson discusses “The Pitfalls of Age Ratings,” while at The Comics Journal R.C. Harvey tries “Defining Comics Again.” [...]

]]> By: leoc http://classic.tcj.com/top-stories/defining-comics-again-another-in-the-long-list-of-unnecessarily-complicated-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-2138 leoc Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:14:37 +0000 http://www.tcj.com/?p=26859#comment-2138 I think part of the vitality you describe in comics is down to the curious sense of time passing intra- and inter-panel. Surely one of the key functions a speech bubble performs is to modify our perception of a still image so that it is no longer a ‘photographic’ instant but a period—however short—in time. Is this a way to marry the reader’s sense of what a comic in your definition and Scott’s? Pictures can capture the passage of time either through being sequential in themselves or by containing something that must by its nature take place in time. Speech balloons are simply the most common version of this, blur marks would be another etc. I think part of the vitality you describe in comics is down to the curious sense of time passing intra- and inter-panel. Surely one of the key functions a speech bubble performs is to modify our perception of a still image so that it is no longer a ‘photographic’ instant but a period—however short—in time.

Is this a way to marry the reader’s sense of what a comic in your definition and Scott’s? Pictures can capture the passage of time either through being sequential in themselves or by containing something that must by its nature take place in time. Speech balloons are simply the most common version of this, blur marks would be another etc.

]]> By: angus77 http://classic.tcj.com/top-stories/defining-comics-again-another-in-the-long-list-of-unnecessarily-complicated-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-2136 angus77 Tue, 21 Dec 2010 08:38:38 +0000 http://www.tcj.com/?p=26859#comment-2136 Comics that were longer than 30 pages or so were "not usual" a generation or two ago, either. Will you update your definition if we have a generation that decides pantomime is the "thing to do", the way that autobio was the "thing to do" a generation ago? Comics that were longer than 30 pages or so were “not usual” a generation or two ago, either. Will you update your definition if we have a generation that decides pantomime is the “thing to do”, the way that autobio was the “thing to do” a generation ago?

]]> By: Ian @ Trade Reading Order http://classic.tcj.com/top-stories/defining-comics-again-another-in-the-long-list-of-unnecessarily-complicated-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-2135 Ian @ Trade Reading Order Tue, 21 Dec 2010 01:32:02 +0000 http://www.tcj.com/?p=26859#comment-2135 See, my problem is that it REALLY isn't necessary for there to be words for there to be comics. If there are even Batman comics out there without words (and there are, one of my absolute favorites from my childhood was an almost completely wordless issue - and all those pages before the single word were still very much comics.) how can we exclude them with this definition? See, my problem is that it REALLY isn’t necessary for there to be words for there to be comics.

If there are even Batman comics out there without words (and there are, one of my absolute favorites from my childhood was an almost completely wordless issue – and all those pages before the single word were still very much comics.) how can we exclude them with this definition?

]]> By: AACRO http://classic.tcj.com/top-stories/defining-comics-again-another-in-the-long-list-of-unnecessarily-complicated-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-2131 AACRO Mon, 20 Dec 2010 09:11:49 +0000 http://www.tcj.com/?p=26859#comment-2131 I mostly agree with you that it's the visual verbal blend/synergy that defines a comic, but your definiton is incomplete for me. I personally see comics as the blend of three forms of communication, text, image, and diagram defined as a layout that collectively illustrates one or more narratives. So along with the visual and verbal we also must also acknowledge the scematic elements of comics. I mostly agree with you that it’s the visual verbal blend/synergy that defines a comic, but your definiton is incomplete for me. I personally see comics as the blend of three forms of communication, text, image, and diagram defined as a layout that collectively illustrates one or more narratives.
So along with the visual and verbal we also must also acknowledge the scematic elements of comics.

]]>