So soon, Comics Geek? Didn't we just play this a couple days ago?
Yes, but I needed to get rid of an old bugaboo.
Ooh, I think I have ointment that might do the trick!
Settle down and ask the question, you imaginary imp, you.
Spoilsport. Very well then, here's today's query: How come almost all the comics reviews I read on message boards and blogs and so forth only seem to mention the comic's writer and very rarely give any substantiveink pixels to the artist? I mean, if they're going to do that they might as well just read books rather than comics, am I right?
I'll have to agree with you 100% on this. As the wife of an artist, there's nothing more frustrating and disappointing for me than to find a review of a book on which he's worked, get all excited that Something Robin's Doing Is Being Talked About, read through it, and find absolutely no mention of either artist's name or the product of their many hours of labor. Considering artists put in way more time than writers, on average, creating a 22-page comic, this cavalier dismissal of their efforts by people who fancy themselves professional-level reviewers is borderline criminal.
My theory as to why so many online comic book reviews completely ignore the majority contribution to the product they're reviewing is that we're in the world of writers here. Blogs, message boards, even apas, they can employ illustration but the vast majority of these fan-run comic-related sites are geared towards the written word. It's what we do. So we're naturally inclined to pay attention to writers, because we can identify with them a lot more, being writers ourselves. And while there are many online reviewers who "know what they like" and don't like about comic art, and can even recognize different styles, they haven't necessarily developed (or even tried to develop) the vocabulary needed to discuss the visual component of a story the way they can discuss the written component. (Incidentally, it's not just reviewers; I've actually heard professional comic book writers insist that "comic book story equals writing" rather than "story=writing+art"!)
It's kind of the opposite of a movie review, isn't it? You don't read a lot of movie reviews that discuss the script per se, but they all talk about the actors and the direction.
Well, yes and no. They usually discuss plot believability and so forth, and that's a function of the writing even if the screenwriters' names are never mentioned. But a comic book character isn't the equivalent of a movie character. With live-action movies, the visuals are easier to talk about because the characters are being played by actual people (well, as much as actors can be considered people *rimshot*) who move and interact and show emotion. With a comic book story, as much as some fans may wish it (and as much as some reviewers like to pretend it's so), nothing on the page is real. The fictional characters don't exist independently of the artists who draw them and the writers who literally put words in their mouths.
There's not much you can do about a fan who's decided to review the characters in a comic as though they're real, ascribing thoughts and motivations to them rather than to the writers (and ascribing actions to them rather than to the artists). Admittedly, it's probably the preferred mindset for a reader to have while engaged in reading, because you want your entertainment to draw you into its world, to make you suspend your disbelief in order to follow the fantastic adventures of Harry Potter or Miss Marple or Tarzan or Dorothy or Superman or Spider-Girl. But that falls under the category of whether you enjoyed the work rather than how well the work was done, and it seems to me that a reviewer's obligation ought to be to consider the latter as well as the former.
As an example, rather than opining "Hey, Dick Grayson is acting out of character!" a reviewer should probably observe something along the lines of "I don't think such-and-such writer's or artist's characterization of Dick Grayson is consistent with the way other writers or artists have depicted him before," only less wordy. In this instance, Dick is acknowledged as a fictional character with no existence other than that with which actual creative people imbue him; therefore, it's the efforts of those actual people that a review ought to discuss. And they usually discuss only one of those actual people, the writer.
So how do you develop a vocabulary to discuss art? If you're not, you know, married to it.
Robin and I weren't married when I first started doing my weekly comic book reviews on Usenet and CompuServe In fact, I was hardly doing reviews at all any more after we got married, because I also had a job that didn't leave me with much energy for creativity then, later, a blog to maintain daily. But while I was reviewing I was also corresponding with lots of comics pros, talking with them at conventions, etc. And I educated myself as to how to recognize what the artists did and, to an extent, how they did it. I learned how to spot differences in drawing style. I learned that you don't need extensive technical knowledge to say snarky things like "this looks like it was inked with the back end of a Sharpie," you just need to be able to observe the lines on the page, the composition, the visual flow. It just takes a little bit of time and attention, like most things worthwhile.
So who does this well? Besides all-knowing you, obviously.
Speaking of snarky... Well, while I don't have time to read too many comics reviews now that I'm out of that scene, I've been impressed with Lisa Fortuner's occasional forays into analysis of Neal Adams panels. It's always a treat to see a fan rediscover Neal. Beyond that, I'd say that any reviewer who actually acknowledges the existence of the artists in reviewing a book they've drawn deserves more attention than a reviewer who only talks about the writing, as they're one-up already in that respect. Extra points, as always, for any reviewer who gives them more than a one-sentence mention. Mega-bonus points for any reviewer who understands that--
Ooh, I know, that pencillers and inkers are both artists, and knows enough about what each artificial-subdivision-of-labour does to be able to discuss it! But what about coloring and lettering? They're done by creative people as well.
They sure are, but here's where we get into more artificial subdivisions as well as a highly opinionated area as to whether coloring and lettering are more a function of production than of story. That their purveyors are (or should be) skilled and talented should not be in question. Now I personally tend to see lettering and coloring, and even editing, as important components of a comic that are far more noticeable if they're done badly; in other words, I believe that the function of the editor and colorist and letterer is not to stand out, and insofar as those things don't jump out at you they've done their job correctly. If you're a reviewer who likes all the stuff that bothers me (letters too small to read in indoor light, fonts too fancy to be legible, paper so glossy it hurts the eyes, "showoff effects" that do nothing to add to the story), then of course your mileage may vary.
Can I go now? You've been typing this for over three hours, on and off.
Sure. Just one more thing. If you have favorite reviewers who actually do their complete "job" and discuss art in their reviews, feel free to leave names and links in the comment section.
Yes, but I needed to get rid of an old bugaboo.
Ooh, I think I have ointment that might do the trick!
Settle down and ask the question, you imaginary imp, you.
Spoilsport. Very well then, here's today's query: How come almost all the comics reviews I read on message boards and blogs and so forth only seem to mention the comic's writer and very rarely give any substantive
I'll have to agree with you 100% on this. As the wife of an artist, there's nothing more frustrating and disappointing for me than to find a review of a book on which he's worked, get all excited that Something Robin's Doing Is Being Talked About, read through it, and find absolutely no mention of either artist's name or the product of their many hours of labor. Considering artists put in way more time than writers, on average, creating a 22-page comic, this cavalier dismissal of their efforts by people who fancy themselves professional-level reviewers is borderline criminal.
My theory as to why so many online comic book reviews completely ignore the majority contribution to the product they're reviewing is that we're in the world of writers here. Blogs, message boards, even apas, they can employ illustration but the vast majority of these fan-run comic-related sites are geared towards the written word. It's what we do. So we're naturally inclined to pay attention to writers, because we can identify with them a lot more, being writers ourselves. And while there are many online reviewers who "know what they like" and don't like about comic art, and can even recognize different styles, they haven't necessarily developed (or even tried to develop) the vocabulary needed to discuss the visual component of a story the way they can discuss the written component. (Incidentally, it's not just reviewers; I've actually heard professional comic book writers insist that "comic book story equals writing" rather than "story=writing+art"!)
It's kind of the opposite of a movie review, isn't it? You don't read a lot of movie reviews that discuss the script per se, but they all talk about the actors and the direction.
Well, yes and no. They usually discuss plot believability and so forth, and that's a function of the writing even if the screenwriters' names are never mentioned. But a comic book character isn't the equivalent of a movie character. With live-action movies, the visuals are easier to talk about because the characters are being played by actual people (well, as much as actors can be considered people *rimshot*) who move and interact and show emotion. With a comic book story, as much as some fans may wish it (and as much as some reviewers like to pretend it's so), nothing on the page is real. The fictional characters don't exist independently of the artists who draw them and the writers who literally put words in their mouths.
There's not much you can do about a fan who's decided to review the characters in a comic as though they're real, ascribing thoughts and motivations to them rather than to the writers (and ascribing actions to them rather than to the artists). Admittedly, it's probably the preferred mindset for a reader to have while engaged in reading, because you want your entertainment to draw you into its world, to make you suspend your disbelief in order to follow the fantastic adventures of Harry Potter or Miss Marple or Tarzan or Dorothy or Superman or Spider-Girl. But that falls under the category of whether you enjoyed the work rather than how well the work was done, and it seems to me that a reviewer's obligation ought to be to consider the latter as well as the former.
As an example, rather than opining "Hey, Dick Grayson is acting out of character!" a reviewer should probably observe something along the lines of "I don't think such-and-such writer's or artist's characterization of Dick Grayson is consistent with the way other writers or artists have depicted him before," only less wordy. In this instance, Dick is acknowledged as a fictional character with no existence other than that with which actual creative people imbue him; therefore, it's the efforts of those actual people that a review ought to discuss. And they usually discuss only one of those actual people, the writer.
So how do you develop a vocabulary to discuss art? If you're not, you know, married to it.
Robin and I weren't married when I first started doing my weekly comic book reviews on Usenet and CompuServe In fact, I was hardly doing reviews at all any more after we got married, because I also had a job that didn't leave me with much energy for creativity then, later, a blog to maintain daily. But while I was reviewing I was also corresponding with lots of comics pros, talking with them at conventions, etc. And I educated myself as to how to recognize what the artists did and, to an extent, how they did it. I learned how to spot differences in drawing style. I learned that you don't need extensive technical knowledge to say snarky things like "this looks like it was inked with the back end of a Sharpie," you just need to be able to observe the lines on the page, the composition, the visual flow. It just takes a little bit of time and attention, like most things worthwhile.
So who does this well? Besides all-knowing you, obviously.
Speaking of snarky... Well, while I don't have time to read too many comics reviews now that I'm out of that scene, I've been impressed with Lisa Fortuner's occasional forays into analysis of Neal Adams panels. It's always a treat to see a fan rediscover Neal. Beyond that, I'd say that any reviewer who actually acknowledges the existence of the artists in reviewing a book they've drawn deserves more attention than a reviewer who only talks about the writing, as they're one-up already in that respect. Extra points, as always, for any reviewer who gives them more than a one-sentence mention. Mega-bonus points for any reviewer who understands that--
Ooh, I know, that pencillers and inkers are both artists, and knows enough about what each artificial-subdivision-of-labour does to be able to discuss it! But what about coloring and lettering? They're done by creative people as well.
They sure are, but here's where we get into more artificial subdivisions as well as a highly opinionated area as to whether coloring and lettering are more a function of production than of story. That their purveyors are (or should be) skilled and talented should not be in question. Now I personally tend to see lettering and coloring, and even editing, as important components of a comic that are far more noticeable if they're done badly; in other words, I believe that the function of the editor and colorist and letterer is not to stand out, and insofar as those things don't jump out at you they've done their job correctly. If you're a reviewer who likes all the stuff that bothers me (letters too small to read in indoor light, fonts too fancy to be legible, paper so glossy it hurts the eyes, "showoff effects" that do nothing to add to the story), then of course your mileage may vary.
Can I go now? You've been typing this for over three hours, on and off.
Sure. Just one more thing. If you have favorite reviewers who actually do their complete "job" and discuss art in their reviews, feel free to leave names and links in the comment section.
0 comments:
Post a Comment