BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Creation >

Comics dogme

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
sleazenation
10:52 / 14.12.02
In the comics forum boyinasuitcase wrote:

Young Turk Shitslinging Contest:

Here is what I think comics need in the future. This is what I'm working on right now:

1. The return of thought bubbles, goddamnit.
2. A step away from widescreen, like people have been saying. Comics need to stop emulating movies and start doing what only they can do. I'm sick of seeing Jerry Bruckheimer-type comics.
3. Much more information packed into the page.
4. A turn away from the mainstream. Morrison, Millar, Moore, etc. have been all up on the mainstream recently, and have been saying that the mainstream is where it's at, where they can get visibility for their "message." But, basically, they're old sell-outs. Fuck that, man, I don't want my storytelling neutered in any way. Maybe we should start new companies.
5. No more spookiness or magic for magic's sake. We've all been told all about it by the last generation. We all should use it and incorporate it into our comics, but it should be invisible, right under the surface. I don't want my comics to be boring theoretical exegesises, and I'm sick of the symbolism and kinds of stories generated by the straight occult approach. You don't need to have the comic be about magic to have it be magic.
6. No more comics influenced by Bill Hicks, love him to death as I might.
7. No more nostalgia.
8. No more comics that are just riffs on comics history.
9. No more goddamn goth comics. Somebody burn down Slave Labor (but not until me & Nelson publish our comic there!)

Maybe we should start some kind of Dogme 95 for comics, because nobody's going to save the medium except us.

So, how about it?

I like the above manifesto- is there anything anyone would add/ dissagree with?

Secondly - Whose up for creating short strips that comply with a manifesto?

The Jenny Everywhere collaborative comic got a few people creating comic strips - now who wants to play with the form?
 
 
Eloi Tsabaoth
12:24 / 14.12.02
Dogmics? Hmm...
Only thing I'd disagree with is the spookiness. Spookiness is always great. Apart from that, I'd love to give this a go, if only because it proposes adding as well as subtracting elements to comics.
 
 
moriarty
14:02 / 14.12.02
Did you want this to closely resemble Dogme, or is this a completely different thing? I'm assuming the latter, since today's comics are probably more Dogme than what you're proposing (ex. thought bubbles). For comparison, the Dogme Vow of Chastity.

1. The return of thought bubbles, goddamnit.

Would this be mandatory? Or would this, along with sound effects, be something that was only encouraged?

2. A step away from widescreen, like people have been saying. Comics need to stop emulating movies and start doing what only they can do. I'm sick of seeing Jerry Bruckheimer-type comics.

Define "widescreen". Would this include any and all widescreen-like panels, or are you talking about the kind of action-film happenings that occur within the panels?

3. Much more information packed into the page.

Define "information". Do you just mean lots of words? I can kind of understand the concern that comics aren't as dense and take less time to read, but there are many books that don't have a lot of words but are still incredibly dense works, especially if you appreciate comics itself as a language.

4. A turn away from the mainstream. Morrison, Millar, Moore, etc. have been all up on the mainstream recently, and have been saying that the mainstream is where it's at, where they can get visibility for their "message." But, basically, they're old sell-outs. Fuck that, man, I don't want my storytelling neutered in any way. Maybe we should start new companies.

Mainstream packaging or mainstream sensibilities? All things considered, the former shouldn't be a problem, but you'd have to define the latter to make it work. Would you throw away all genre, like Dogme does? Or are you talking about superheroes? Or something else entirely?

5. No more spookiness or magic for magic's sake. We've all been told all about it by the last generation. We all should use it and incorporate it into our comics, but it should be invisible, right under the surface. I don't want my comics to be boring theoretical exegesises, and I'm sick of the symbolism and kinds of stories generated by the straight occult approach. You don't need to have the comic be about magic to have it be magic.

I really don't know enough about magic. This, too, sounds like it could be close to the spirit of Dogme films, so long as there was no overt magick acts.

6. No more comics influenced by Bill Hicks, love him to death as I might.

I know less about Bill Hicks than I do about magick.

7. No more nostalgia.

Tricky. This would have to include such things as early Vertigo and Deadline comics. Not to mention, well, pretty much all genre.

8. No more comics that are just riffs on comics history.

Fair enough. To narrow it down, do you mean comics that riff off of older comics (which is really just #8 again) or comics that actually deal with comic industry history?

9. No more goddamn goth comics. Somebody burn down Slave Labor (but not until me & Nelson publish our comic there!)

If you're going to get rid of one genre (can goth really be considered a genre?), then you should probably get rid of them all.

The thing is, while I think that this would be a worthwhile project, I don't really understand most of the problems cited, like goth comics. Sure, it's just a rant, but if you don't like goth comics, don't read them. Same goes with most of the points above. There are plenty of comics available that do some or many of the things listed.

Not that that should stop this idea. I think a collective that agrees on a particular manifesto and abides by it would be very cool. Please don't see my comments as a critique of the entire project. But if you are going to do something like this, you will have to either be very specific or very, very strict. Otherwise you'll be getting a whole load of comics that twist the rules and avoid the spirit of the thing.
 
 
Eloi Tsabaoth
14:16 / 14.12.02
After further consideration, Prof. James is right. The rules need to be clear and concise, but not restrictive. Dos, rather than Do Nots.
Of course, the whole exercise could be seen as a bit PR driven, like the dull as dunnywater 'All Hail The New Puritans' fictionspuff. We need to concentrate on experimentation and fun, goddamnit, like an elaborate game. Damn, this is good coffee.
 
 
Boy in a Suitcase
20:54 / 14.12.02
OK, let me preface this by saying that, yeah, that was a rant. The Dogme 95 thing I threw on the end was really an afterthought and not related to the previous stuff. But let me back up what I'm saying here:

1. The return of thought bubbles, goddamnit.

Only encouraged. Thought bubbles seem to have been edited out as a tool; creators seem to want to make their comics more and more like film storyboards. They're just one of those things that only comics can do, and there's no reason to have a de facto ban on them.

Of course, we would need to have more realistic "internal dialogue."

2. A step away from widescreen, like people have been saying. Comics need to stop emulating movies and start doing what only they can do. I'm sick of seeing Jerry Bruckheimer-type comics.

I mean, no more of these long Warren Ellis-style action sequences with no dialogue and lots of stuff blowing up. I would like more things implied between the gutters than explicity shown.

3. Much more information packed into the page.

Information in terms of novelty. I.e., you should have to carefully process each comic page instead of just seeing easily explainable fight sequences or whatever.

4. A turn away from the mainstream. Morrison, Millar, Moore, etc. have been all up on the mainstream recently, and have been saying that the mainstream is where it's at, where they can get visibility for their "message." But, basically, they're old sell-outs. Fuck that, man, I don't want my storytelling neutered in any way. Maybe we should start new companies.

I'm just saying that most of the talent had abandoned the underground, and there needs to be a new underground, that's all.

5. No more spookiness or magic for magic's sake. We've all been told all about it by the last generation. We all should use it and incorporate it into our comics, but it should be invisible, right under the surface. I don't want my comics to be boring theoretical exegesises, and I'm sick of the symbolism and kinds of stories generated by the straight occult approach. You don't need to have the comic be about magic to have it be magic.

OK, let me be specific about how I see magic actually used in comics:
a) Inclusion of sigils, and sigils can be constructed from anything, they don't have to be little scribbles; they can take the form of a bit of dialogue or a character's actions or movements, etc.
b) Deliberate blurring of fantasy and reality in the hopes that information from the "fantasy" world will cross over and have an effect in the "real" world.
c) Inclusion of thought-viruses.
d) Use of magical correspondences from something like Crowley's 777 to provoke a subconscious reaction.
e) Stories about shamanic trials or initiations, which don't necessarily have to have any overt occult content whatsoever.
These are all good, just don't make it clear that that's what you're doing, because then it won't be absorbed by the reader as well and will quickly become more occult genre pablum.

6. No more comics influenced by Bill Hicks, love him to death as I might.

Bill Hicks was a comedian from the early nineties who died of pancreatic cancer. He was much beloved by the English crop of Vertigo writers. His influence is most clearly seen in characters like Jesse Custer, Spider Jerusalem, and Jenny Sparks: chain-smoking, cynical, hateful, martyr-like "I'm gonna tell it like it is" types. There is also a bit of Harlan Ellison's essays in these characters, but Bill Hicks is the most obvious source. These characters bore me to death.

7. No more nostalgia.

I think that if comics are to get more mainstream attention (iffy), they need to speak to the lives of average chain bookstore-perusing suburbanites, not the lives of shut-in comic hoarders. That's all–the source material for comics increasingly needs to come from real life.

8. No more comics that are just riffs on comics history.

I'm just sick of the Alan Moore/Warren Ellis approach of repackaging characters and styles from the 50s or 60s in new contexts (see Planetary, Tom Strong, etc.) I think it can work when done well (see a lot of the strips from Eightball), but it usually just makes the comic inscrutable.

9. No more goddamn goth comics. Somebody burn down Slave Labor (but not until me & Nelson publish our comic there!)

Meaning no more of this cutesy JTHM-inspired crap like Gloom Cookie, Lenore, etc. I mean, I grew up a mall-brat goth, I loved JTHM, but this crap is just terrible, and it seems to be clinging on and eating up most of the small press.

Again, these are just my personal preferances. If we actually wanted to do some kind of Dogme 95 for comics, I agree that it would have to be very strict. I think it would be best as a way to force originality by having rules against all the old tactics of comics, against everything that's on the market today. A Vow of Chastity would be a good diversity generator.
 
 
grant
21:12 / 14.12.02
So non-cynical thinkers who aren't into ritual reality modification and Eldritch Rites of Darkness, then?
 
 
Perfect Tommy
22:43 / 14.12.02
I think that an important part of a manifesto would be that the work produced should actually *use* the powers of comics, rather than just being a two-person play with drawings, or on the other end of the spectrum, a Hollywood blockbuster on paper instead of film.

So, what are the reasons to do something in comics form?

DENSITY
Large amounts of information can be presented at once. Narration can run concurrently with dialogue can run concurrently with internal monologue can run concurrently with action--or multiple actions! This ought to be exploited.

JUXTAPOSITION
Related to density. These things are all interacting on the page--the page as a whole, and each panel. Word against word, picture against picture, word against picture. This ought to be exploited.

SPEED
In comics, there's no epic turnaround time like for a movie or TV show, yet it doesn't seem like current comics have much in the way of topicality. Casting, mise en scene, and special effects all begin to happen the moment that pen hits paper--this should be exploited.

As for story restrictions and history lessons: I think that the problem is that the comics are either Deconstructive (Watchmen) or Nostalgic (X-Men). There's way too much riffing on the form of superhero comics, either lovingly or piss-takingly. Playing with the form is cute and all, but it's also stagnant. We're finished with all that for now.
 
 
dlotemp
22:44 / 14.12.02
I think this is a great topic because I too have felt that comics seem closer to mediocraty, which is surprising when you have people like Morrison, Mignola, Clowes, Los Bros Herandez, Jason Lutes, and many others producing some fine work. I still buy an occassional superhero book but most seem so flat to me. Novelty has disappeared from many of them and I wish the field was invigorated a bit more. I share many of moriarty's feelings and he should be commended for his efforts over on the COLLECTIVE COMIC PROJECT thread to stimulate creativity. In some ways, it's as interesting an application of comic creation as a manifesto, but without the self-imposed limitations.

One of the things I want to comment on is your seventh point.
>>
7. No more nostalgia.

I think that if comics are to get more mainstream attention (iffy), they need to speak to the lives of average chain bookstore-perusing suburbanites, not the lives of shut-in comic hoarders. That's all–the source material for comics increasingly needs to come from real life.<<

I've often thought that comics need to move away from the fantastic and towards the quotidian if they want to grab the bigger audience streams. I feel that most contemporary creators have lost or miss the visual language need to grasp the daily life and gripes which perplex us. Or maybe I'm not reading the right comics.

Anyway, here's my suggestion regarding the manifesto that rifes on the seventh point.

7.A Addendum -

Characters, settings and topics must be culled only from the creator's immediate environment, including but not limited to their residence, vehicle or city. Issues affecting a larger scale, like national or international, can be discussed but only in the context of how it affects the locality. The creator becomes a servant to her surrounding, discovering the human drama existing around her and giving it form.
 
 
Jack Fear
22:56 / 14.12.02
So, a new glut of shit-dull autobiographical comics about people to whom nothing happens, then, hm?

Yay.

There aren't enough of those already, no sir.
 
 
Tamayyurt
22:57 / 14.12.02
grant- So non-cynical thinkers who aren't into ritual reality modification and Eldritch Rites of Darkness, then?

Isn't that Superman?
 
 
dj kali_ma
00:31 / 15.12.02
(Warning: This is potentially going to yank some chains. I honestly don't mean to offend.)

I think comics as a medium might not have much more to offer than it already has. There's cliches of all kinds in all genres, including the stuff you see from different countries (though I do love the old style Tijuana bibles, the gore comics from Mexico, and some of the rather banal OL stuff from Japan).

There's nothing new that can be done. I think comics might have had a longer lifespan if it weren't for the whole chromium-age, #0 fad.

I'd like to see more comics that didn't cater only to "standard" (read: geeky Western male) sensibilities, but geeky Western males are mostly who actually buys comics, and I don't think it might change all that much. Heaven love people like Ariel Schrag and Roberta Gregory and Julie Doucet and all those people, but this is a rather small section of the comic industry, and accolades aside, I don't think these very talented people are getting rich at all in the way that, say, Rob Liefeld is.

Just some random thoughts.

::a::
 
 
dlotemp
01:31 / 15.12.02
Jack Fear:

I feel your pain. While my addendum could create those types of comics, they're definitely not what I intended. I agree that there was a lot of dreck published along those lines but I feel like most comics have lost their humanity. One example, that breaks my addendum, is BERLIN by Jason Lutes, which I think is a brilliant piece of work that carries a heavy humanity within it.

Obviously, my addendum has some holes in it. I share your dread for "shit-dull autobiographical comics about people to whom nothing happens. " Been there, read them, and wondered why I spent the money.

I guess I should add that my intent was the stories - 1) shouldn't be autobiographical; the author can not be a character, and 2) the story should be engaging and dramatic. The point is to have the work engage the locality and force the creator to examine the immediate world around them for drama. Almost to become journalists.
 
 
Perfect Tommy
02:06 / 15.12.02
No offense meant, but I think that you're reading too much into the original DOGME '95 rules. If we don't exploit the potential for the fantastic in comics, why not just do plays?
 
 
sleazenation
10:27 / 15.12.02
well quite...

i was thinking what might be the implications of 'pure comics' - some of the focus for the dogme manifest comes out of the material constraints of making a film - what are the material constraints of making comics? is the division of labour between an artist and writer a fundermental infidelity to the process of creating a comic?

And yes while certain tropes and genres dominate the medium to what I think can be an unhelpful extent
they also play to one of comics key strengths - that they can create a spectacle, that anything imagined can be realised on paper in a form more direct and in your face than just words on the page with few of the financial limitations faced by film.

So, as jack rightly says any attempt to fully close the door on genre also runs the risk of ignoring on of comics key strengths.

With regards to 'pure' comics, I am reminded of something cartoonist Sue Coe said in the documentary comicbook confidential - taht all comics are propaganda and it is only the essense of that propaganda that can be debated. That basically comics can be the cheapest, most immediate and most effective form of media - they can be produced by a single individual, photocopied and handedout on street corners. In more recent years the internet has somewhat erroded some elements of their primacy in this field but comics still have those strengths.
 
 
rizla mission
15:15 / 15.12.02
Another view:

I haven't read the Dogme 95 manifesto, so I might have it all wrong, but in view of the films it produced, I was under the impression that central to the idea was a kind of militant lo-fi aesthetic .. sort of a filmed on cam-corder, semi-improvised thing?

Thus, when I saw the title of this thread I immediately thought: drawn on computer paper with only a biro, and no script.

Which obviously people like me do already, but I think the results could be really interesting if some really talented / professional comics people went for it..
 
 
Jack Fear
17:47 / 15.12.02
For reference: The Dogme 95 "Vow of Chastity," as found at the website

"I swear to submit to the following set of rules drawn up and confirmed by DOGME 95:

1. Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).

2. The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot).

3. The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place where the camera is standing; shooting must take place where the film takes place).

4. The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).

5. Optical work and filters are forbidden.

6. The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)

7. Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)

8. Genre movies are not acceptable.

9. The film format must be Academy 35 mm.

10. The director must not be credited.

Furthermore I swear as a director to refrain from personal taste! I am no longer an artist. I swear to refrain from creating a "work", as I regard the instant as more important than the whole. My supreme goal is to force the truth out of my characters and settings. I swear to do so by all the means available and at the cost of any good taste and any aesthetic considerations.

Thus I make my VOW OF CHASTITY."
 
 
sleazenation
18:49 / 15.12.02
Yes the vow of chastity as it relates to comics is inherantly unuseful since it is tailored to the idiosyncrasies of cinema - however the idea of purifying the form is something i think might be profitable to explore - as i posted above i'm not entirely sure what that wuld mean as far as comics go. Perhaps the 24 hour comics challenge that alreay exists is already the comics equivelent of a dogme manifesto.
 
 
Jack Fear
20:08 / 15.12.02
I don't know that the Dogme vow is necessarily "inherently unuseful" or even inapplicable to comics, Sleaze: certainly these rules

The [story] must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)

Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the [story] takes place here and now.)

Genre [stories] are not acceptable....

The [creator/s] must not be credited.

...could be applied to the comics medium with ease.

With a bit of imagination, this rule

Optical work and filters are forbidden

...could be taken to mean that such common tricks as photostatted panels, digital manipulation of drawings, and computer-enhanced art would be out.

Similarly, this...

The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot).

...could be taken to mnean that only dialogue and sound effects are permissible, and that thought balloons, internal monologue, and all forms of captioning would be banned.

But what are we to make of the closing statement, the heart and soul of the manifesto?

...I regard the instant as more important than the whole. My supreme goal is to force the truth out of my characters and settings.

This, is, as Sleaze says, tailored to the idiosyncrasies (and especially to the collaborative nature) of film. What are the idiosyncrasies of comics that could be codified in manifesto form? Is a writer/artist team acceptable, or must the comic be the work of a single creator? Is cartooning okay, or should the manifesto stipulate a naturalistic style for the drawing? Do we forbid the drawing of anything invisible to the naked eye in the midst of the action (extreme or microscopic close-ups, helicopter-style "God shots")?

Would such stipulations be unnecessarily heavy-handed restrictions on the artistic imagination?
 
 
moriarty
20:42 / 15.12.02
So, a new glut of shit-dull autobiographical comics about people to whom nothing happens, then, hm?

Yeah, like Love and Rockets, Ghost World, It's a Good Life If You Don't Weaken, Pounded, My New York Diary, Couscous Express, St. Swithin's Day, and loads more. In comics, this kind of work (the type described by dlotemp's addendum) is in the minority, and it needn't be auto-biographical. In literature it's the norm. I don't see how his idea is a bad one, and I was about to say something similar, if not more awkward and lengthier. The point of the Dogme vow, as I see it, is to force the director and actors to focus more on the fictional characteristics and plots of their stories by taking away some of their tools.

I think there's a big difference between a manifesto and a set of restrictions placed on the creator. With a manifesto, creators can take or leave the parts as they feel. Some examples of comic manifestos include Failure Comics, Rozz-Tox, and, in a weird meandering way, this (scroll down). A manifesto is created and then set free. A "code", if you will, is a strong committment by the creators involved to not only abide by the spirit of a manifesto, but also to handicap themselves in some way to emphasize that committment. Aside from the aforementioned 24 Hour Comics, there are also the experimentations of Oubapo. To be honest, I think Flyboy got it right in another thread. When we started the Collaborative Comics Project, despite the initial enthusiasm, I knew that a large portion of the people involved would drop out, and that there's a possibility that no one else will ever join. We're also going into it hoping for the best but expecting the worst. Aphonia, no one's thinking of getting rich or changing the industry, but we are enjoying ourselves (I hope). But, even if it all falls apart I know I can continue on by myself, that the project was made so that if one limb is cut off, the body lives on (Heil Hydra). In the long-term, group work can be Hell. Your best bet if you want to change the face of comics is to not rely on others.

That said, I don't see how it can hurt. Just don't get high hopes that everyone will come under your banner. Between schoolwork and Jenny Everywhere, I know I'm not going to have the inclination to join another project. Many people on the board and elsewhere probably feel the same. But, if you can get the ball rolling on your own or with a small set of people, then others may want to join in as you gain momentum.

I also think it's correct that doing a straight on adaption of the Dogme rules would be difficult and not acceptable for a completely different medium. The main thing that I've thought of for this kind of crusade that is rarely done and might strike a chord with creators from this board and readers is True Pop Comics. When I think of Pop songs (and to be honest I don't know any Pop songs from the last decade) I think of things that are decidedly simple, short and direct, touch a chord, and make a person believe that they have shared the experience even if they haven't. I like dlotemp's addendum. Why is it assumed that comics need to use fantasy? Why not tell tales of the graffitti artists, coffee shop patrons, and shut-ins? Everyone has had at least one pivotal moment in their life where they've shut down, found hope, took a chance or broken a heart. And you don't need faeries of super-powers to tell the tale. Small, poetic, fictional stories of truthful things that people can relate to, like a good Pop song. One of the best examples I can think of is our own Flyboy and Nelson Evergreen's Name's Not Down. Or even Kill Your Boyfriend. Ordinary people in and ordinary environment dealing with what Life has thrown at them.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
21:30 / 15.12.02
I'm just saying that most of the talent had abandoned the underground,

That's such a dumb thing to say. I really hope that you know that.
 
 
Perfect Tommy
04:21 / 16.12.02
I think we may be having issues with which part of the DOGME '95 manifesto is worth emulating: the "stripped down" vow of chastity, or the reason for the vow (excerpt from the website):

DOGME 95 has the expressed goal of countering “certain tendencies” in the cinema today.

DOGME 95 is a rescue action!

In 1960 enough was enough! The movie was dead and called for resurrection. The goal was correct but the means were not! The new wave proved to be a ripple that washed ashore and turned to muck.
Slogans of individualism and freedom created works for a while, but no changes. The wave was up for grabs, like the directors themselves. The wave was never stronger than the men behind it. The anti-bourgeois cinema itself became bourgeois, because the foundations upon which its theories were based was the bourgeois perception of art. The auteur concept was bourgeois romanticism from the very start and thereby ... false!

This is the bit that interests me. The overall simplicity aspect of a direct translation of the Vow of Chastity is valuable, but doesn't really float my boat; after all, my main interest in a manifesto is to see what my idols have done, nod sagely, and then kill my idols.

It's not that I feel comics must include fantastic elements. However, my interest here is doing stories which are in the comics form for a reason, other than budgetary restraints.

There's simplicity, there's going-against-the-current-wave, and there's removal-of-tools-for-a-purpose. Which did you have in mind, sleaze?
 
 
Jack Fear
12:37 / 16.12.02
Mm. But I would argue that comics, by its very nature, is bound by the auteur theory--with the possible exception of "Marvel-style" creation, wherein the writer supplies the bare bnones of a plot (or none at all) and the artist draws it however the hell s/he feels like it, returning the art pages to the writer who then supplies dialogue: the writer has lkess control over the finished product, and sometimes things "just happen" (as when Kirby famously drew a silver-skinned fellow on a surfboard into some scenes of the first Galactus stories, prompting Stan to ask, "Who the hell is this?").

But that process may simply be a reversal of the usual, and make the artist the auteur and the writer the equivalent of the technical crew...

But if it's a question of form, of only doing stories in comics form that can't be done properly in any other form--which finds echoes in this discussion, in which Laurence questions whether comics are an "adequate medium" for, say, journalism.

See, me, I just figure comics are a medium like any other, and that a good idea is what makes a good comic--and that the same good idea could support a movie, or a novel, or a play, or an epic poem.

Because, really, if you're only looking for a type of comics-specfic story, then you're looking at superheroes--which fail spectacularly in every other medium, but somehow, inexplicably, work in comics.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:15 / 16.12.02
Even more than most manifestoes (and when I like 'em, I love 'em), this one says more about the perspective of the author than the current state of the medium. No more characters based on Bill Hicks - because Bill Hicks was the first person to ever smoke or "tell it like it is", you know... Whatever.
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
18:54 / 17.12.02
1. The return of thought bubbles, goddamnit.
2. A step away from widescreen, like people have been saying. Comics need to stop emulating movies and start doing what only they can do. I'm sick of seeing Jerry Bruckheimer-type comics.
3. Much more information packed into the page.
4. A turn away from the mainstream. Morrison, Millar, Moore, etc. have been all up on the mainstream recently, and have been saying that the mainstream is where it's at, where they can get visibility for their "message." But, basically, they're old sell-outs. Fuck that, man, I don't want my storytelling neutered in any way. Maybe we should start new companies.
5. No more spookiness or magic for magic's sake. We've all been told all about it by the last generation. We all should use it and incorporate it into our comics, but it should be invisible, right under the surface. I don't want my comics to be boring theoretical exegesises, and I'm sick of the symbolism and kinds of stories generated by the straight occult approach. You don't need to have the comic be about magic to have it be magic.
6. No more comics influenced by Bill Hicks, love him to death as I might.
7. No more nostalgia.
8. No more comics that are just riffs on comics history.
9. No more goddamn goth comics. Somebody burn down Slave Labor (but not until me & Nelson publish our comic there!)

Right so now what are you geniuses going to do about your Manifesto? in the words of the englishmen: Fuck All. Because the comics industry doesn't even know you guys exist, let alone that you have problems with the said industry. You have no power in Marvel or Dc/vertigo, so what do you think you're going to change anyway? Write indies? Give me a break, hahaha...

1. The return of thought bubbles, goddamnit.

Like we don't have a lot of this already, with every petty villain sitting in a darm room plotting to kill some guy in spandex with his thoughts all open to the reader - remember that rule of writing: show, don't tell; in a comic book, showing is through actions, for they define the character; why do you complain anyway? Marvel and Dc are filled with thought-ballon-driven plots, and that's why their comics are crap compared with Vertigo.

2. A step away from widescreen, like people have been saying. Comics need to stop emulating movies and start doing what only they can do. I'm sick of seeing Jerry Bruckheimer-type comics.

Hey, not a bad one actually, although Moore figured that one out in Watchmen, remember the 9 frames per page? Not groundbreaking work there, is it?

3. Much more information packed into the page.

Well, then fuck off back to Claremont, cause he knows all about writing novels inside comic books; as for me, i like the style of Morrison: keep the information revealed through dialogue and actions and leave the rest of the panels for art

4. A turn away from the mainstream. Morrison, Millar, Moore, etc. have been all up on the mainstream recently, and have been saying that the mainstream is where it's at, where they can get visibility for their "message." But, basically, they're old sell-outs. Fuck that, man, I don't want my storytelling neutered in any way. Maybe we should start new companies.

ever thought these writers have to make a living and if they are the best of the comic industry and still have to work for mainstream, then what chance do you think Indies will have? Besides, you want to write good comics for a selected audience, work for Vertigo; besides, Morrison's work in the mainstream is everything but mainstream.

5. No more spookiness or magic for magic's sake. We've all been told all about it by the last generation. We all should use it and incorporate it into our comics, but it should be invisible, right under the surface. I don't want my comics to be boring theoretical exegesises, and I'm sick of the symbolism and kinds of stories generated by the straight occult approach. You don't need to have the comic be about magic to have it be magic.

I agree, let's forget new, intelligent, original ideas and return to the old formula: superhero beats the crap out of villain while giving a speech, in the middle of which a whole city is fucked into oblivion; sweet idea, and it only takes us back twenty years, sweet nostalgia.

6. No more comics influenced by Bill Hicks, love him to death as I might.

This one lost me? Who's Bill Hicks? Really, i would like to know?

7. No more nostalgia.
8. No more comics that are just riffs on comics history.

Continuity sucks, that's a fact, so why don't you forget Spiderman and X-men and all the big bucks, because you seem to want to build a indy company and we know that that makes no money, and just go for Vertigo (it's the solution for everything really) and write you creator-owned series

9. No more goddamn goth comics. Somebody burn down Slave Labor (but not until me & Nelson publish our comic there!)

This also lost me. Goth comics? That exists? Why is it so bad, though?

Well, anyway, here's my opinion. Continue to write your thought-ballons and sound effects, and make them shiny and sonorous, and fill your pages with nothing important to the story, and leave comics for people who actually want to save it, and make a living out of it while they're at it.

Peace, friends. (just kidding actually, hahaha)

Will someone crucify me now, please?
 
 
Jack Fear
23:05 / 17.12.02
All your objections to the manifesto sem to stem from the fact that you can only see it being applied to superheroes. And, though it may come as a shock to you, many, many people have no interest in superheroes.

Write indies? ha ha ha ha

Uh... Yeah, actually.
 
 
iconoplast
23:21 / 17.12.02
My brain hurts from trying to parse those objections.

Anyway - someone on this board mentioned that the distribution system for comicsis different from the one for books, and that the difference lay in the fact that bookstores can return overstocks or something?

Can someone explain, please, (1) how the book system works, (2) how the comic system works, and (3) what might happen if either medium adopted the other's distribution?

Because, well, comics seem to be more like books than like movies, in terms of the elements necessary for their production. So maybe we should be looking to a group like Oulipo for formal constraints, rather than to the Dogme crew.
 
 
rizla mission
12:19 / 18.12.02
Marvel and Dc are filled with thought-ballon-driven plots, and that's why their comics are crap compared with Vertigo.

I think it would take quite some time to discuss the multi-layered inaccuracies in that statement.

Personally, I wish superhero comic writers would stop trying to make their work more 'serious' by emulating the 80s/90s Vertigo writing style.. "show, don't tell" works well for single-minded creators taking their time, but when it comes to Marvel/Wildstorm creative teams (not that I'm suggesting they're lacking in talent) trying to rush 24 pages a month in that style, I find the results can be near incomprehensible. Reading something like The Establishment or even New X-Men, I find myself wishing they'd stuck in a few "hmm.. if I could only sneak behind Zorak and reverse the polarity of the neutron flow" type thought bubbles, just for the sake of narrative coherence.

It may be corny, but y'know, if you're trying to write comics that are gritty and true to life, don't write about intergalactic empires fighting invincible mutants, knowhatImean?

Too many superhero comics read like they're trying to transcend their pulp origins and failing, whereas I think it would be a lot more profitable for the more ambitious writers to embrace the silliness of the genre to some extent and just write *damn good pulp*.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
12:29 / 18.12.02
All I can say is that you guys better have some comics actually done to be contemplating so much about what to do with them.

My opinion here is that, having been in this situation before (let's team up and make a loosely-knit group that 'saves' the industry), it got so ensnared by defining it's mission that, lo and behold, absolutely no comics got done. The one that made it long after the fact, lasted on popimage for a few months then disappeared.

If you want to do good comics, I urge you to do just that, share it (somehow, I guess uploading it to a website), THEN discussing how what is produced could be polished. Then you can find a direction and you'd be producing at the same time.

My two cents, but a loaded two as I really want to see this go somewhere rather than debates over super-heros and what's wrong with Ellis/Millar/Morrison, etc.

Ta.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
13:03 / 18.12.02
I'm getting quite the chuckle out of the idea that Vertigo is the best place to be in the industry. I mean, REALLY. As if Fantagraphics, Drawn & Quarterly, Top Shelf, Oni, et al weren't viable companies...
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
13:10 / 18.12.02
I'm going to set forth a crazy notion here - since, y'know, comics and the industry have so many limitations as it is, maybe it's not the best idea to encourage people to force even more limitations on their craft? I would think that one of the best things about comics is that unless you're working with corporate properties, you've got a huge amount of freedom to do and say anything you want with your work cos the stakes are so low. Maybe it's better to play up that kind of freedom instead of some reactionary aesthetic which mistakes the corporate mainstream of the industry (and that includes Vertigo) for the entire artform. I can't help but read that 'manifesto' up top without thinking "jeezy creezy, this guy needs to read more comics...".
 
 
Jack Fear
13:34 / 18.12.02
Flux= On The Nose
 
 
deja_vroom
15:00 / 18.12.02
Because, well, comics seem to be more like books than like movies, in terms of the elements necessary for their production. So maybe we should be looking to a group like Oulipo for formal constraints, rather than to the Dogme crew.

I just wanted to say that iconoplast has posted one of the most sane contributions to this thread.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
15:50 / 18.12.02
I think it's probably a useful exercize to examine and deconstruct what is curently thought of as 'cutting edge' comics storytelling, in the mainstream or wherever, including the things that inspire and amaze you. To paraphrase F. Scott Fitzgerald, a writer has to kill his literary parents in order to find his own story; but, to conversely paraphrase Eddie Campbell, watch out for manifestos. Everything that starts out grand ends in a muddle. But these are common sensical, really, and keeping them in mind we can still discuss this.

Thinking about how to make good comics shouldn't be too different from trying to make any other kind of good art. Probably the best way for aspiring comicsmakers to think is to try and develop their own way of telling stories, rather than to ape current trends or work to hard to defile current trends. For all their theoretical gassing, I don't think Moore, Morrison, Miller or whoever you think of as some revolutionary creater really set out to 'undo' anything or 'comment' on any traditions -- they just tried to do stuff that was interesting to them. They happen to have digested a lot of genre stuff before they started out and probably while they were working, but if you look closely you'll probably find that the most interesting parts of their work have little to do with genre. Read the 'cutting edge' stuff, but also look at old stuff and look at totally unrelated stuff. Try to look past artistic fashion at the underlying message and technique. It's probably also a good idea to look outside comics for inspiration, and that doesn't mean trying to be Daniel Clowes or Los Hernandez bros, either. I'm reading a Robert Irwin novel right now about Surrealists that I think would make an incredible comic, if only some fool were man enough to try it. The idea wouldn't be to try and recreate the novel but to tell the same story in a different medium.

As for stylistics. I take it we're contemplating a 'back-to-basics' movement here. (Maybe this is obvious and I'm being a pedantic bastard) I don't think it's incredibly helpful to look to film OR novels for too much direction. Books really aren't a whole lot more like comics than movies are. Frankly, I think the stylist manifestos have been written already by the guys currently at the top of the game and there's still plenty of work, rather than theorizing, to be done. Maybe we should explore the directions Scott McCloud or Grant Morrison, or whoever you personally find compelling, have pointed out rather than rejecting them out of hand. That's not to say we should be literary acolytes or something but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Hopefully you want to craft a great experience for your readers, rather than just pioneer a new fashion. I mean, fashion's an experience too, but it's only one of many possibilities.

I agree that thoughtbubbles are due for a revisitation, but (and maybe this is more pedantry but) I'd watch out for 'realism', it's deadly. Follow that far enough and you've got something either sterile or inscrutable. Verisimilitude is really much more interesting. I personally always loved those flashbacks with captions that have the flashbacker's face in them. I think that conceit could be exploited to great effect.

I also agree that occult subculture as a fantasy setting is a little tired, but really it only takes a light screen to hide all this in the subtext of your story.

I don't think I understand the objection to the 'industry commentary' stuff. These guys are immersed in an isolated and strange industry and I think it's perfectly natural for them to comment on it. If you look close at just about any novel you'll find that a good portion of it is involved with a discussion of novel-writing; ditto for movies and music and any other medium.

Finally, I think it helps not to be a jackass and to keep quiet if you've nothing of value to say. You know who you are. There's no point in defending established norms, they defend themselves perfectly well and no one denies that, and there's such a thing as constructive criticism. All it takes is a little intelligent forethought and maybe the belief that effort is worthwhile. If you can't manage those two little things, what are you doing here?
 
 
some guy
17:07 / 18.12.02
Can someone explain, please, (1) how the book system works, (2) how the comic system works, and (3) what might happen if either medium adopted the other's distribution?

Basically, book/magazine retailers can return unsold merchandise; comic retailers can't. This is why bookstores and newstands can carry a selection of esoteric titles and the bulk of comic retailers only carry the top three or four publishers. If the major comic publishers used a returnable system, comic retailers would arguably be able to "take a chance" stocking more obscure titles.

I'm doubtful of a manifesto here ... it's a bit like putting the cart ahead of the horse.
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
17:36 / 18.12.02
All your objections to the manifesto sem to stem from the fact that you can only see it being applied to superheroes. And, though it may come as a shock to you, many, many people have no interest in superheroes.

I was actually referring to good comics like V for Vendetta, Watchmen, From Hell, League of Extraordianry Gentlemen, and just about everything in the Vertigo Line, that don't use thought ballons, have about 6-9 frames per page, explain things by showing/actions and not by sharing telepathy withe the reader by showing one's thoughts in ballons.

Thought Ballons? I never read The Invisibles, but considering his work i know of, i bet there isn't a single thought ballon in The Invisibles, although i know it has a few sound effects - then again, so does Hellblazer, and Preacher and Transmetropolitan, which is bad.

You see, superheroes comic books have all that crap you want back, that nine-rules manifesto of yours, but good comics can skip that, Thank Lucifer Morningstar.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply