BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Comic Books >

Do comic book fans have different standards for nonsuperhero comics?

  
 
Krug
07:51 / 18.11.05
I get the feeling after reading word of the mouth on the web on people like Brian Wood, Warren Ellis that a lot of mediocre or average comics that aren't about superheroes are instantly given rave reviews and recommended just because they're telling stories about "Real" people.
I read a lot of comics because of artbomb and even though I think Matt Fraction, Warren Ellis and co. are usually intelligent people they really either have terrible standards after reading too many shitty comics or that they dont really expect comics to be as literary as other mediums.
Like Local, DMZ and Loveless. Only first issues are out so far but why are people already jizzing themselves over books that haven't said anything and really seem to be displaying more promise than anything so earl at this point. Andi Watson is another artist whose writing seems to be something that belongs in Jennifer Aniston sort of movies. I've liked a comic here and there by him but he seems to be respected.
While some readers don't really read anything outside comics and dont have lofty expectations or standards I'm surprised that plenty who do would probably not rate the same writing as highly if discovered in another medium. I understand comics are a visual medium but do the standards of the writing have to be different from other mediums to still be a stellar work? Is film guilty of this too but only to a lesser degree? Or am I just too sleepy and exhausted to phrase this whole thing coherently?
 
 
sleazenation
09:15 / 18.11.05
I don't know. Lately I have been growing very wary of broad and somewhat nebulous terms such as 'comic book fans' and 'non-superhero comics'.

Once I thought that 'comic book fans' were people who loved comics, and at least showed a vague interest in all their myriad forms, but that does not seem to be the case as many people who would describe themselves as 'comic book fans' appear to have a very narrow range of interest within that medium. There is nothing wrong with that I guess, after all how often would people say 'I love books and am interested in the printed word in all its many forms'... But it has made aware of how broad the church of the self confessed comic fan actually is. Equally so the term non-superhero comics, which all to often seems to be a term that is used to refer to the work of people who gained their initial prominence and more recently amongst superhero comics and have subsequently attempted to move out of the field. This would be as opposed to comic creators who have spent little or no part of their career creating superhero comics...

So, yeah I think the terms of reference here are a little too broad to be able to pinpoint ant particular trends...
 
 
Mario
09:33 / 18.11.05
There's a dichotomy in artistic media, between "popular" and "literary". In books, there are the best-sellers, and the ones that win awards. In films, there are "movies" and "cinema". In comics, for many people, there are "superheroes" and "everything else".

This dichotomy is, naturally, artificial, and at least partly inspired by a certain elitism. "Oh, I don't read/watch/listen to popular stuff. My tastes are much too refined."
 
 
sleazenation
10:14 / 18.11.05
Elitism or ignorance?
 
 
Jack Fear
10:51 / 18.11.05
Speaking of elitism...

Andi Watson is another artist whose writing seems to be something that belongs in Jennifer Aniston sort of movies.

What's wrong with Jennifer Aniston movies?

Is it such a crime for a comic to simply be an entertaining, well-executed romantic comedy?

Or is any comic book that doesn't have superheroes in it supposed to be goddam GRAVITY'S RAINBOW?
 
 
Mario
10:57 / 18.11.05
A little of both. There's a certain type that wastes a lot of energy looking down on superhero comics, as well as licensed property comics like Transformers and the like, preferring instead to extol the praises of "realistic" graphic fiction.

They pretend to be elite, but in not giving "popular" books a chance, or even a glance, they remain ignorant of a writer's quality until they are forced to acknowledge it.

Admittedly, there IS a fair amount of schlock in the genre...perhaps even a majority. But Sturgeon's Law still applies.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:58 / 18.11.05
I'm confused. How are we defining "popular" books?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:01 / 18.11.05
I think the comics reader who sneers at all superhero comics and only reads black-and-white slice-of-life stuff is something of a strawman, actually. I don't know anyone like that: most of the people who are really into non-superhero stuff have a weakness for at least one writer or title in the superhero genre. I think it actually happens much more the other way around, or at least certainly this forum would appear to suggest that.
 
 
Mario
11:26 / 18.11.05
"Popular" is my shorthand for "Books that sell well, but never even get considered for Eisners"

And yes, it is a bit straw-man. The mentality is a LOT more common in books and movies. For example, some writers are essentially writing science fiction or fantasy, but use terms like "magical realism" in order to avoid being shelved with the other genre books.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
11:33 / 18.11.05
Writers don't really make those decisions.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
11:34 / 18.11.05
Well, maybe in comics they do. Nobody in comics knows what the hell they're doing.
 
 
sleazenation
11:47 / 18.11.05
"Popular" is my shorthand for "Books that sell well, but never even get considered for Eisners"

Sell well in what sense exactly? In what markets? And compared to what? What is the yardstick of popularity?

Outside of that I thought magical realism vs sci-fi/fantasy was one of those porn vs erotica, freedom fighter vs terrorist disagreements...
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
11:49 / 18.11.05
No, it really isn't. It's about the intent of the author, as if anyone really gives a shit about that.
 
 
sleazenation
12:05 / 18.11.05
I don't agree, but I think a discussion of authorial intent, how knowable that might be and any references to Roland Barthes and his seminal essay 'The Death of the Author' could probably do with their own thread - perhaps here, or perhaps in the books forum if you fancy starting one...
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
12:17 / 18.11.05
A little too much thought in one direction if you ask me, but no one did so feel free to ignore.

Two things.

Thing one: Many readers of comics do not like to think of themselves as comic fans, as if they will suddenly grow a gut and beard or bearded gut and Green Lantern T-Shirt overnight, making it impossible to get into those chat rooms and message boards they like so much. I think of them as snobs, but again, you didn't ask. Still others will froth at the mouth and strangle you with floppy muffiny arms if you say Kyle Rayner is Green Lantern.

Interestingly enough, both groups spend equal amounts of time and energy debating and flailing about comics online.

It's a funny old world.

Thing two: Yes, DC fans have different standards.

It occured to me about ten years ago when I read posts from a violent 'lady' who was a virulent fan of the obscure character Obsidian (I was shocked to hear Rags Morales at a con refer to her by name... or was he talking directly to her??). She was furious about Geoff Johns' portrayal of this character, etc. I became aware that DC fans, specifically in general, enjoy seeing characters walk onto a page then off. Witness the JLU and Batman cartoons and you'll see this as well.

DC fans have traditionally been more enthralled by characters showing up than anything else. It's a weird phenomenon that I'm 99% sure is specific to DC fans. If you just give them the visual of the character, they're happy.

Marvel fans like it when they fight.
 
 
Mario
12:22 / 18.11.05
I think I may have accidentally de-railed the discussion. It's true that the divide is a lot blurrier than it used to be, but there is still a certain type of fan who considers superheroes beneath them, not because of quality, but simply because of the topic.
 
 
Simplist
17:33 / 18.11.05
I read a lot of comics because of artbomb and even though I think Matt Fraction, Warren Ellis and co. are usually intelligent people they really either have terrible standards after reading too many shitty comics or that they dont really expect comics to be as literary as other mediums. [...] I understand comics are a visual medium but do the standards of the writing have to be different from other mediums to still be a stellar work?

Because comics have historically been so very poorly written by the standards generally applied to other written media, modern readers of all stripes have, consciously or unconsciously, inherited very, very low standards when it comes to use of language in the comics medium. There are a lot of reasons for this traditional dearth of elementary linguistic competence (mostly related to the business structure of the early comics industry, its target audience, etc.), but the fact remains that prior to the Moore/Miller mini-revolution of the late 80s there was essentially zero consensus that comic writers should be held to even the most minimal standards applied to writers in other literary fields. Any consensus to that effect that exists even now remains weak and frequently ignored.
 
 
This Sunday
20:15 / 18.11.05
I'll take Andi Watson's 'Random Book X' over a Geoff John's title, because genre-locked or not-intensely-thinking... it's still more entertaining, and has those two things I only ever ask of any entertainment or art... wit and impetus. As long as it's got a bit of a thought behind it and it's moving along.
There is, however, a somewhat noticeable tendency of comics fans and critics to get excited by anything not-capes. Not-capes books can be very cool. Sometimes, they're just superheroes in street clothes or banker drag (see: 'The Invisibles' or 'Amy Racecar: Color Special'), sometimes it's one or two genres mixed with or disguised as another ('Nomad' - which also qualifies for the last thing - or 'Road to Perdition' are essentially 'Lone Wolf and Cub' in different settings), and occasionally, they're just this slice-of-life, nigh-bio that's trying to - something - that we're meant to appreciate because it's mundane and geeky and IT'S ABOUT REAL PEOPLE AS THEY REALLY ARE!
Sometimes superhero books are all those things, too.
Doesn't make any of it really good or terribly bad.
But, no matter how good your dude in superkit is - say it's Pete Milligan's 'Enigma' - a lot of people will take the mundane whiny REAL PEOPLE book over it, at first glance, even if more people will reread 'Enigma'.
There's always stuff that seems really good at first glance and then completely turns everyone off, six months to four years down the line. Then, it just sits on the shelf and signifies intellect and importance. Other stuff gets re-experienced over and over, and is usually found off the shelf and lying on the floor somewhere, chaotically discarded to be picked up again, later.
We all have to make the call, ourselves, and I mean... I put 'Blade Runner' on the "once and never again" shelf, with 'Finnegans Wake' on the floor. My mom keeps 'The Mission' out "on the floor" but watched 'Casablanca' and decided it went on the shelf.
Then there's the stuff, neither (a) entertaining, nor (b) something you don't much enjoy but can learn something from. '100 Bullets' fits here, for me. I pick up an issue... or seven issues... and I'm just baffled as to why people dug it.
What's dangerous, to my mind, is when people start in with the notion that, if they don't like something, that person hates the medium, the genre, and hates them and wants to torture them releasing material they don't like. And that people who claim to like it must be lying or stupid or desperate, lying, and stupid. There's a lot of that on the interweb. And off.
 
 
Mario
22:50 / 18.11.05
Whenever I take a job as moderator of a comicbook board (a job I've done for three different boards, including one presently), I always post the same two rules:

Rule #1: Just because someone disagrees with you, that doesn't mean he is wrong.

Rule #2: Just because someone agrees with you, that doesn't mean you are right.

It's incredible how much following those two rules smooths out discussion
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:25 / 18.11.05
Currently, not presently.
 
 
Mario
23:43 / 18.11.05
I knew that sounded off.
 
 
matthew.
04:08 / 19.11.05
To the best of my knowledge, the term "comic book fan" means somebody who generally buys both esoteric "think-pieces" and mainstream superhero (as in guys with masks and capes) books. I've never met a single person who self-identified as "comic book fan" who sampled eclusively from one tap. They also blend, I find.

Personally, I prefer middle of the road stuff: esoteric guy in capes books, like for example, SeaGuy or Animal Man. I like to see guys in capes fight, and I like to see them (sometimes) in gritty realistic situations, but sometimes I like to see them wrestle with metaphysics beyond handguns (I'm looking at you, Spider-Man).
 
 
Krug
08:54 / 19.11.05
/What's wrong with Jennifer Aniston movies?/

To me everythign is wrong with those films but I'm not the target audience.

/Is it such a crime for a comic to simply be an entertaining, well-executed romantic comedy?/

You're getting carried away Jack because I never said it was a crime just that I dont give a shit about romantic comedies. But I'll explain what I meant.

/Or is any comic book that doesn't have superheroes in it supposed to be goddam GRAVITY'S RAINBOW?/

You're taking it to the extreme again. I simply feel that that a lot of the times if its nonsuperhero it's somehow considered superior to the superhero material of the same quality.

I never said there's anything wrong with writing romantic comedies, or Andi Watson putting out work. I just think a lot of people who woudlnt pay to see a Jennifer Aniston movie are paying for a Andi Watson graphic novel and the get the same sort of kicks a romantic comedy would have to offer. I dont remember any of Artbomb people on their message boards raving about Jennifer Aniston or romantic comedies but seemed to be all over Watson's work. When they talk films they talk highbrow cinema not romantic comedies. There's a double standard right there which is what I'm talking about. Nothing wrong with romantic comedies but hating them in one medium but loving them in a medium where there's a dearth of them and all nonsuperhero material seems a bit stupid and confused.

/There is, however, a somewhat noticeable tendency of comics fans and critics to get excited by anything not-capes. /

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Warren Ellis said something that nailed it when asked what's wrong with comics. Something to the effect of that in comics "About a boy" would be considered indie, alternative and cool.

/What's dangerous, to my mind, is when people start in with the notion that, if they don't like something, that person hates the medium, the genre, and hates them and wants to torture them releasing material they don't like. And that people who claim to like it must be lying or stupid or desperate, lying, and stupid. There's a lot of that on the interweb. And off./

I completely feel that way. I get the feeling that some people think I'm too good for superheroes and just like nonsuperhero comics. I just treat them like any other genre and dont have a special love for them. I dont have a specific interest in any genre in any storytelling medium. I dont like most superhero comics I'll admit but that has to do with them being the same old shit with nothing new to offer. I want new, interesting and well written superhero comics. All of DC's just feel like the same old shit written by another writer. Not that Marvel is guilt free but they've put out things like Daredevil and Ultimates that I'm really enjoying. I dont care about characters anymore so when Millar leaves Ultimates I'm not going to bother with Loeb's run. Or even feel I need a superhero fix. Which is why I havent read a Batman comic in years (except Lapham's Detective which I gave up on after four/five issues) and dont stay up hoping that there'll be a good Batman comic just so I can read the character again. I've never ever liked Superman but All Star Superman has me excited like no other comic not primarily just because it's Grant Morrison writing but it's a good comic that Grant Morrison happens to write, and he usually tends to write comics that I think are good. Writers are promising and characters without good writers behind them are not.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:15 / 19.11.05

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Warren Ellis said something that nailed it when asked what's wrong with comics. Something to the effect of that in comics "About a boy" would be considered indie, alternative and cool.

Well, yes, because comic book stores mainly sell comics about superheroes. Therefore a comic book about a man discovering responsibility by taking a child under his wing etc. is alternative. That situation is reversed in bookshops. I don't thin, Warren Ellis was necessarily saying what you think he's saying...
 
 
The Falcon
14:24 / 19.11.05
Still, 'cool'?
 
 
Triplets
15:54 / 19.11.05
Therefore a comic book about a man discovering responsibility by taking a child under his wing etc. is alternative.

Batman?
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
16:15 / 19.11.05
(rimshot)
 
 
Krug
22:21 / 19.11.05
Somebody already said it for me.

Cool?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:13 / 21.11.05
I don't imagine that any treatment of "About a Boy" would be cool, but then I don't really understand what the adjective is meant to be doing here.
 
 
matsya
20:33 / 21.11.05
I think there is definitely a "legitimacy" divide between the two kinds of comic. Makes me think about how that McSweeney's Comic Issue was touted as a push forward for comics and their legitimacy (once again that claim rears its head), but from what I've read of it, it kind of totally ignored superhero comics, which are sort of a pretty significant part of the history of comics, especially american comics, and it felt a little bit like "oh we don't really want to talk about THOSE".

Also, there was a recent article in the New Yorker, the architecture issue, by a visual artist about the artistic validity of comic books (sorry, graphic novels). Has anyone read this? My girlfriend read it and told me about it, but I haven't got down to reading it either. Once again I wouldn't be too surprised if it just dealt with the literary stuff, like Ware, Crumb, Clowes, Satrapi, &c.

Although, now that I think of it, superheroes did get a bit of a legitimacy kick of late with people like Michael Chabon and Jonathan Lethem working superheroes and superhero comics into their novels. So there's that.

For mine, Andi Watson bores me, Brian Wood shits me and Chynna Clugston-Major amuses me in the same way that John Hughes films do. Just wanted to sneak that in there.

And I definitely have to say it's a fair cop with the DC comics fans wanting walk-ons. I'm addicted to the JLU cartoon and I squeal with joy when one of the obscure characters I remember from childhood gets a walk-on.
 
 
matsya
20:46 / 21.11.05
But to actually address the topic, it's not the first time I've heard the idea of low expectations affecting the quality of criticism in comics. When I first bought Brian Wood's Channel Zero I was very excited by it, but on re-reading it a few years later I wasn't so impressed. It seemed a little empty. That may have something to do with the best-fit age-group/demographic for that kind of cool-as-fuk-countercult being me-ten-years-ago, but I think it was also the fact that I hadn't seen anything like it before. I don't think you can underestimate the effect of something diverging from the norm, even if it's only a perceived divergence and a perceived norm.

So some of these hero-haters may just be impressed by something a little bit different from what they've seen before. And of course there will always be posers who want to kick against the pricks, whether they be real or not.
 
  
Add Your Reply