Graphic novels shouldn't try to be like text novels. There are lots of writers who want to be accepted as literary, they want to be all deep and wry and elite-approved. (Fun Home, looking at you)
But graphic novels should try to succeed with the STRENGTHS of the medium...I'm tired of seeing pretentious comics with scratchy, poorly planned art and good stories. Comics exploit the graphic elements by giving us pretty ladies to look at, fantastical images, aesthetically pleasing lay out, fap material, elements of modern visual culture.
If you have a story, you should ask yourself "Does this story have things I want to LOOK AT and SEE." If the answer is no, it should be a text novel, not a graphic novel.
Sometimes uglification is the point. For example, V for Vendetta.
>>If you have a story, you should ask yourself "Does this story have things I want to LOOK AT and SEE." If the answer is no, it should be a text novel, not a graphic novel.
Read just one issue of Promethea and you will understand that there are certain things that can only be accomplished in this medium.
http://rapidshare.de/files/16240244/promethea__12.cbr
I say they do what they like to do; and if in the process they can manage to convey any kind of message, then let them be. There is enough space on our bookshelves for them all.
I don't think >>1 misunderstands comics. He/she is complaining that some comics are too focused on having deep stories and literary merit, at the expense of everything else that goes into making a comic, and arguing that they should focus more on the synergy between art and text that really defines the medium (though "pretty ladies to look at, fantastical images, aesthetically pleasing lay out, fap material, elements of modern visual culture" is a bit of a crude way of putting it.)
It would probably help if he/she named some offenders though. I can't offhand think of any comics with "scratchy, poorly planned art and good stories." The inverse is far more common.
>>8
Well, I mostly read indie comics as opposed to superheroes. When I say comics, I mostly refer to indie ones, because I have a "average mainstream superhero comics are so crappy they're not even worth mentioning in discussion" sort of mindset.
Some offenders:
Crickets (http://www.drawnandquarterly.com/shopCatalogLong.php?item=a43f3a538b8ff6)
The sort of stuff published in Mome and Drawn & Quarterly
Like, a million other random-ass stuff
You fail, sir. The reason for comics to be comics in the classic sense was not to entertain you with pictures (.Text can descrpe as much as you want, but only pictures can show what the writer is truely imagining (assuming he has any say over what illustrations are published in his comic). Thats its strength. There is less text devoted to writing and can therefore tell a story as well as any novel with less reading and, therefore, appeal to readers who dont have the time or imagination, or willingness to read a novell. V for Vendetta and Preacher are 2 such comics. They get a good point across while getting to the point without having to deal with the excess of description for those less inclined to read or lack the imagination to understand things, and it also shows you stuff much like movies do without having to be chopped to pieces to fit into a 2 hour movie.
Hell even newspaper commics serve that purpose. You remember when the boondicks was just a newpaper commic. It wasnt fantastic art but it got a point accross. The medium is classically used as a more direct was of telling something important without wasting time describing every detail and risking letting the reader slip off into the scenery and not the actual topic.
jonen Vasquez does this quite well in Johnny the homicidal maniac. He deals with deep metaphysical and philosophical ideas from a satirical point of view. The animation is lousy (looks just like invader zim) when comapred to classic Marvel drawings and most Popular Manga, like ghost in a shell or bleach.
tl;dr this>>7
> Text can descrpe as much as you want, but only pictures can show what the writer is truely imagining
clearly n is the best medium because it is better at depicting things by some arbitrary metric of depictification, also my head is full of cottage cheese kill me now
I don't think the artistic style of Watchmen is particularly appealing in and of itself, but it still wouldn't have been the same experience if it'd been a novel. For example, Rorschach's changing mask wouldn't have had the same effect if the writer had to tell the reader that Rorschach's mask changed shape.