Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 6
Topic: Can comics writers be considered "real writers"? (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Joakim Jahlmar
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 October 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6080
Posted: 06 February 2007 at 7:37am | IP Logged | 1  

Point taken, Al.

But it has been fun discussing it. And I am still, very seriously interested in hearing about your blind friend the comic fan.

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Al Cook
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 December 2004
Posts: 12736
Posted: 06 February 2007 at 8:09am | IP Logged | 2  

I don't really feel that you and I have been on opposite sides of the
discussion, Joakim -- more that we've started from a different point.
Mine was interpreting that Mark meant "professional" by "real" (and if so,
then yes, comic book writers are "real" writers). You (and others) have
made an excellent case for "real" not necessarily meaning professional. I
think we're both right! Now I'm wondering what Mark thinks (and what he
meant by "real").

---

Oh, and he has people read them to him, and describe the art. He picks
up on stuff that no one else even catches -- perhaps unsurprisingly, his
favourites are books that are well written. And it's amazing how quickly
you realize that the art is not serving the writing when you're reading a
book to someone this way.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Andrew Bitner
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7526
Posted: 06 February 2007 at 7:52pm | IP Logged | 3  

Me: Artists can do amazing things-- but if there's no story, there isn't going to be a comic book.

***

JB: That is something of an oversimplification.

++++

I would suggest everyone re-read JB's post regarding the mergence of comic book writing and art. It should be written above the desk of everyone who writes comics.

My point was a tremendous oversimplification. I tend to believe that a skilled writer brings something worthwhile to the table, but the best-written comic will not sell if it has bad art (or lots of blank pages). The allure of the medium is visual, absolutely, much like film or television... and the artist absolutely faces "the blank page". Didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Valerie Finnigan
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 27 March 2006
Posts: 838
Posted: 06 February 2007 at 9:49pm | IP Logged | 4  

I think the allure of comics is different for each person. I would buy the best written comic even if it had bad art, because it's the stories and the characters that appeal the most to me, personally.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Steve Horton
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3574
Posted: 07 February 2007 at 12:13am | IP Logged | 5  

I tend to read comics fast, especially ones with good dialogue (see FABLES), even ignoring great artwork to get to more story.
However, bad art is incredibly distracting and detracts from even the best script.


Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Joakim Jahlmar
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 October 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6080
Posted: 07 February 2007 at 5:23am | IP Logged | 6  

Al wrote:
"I don't really feel that you and I have been on opposite sides of the discussion, Joakim -- more that we've started from a different point. Mine was interpreting that Mark meant 'professional' by 'real' (and if so, then yes, comic book writers are 'real' writers). You (and others) have made an excellent case for 'real' not necessarily meaning professional. I think we're both right!"

Indeed. I think what's even more interesting is that we both, given our different intepretations of "real" ("professional" and "artistic"), argue that comics writers should be considered no less "real" in any way.
Btw, the one thing that makes me think that Mark wasn't thinking along the line of "real" = "professional" is the fact that it's hard to deny that comics writers are professionals, since they do get the paychecks to prove it (the fan mentality and lack of professionality that abounds not withstanding).

Btw, Al... out of curiousity, where would you argue that the line between professional and "paying hobby" can/should be drawn? How much of one's livelihood has to depend upon one's craft for it to be one's profession (even as a part time profession)?

Al also wrote:
"Oh, and he has people read them to him, and describe the art. He picks up on stuff that no one else even catches -- perhaps unsurprisingly, his favourites are books that are well written. And it's amazing how quickly you realize that the art is not serving the writing when you're reading a book to someone this way."

Interesting... even though I'd add the caveat that in a strict media sense, that would mean that he's actually listening to oral narration that is a mix of written text and picture description, which throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the machinery.
You said he picks up on things no one else catches, which I guess is natural in many ways, but which also must show how the people involved in reading to him (particularly "reading" the pictures) must influence his understanding of the narrative and sometimes even open up to new interpretations not readily available in the comic itself.
In sense, it could be same effect as a comics artists adding elements in the pictures that the writer never had in the script, and thereby re-writing the narrative as a whole (if so only by a three panel background sub-plot).

Valerie Finnigan wrote:
"I think the allure of comics is different for each person. I would buy the best written comic even if it had bad art, because it's the stories and the characters that appeal the most to me, personally."

I would agree with Valerie here, even though I'd add a small caveat which moves towards Andrew's notion above. The fact is that comics is a visual medium, and while I too prefer a well told tale over pretty pictures, there's still the element that the pictures whether good or bad, must at the very least convey the narrative action. Now, it may be that a very good comics writer (without the physical drawing skills) can provide a good enough full script for a mediocre artist to get the visual storytelling working, but as far as I've understood it, the artist is quite often if not even in most cases a co-writer in shaping and structuring the storytelling (it's most definitely true when it comes to the Marvel method). It may be that the art doesn't require to be very pretty or good looking, but it does need to function or we'll have something even worse than just a string of pretty pictures, i.e. a string of ugly pictures.

And one last thing concerning "good" / "bad" art... what comics need more than anything else, IMHO, is fitting art. There are comics artists whose work I love, but that doesn't mean I want to see them do any kind of comics.
For instance, I tremendously adore Bill Watterson's work on Calvin & Hobbes, but – given that I haven't seen him draw in any other style – I'm not sure I would like to see him draw something like Spider-Man.
Or to use an existing example... I love Chris Bachalo's work on Vertigo titles like Shade and Death, but I am less convinced by what I've seen of what he's done for Marvel. His style just doesn't really work well to the mood of mainstream superheroics... at least not for me.

Back to Top profile | search | www
 

Sorry, you can NOT post a reply.
This topic is closed.

<< Prev Page of 6
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login