oz@rlgvax.UUCP (THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ) (02/20/86)
The last time that I was on the net (meaning the past period, not yesterday) we had just started discussing why people (specifically us in the net) read comics. If this conversation was exhaused back then, please bear with me and allow me to put my two cents (well maybe a buck twenty-five with inflation) in. I buy a few comics for collecting and their resale possibilities, but for the most part I am buying comics that I want to READ and REREAD. This occasionaly means that I will end up having to buy some back issues of a comic that I didn't start getting on my own. This net cost me a small bundle on back issues of the MASKED MAN and SWAMP THING. What's my point? That I read comics because I enjoy them (there I said it and just ended my career in marketing). The new ones are wonderful novels and complete stories frequently better then I can find in modern books (for example the great characterzation in JON SABLE, the futuristic world of AMERICAN FLAGG). Sitting back and reading the latest GRIM JACK, or WHISPER gives me the same type of enjoyment that I got from reading TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD or STILL LIFE WITH WOODPECKER. The comic book is becoming more and more of its own literary medium. It can offer you the insites into a persons mind like a book can as well as give you some of the striking visualization of a movie. I also read some comics as good old fashion mindless fluff. With the state of television today I can't unwind by turning on the boob tube after a long days work of listening to a customer saying that the system is "broken" only to discover that they didn't have the bloody thing plugged in. TV frequently can't entertain me for the same reason MARVEL frequently can't; it is too pat, it is too predictable (when you get to the punch line of a sit com a full two minutes before the character does you are either a genius or the show is lame). A comic like MEGATON MAN is a great way to unwind. Not every thing that I buy is something that I would be willing to show my father (I did show him the first few issues of A LIFE FORCE and he asked to see the rest of them!), but they are all things that I enjoy for one reason or another. Because of this I won't support inferior comics just to have a complete set. I also won't buy tie in comics that are poor just to know how a character is <ahem> permanently changed (it wouldn't surpise me to see Uncle Ben come back in a future issue of Spider-Man). I don't want you to think that I take my comic books TOO seriously. I don't go to Geppies wearing my smoking jacket with a pipe in my hand looking like I stepped out of a bad comedy of errors (right Guy? right Eric?) but I do go there with great anticipation that I am going to have my mind challenged, perhaps provoked (the last WHISPER story in First Adventures), and hopefully entertained. It's rather nice that a $1.75 (or less) "kiddies" product can provide those services for me. If this topic hasn't been exhaused in the past, then I encourage others to write about why they read comics. It could be fun. Of course if anyone asks you why you collect comics there is always the fallback position of: "I have a comic that I bought for $1.00 just 8 years ago and now it's worth $300!" OZ seismo!rlgvax!oz The views of The Great And Powerful OZ does not reflect the views of the Federal Sales Office, Computer Consoles Incorporated, or the United States of America.
eric@osiris.UUCP (Eric Bergan) (02/21/86)
> What's my point? That I read comics because I enjoy them (there I said it and > just ended my career in marketing). The new ones are wonderful novels and > complete stories frequently better then I can find in modern books (for example > the great characterzation in JON SABLE, the futuristic world of AMERICAN FLAGG). > Sitting back and reading the latest GRIM JACK, or WHISPER gives me the same > type of enjoyment that I got from reading TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD or STILL LIFE > WITH WOODPECKER. The comic book is becoming more and more of its own literary > medium. It can offer you the insites into a persons mind like a book can as > well as give you some of the striking visualization of a movie. I think you are comparing apples and oranges. No one tries to compare paintings and novels, why try and compare comics and novels? I think comics will always be more "shallow" than a good novel on plot or characterization, just because comics tend to be shorter, and so have to be more quickly paced. On the other hand, novels tend to have lousy (i.e. none) artwork. The simplest reason for why I read comics is simply that I enjoy them. Trying to describe why I enjoy them is more difficult. I am not that much of an art fanatic, and certainly I find the plots of the majority of the comics I read to be crap. The only rationalization that I can come up with is that comics provide me a high ratio of diversity per time spent. Since comics are shorter, I can plow through them more rapidly than the same number of books. This exposes me to a wider range of ideas. If I could read the standard 300-600 page novel in the time it takes me to read the standard comic book (even including a continuing story), I might change my reading habits. But as it is, after picking up my weeks comics, I can spend an afternoon or evening reading horror, science fiction, fantasy, adventure, and comedy (probably a few other genre's that I have left out). The comparable mix of novels (or movies, or even television) would take significantly longer. > I don't want you to think that I take my comic books TOO seriously. I don't > go to Geppies wearing my smoking jacket with a pipe in my hand looking like I > stepped out of a bad comedy of errors (right Guy? right Eric?) but I do go > there with great anticipation that I am going to have my mind challenged, > perhaps provoked (the last WHISPER story in First Adventures), and hopefully > entertained. It's rather nice that a $1.75 (or less) "kiddies" product can > provide those services for me. Unless OZ has traded in his turbo for a limo, I will have to say he is probably not wearing a smoking jacket into Geppis. Now leather jacket and mirrored shades are a different matter. -- eric ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!osiris!eric
chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck) (02/26/86)
>of the comics I read to be crap. The only rationalization that I can come >up with is that comics provide me a high ratio of diversity per time >spent. Since comics are shorter, I can plow through them more rapidly than >the same number of books. This exposes me to a wider range of ideas. If They also provide a quick "good vs. evil" catharsis. A long time ago (Middle Ages or just after?) there were plays called morality plays, in which various characters represented different virtues and vices. I think comic books are of a piece with that tradition. At least, that's what I tell friends and relatives. Fact is, I read comics because I enjoy them.
ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) (03/21/86)
>>>The only rationalization that I can come up with is that >>>comics provide me a high ratio of diversity per time spent. >>>Since comics are shorter, I can plow through them more rapidly than >>>the same number of books. This exposes me to a wider range of ideas. >>They also provide a quick "good vs. evil" catharsis. A long >>time ago (Middle Ages or just after?) there were plays >>called morality plays, in which various characters represented >>different virtues and vices. I think comic books are of >>a piece with that tradition. >>At least, that's what I tell friends and relatives. >>Fact is, I read comics because I enjoy them. > Sitting back and reading the latest GRIM JACK, or WHISPER > gives me the same type of enjoyment that I got from reading TO > KILL A MOCKING BIRD or STILL LIFE WITH WOODPECKER. The comic > book is becoming more and more of its own literary medium. > It can offer you the insites into a persons mind like a book can as > well as give you some of the striking visualization of a movie. These responses intrigue me. Although I expected the "I read 'em because I like 'em" response, I didn't really expect that a comic medium could be called 'literary.' However, don't flame me; I'm not saying it *shouldn't* be a literary medium, just that I hadn't thought of it that way. I read comics for two reasons. Number one is that I think in pictures, and when I read a book, I can see the scenes in my head unfolding as my eyes translate the letters on the page. Comics, which provide the visuals for me, are interesting because someone else has already made up the scenes. When I read something drawn by Frank Miller (and others to lesser degrees), I am reading a book, but through Miller's unique vision. That's why I like the drawing of certain artists -- their unique vision translates more readily for me than others. It requires a deliberate effort, for example, to get my mind to willingly accept Sienciewicz' style, although it's sometimes worth it (NM 19-25 or so, for example). It required a deliberate effort for me to get used to Simonson's Thor (and especially Simonson's Jarlsen), not to mention the change of letterers. That, too, was worth it. Number two is somewhat less technical. I see comics as the ultimate romantic art form. I'm an ultimate romantic. This doesn't mean I like mush, or even clearly drawn evil-vs.-good morality conflicts; it does mean that I enjoy watching characters change and grow as time passes, rather as if they were real people that I interacted with once a month. The bigger-than-life way in which superheros are drawn appeals to me -- I like being able to dance across rooftops vicariously with DD, or zoom off into the stars with Phoenix. Even the younger and supposedly less cosmic characters, such as Power Pack or the Titans' Changeling and Terra, are drawn bigger-than-life, and appealingly so, such that I can easily interact with the events on the printed page. The time-compression mentioned by some people recently fits in with this well. I guess my personal theory on aging in comics is that people in Marvel comics have a lifespan which is up to 5 or 6 times longer than our own, and features a lengthy youth and a highly compressed middle and old age. I don't have any problems thinking of Jean Grey, for example, falling for Scott at age sixteen or so in early issues of X-men and still being young enough today to return to X-Factor in perfect shape after lifting a few weights. If they're bigger-than-life, why shouldn't they live longer too? The only problem I see with this is that Jean's tombstone should not have had her born in 1956, since it would have made her about nine in X-men #1. I think year-dates should never exist in the Marvel Universe. Kitty Pryde can have birthdays but years should pass unmarked. However, if (as in DC) the premise has been made that superheroes age at a normal rate, it can be made workable. Ellen -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?" "I read it in a book," said Alice. - - - - - - - - - - - - -