Having not had much experience with comics or graphic novels coming into this course, I found myself hoping that I could learn enough about these forms to determine what constitutes a work of quality and what sets these quality works apart from stories of similar caliber in other mediums. In works like Yoshihiro Tatsumi’s Good-bye, I found that emotions such as alienation and impotence can, in wordless or terse expression, rival comparatively verbose accounts. Good comics, in their juxtaposition of pointed imagery and text, can rapidly and effectively develop a character’s psyche or a setting’s atmosphere, sometimes in a single panel. Good comics, after constructing these conduits, can also maintain the reader’s immersion over a long length without sacrificing little details and without becoming too bloated. I saw this, more than anywhere else, in Allen Moore and Dave Gibbon’s Watchmen, a graphic novel that is successful because of how deftly its creators navigated the many layers they decided to include (Honorable out-of-class mention here goes to Alejandro Jodorowsky and Moebius’s The Incal).
As for the limitations inherent in comics or graphic novels, I would say that the medium’s strength (that is, being able to trade in images alone or in images with words) can also be its bane in some cases. Comics, when they prize the visual aspect too much or sacrifice depth and narrative / atmospheric worth for the sake of over-the-top splashes, can fall into the pit of self-parody. There, grotesque superheroes and superheroines throw punches that are almost as destructive as the explosives they dodge, survive, or burn up in. There, gratuitous crotch shots are the ruling order. There, subtlety and profundity either disappear or become hidden behind layers of excess. I think these issues were relevant in the issue of X-Men from the 1990s. They can also be seen in some of the Golden Age comics we read, particularly Superman’s appearances in Action Comics. Despite these deficiencies, however, these comics are often still enjoyable to read (or to look at) on a purely shallow basis. Is it wholly wrong to engage with that base instinct from time to time?
As for the limitations inherent in comics or graphic novels, I would say that the medium’s strength (that is, being able to trade in images alone or in images with words) can also be its bane in some cases. Comics, when they prize the visual aspect too much or sacrifice depth and narrative / atmospheric worth for the sake of over-the-top splashes, can fall into the pit of self-parody. There, grotesque superheroes and superheroines throw punches that are almost as destructive as the explosives they dodge, survive, or burn up in. There, gratuitous crotch shots are the ruling order. There, subtlety and profundity either disappear or become hidden behind layers of excess. I think these issues were relevant in the issue of X-Men from the 1990s. They can also be seen in some of the Golden Age comics we read, particularly Superman’s appearances in Action Comics. Despite these deficiencies, however, these comics are often still enjoyable to read (or to look at) on a purely shallow basis. Is it wholly wrong to engage with that base instinct from time to time?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.