Page 22 of 42 < 1 2 ... 20 21 22 23 24 ... 41 42 >
Topic Options
#191754 - 10/18/07 03:34 PM Re: Debate About State of "Art-Comics" (Particularly Clowes), But w/o Superhero Nuts
Ken Offline
Member

Registered: 02/24/01
Posts: 431

Top
#191755 - 10/18/07 03:42 PM Re: Debate About State of "Art-Comics" (Particularly Clowes), But w/o Superhero Nuts
Ken Offline
Member

Registered: 02/24/01
Posts: 431

Top
#191756 - 10/18/07 04:00 PM Re: Debate About State of "Art-Comics" (Particularly Clowes), But w/o Superhero Nuts
gene phillips Offline
Member

Registered: 09/30/99
Posts: 5910
Loc: Houston, TX
Quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
I guess I'm not all that interested in the idea of characters removed from a story -- seems like the only reason to move to the level of the icon/popularity is to find a way to ignore the typically lousy stories that icons appear in.
Call me old-fashioned, but I read for the story.

Of course more people know Dagwood; of course he is going to be more popular than DB - so what?
I bow before the cultural supremacy of Dagwood and the will of the people . . .

Clowes's Enid is an icon for a lot of girls . . . But she's no Wonder Woman, and that's agood thing.
To a lot of readers, Dagwood and WW are the "real stories" because they present (or seem to present) straightforward stories with no particular obscurities to them. I haven't said that the characters are apart from the stories they tell in practice, but if you want to analyze factors like "iconic status," particularly of a continuing character, you have to deal with the extent to which such status may be something apart from the question of whether all the stories are uniformly good or not.

I haven't said that characters like Boring and Enid can't be iconic to some degree, but by virtue of shooting for an audience that doesn't want the familiar, it's a given that they're going to be less persuasive to large audiences.

Top
#191757 - 10/18/07 04:06 PM Re: Debate About State of "Art-Comics" (Particularly Clowes), But w/o Superhero Nuts
gene phillips Offline
Member

Registered: 09/30/99
Posts: 5910
Loc: Houston, TX
Sorry to have inadvertently preserved something you meant to delete, Ken.

I thought it an interesting point myself.

Top
#191758 - 10/19/07 10:35 AM Re: Debate About State of "Art-Comics" (Particularly Clowes), But w/o Superhero Nuts
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
Quote:
he "select or favored group" in this case would be the group of those writers who satisfy her criteria for being "the best." As she is a writer seeking a high-toned approach to her art, I imagine that, all false modesty aside, she includes herself in that group.
Okay, so you're an elitist, too.
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#191759 - 10/19/07 11:36 AM Re: Debate About State of "Art-Comics" (Particularly Clowes), But w/o Superhero Nuts
gene phillips Offline
Member

Registered: 09/30/99
Posts: 5910
Loc: Houston, TX
Quote:
Originally posted by Charles Reece:
Quote:
he "select or favored group" in this case would be the group of those writers who satisfy her criteria for being "the best." As she is a writer seeking a high-toned approach to her art, I imagine that, all false modesty aside, she includes herself in that group.
Okay, so you're an elitist, too.
pluralist

noun
1. a cleric who holds more than one benefice at a time
2. a philosopher who believes that no single explanation can account for all the phenomena of nature
3. someone who believes that distinct ethnic or cultural or religious groups can exist together in society

Top
#191760 - 10/19/07 03:52 PM Re: Debate About State of "Art-Comics" (Particularly Clowes), But w/o Superhero Nuts
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
Regarding that Berlatsky blog, I propose that Shakespeare not be brought up in discussions of superhero comics until the masses are going to see his plays instead of Michael Bay's movies. Maybe Shakespeare's audience demanded more of their popular writers, or maybe they didn't have tv and video games. One can find some critic (say, reviewing films for the New Yorker) to make the claim that X is bad because it's popular. But the critics who dislike a lot of popular stuff whom I like don't have a problem with popularity per se, but with the majority of stuff which is popular. That Hitchcock or Schulz intuited basic psychology so well that their work could effect intended changes in a wide audience is part of what made them great, popular artists. Educing either as a defense of the average movie or comic strip is just as ridiculous as defending DeLillo by using Joyce. It's just donwright idiotic to bring in Shakespeare as defense against someone suggesting that the average superhero comic is pretty low on the aesthetic food chain.
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#191761 - 10/19/07 04:00 PM Re: Debate About State of "Art-Comics" (Particularly Clowes), But w/o Superhero Nuts
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
Your tastes aren't broad enough to be a pluralist, Gene. Besides, that definition doesn't mention anything about genres, so it is, by your own standard, irrelevant to a discussion about genre.
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#191762 - 10/19/07 08:44 PM Re: Debate About State of "Art-Comics" (Particularly Clowes), But w/o Superhero Nuts
Ken Offline
Member

Registered: 02/24/01
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally posted by gene phillips:
Sorry to have inadvertently preserved something you meant to delete, Ken.

I thought it an interesting point myself.
That's fine

Top
#191763 - 10/20/07 05:36 PM Re: Debate About State of "Art-Comics" (Particularly Clowes), But w/o Superhero Nuts
gene phillips Offline
Member

Registered: 09/30/99
Posts: 5910
Loc: Houston, TX
Quote:
Originally posted by Charles Reece:
Regarding that Berlatsky blog, I propose that Shakespeare not be brought up in discussions of superhero comics until the masses are going to see his plays instead of Michael Bay's movies. Maybe Shakespeare's audience demanded more of their popular writers, or maybe they didn't have tv and video games. One can find some critic (say, reviewing films for the New Yorker) to make the claim that X is bad because it's popular. But the critics who dislike a lot of popular stuff whom I like don't have a problem with popularity per se, but with the majority of stuff which is popular. That Hitchcock or Schulz intuited basic psychology so well that their work could effect intended changes in a wide audience is part of what made them great, popular artists. Educing either as a defense of the average movie or comic strip is just as ridiculous as defending DeLillo by using Joyce. It's just donwright idiotic to bring in Shakespeare as defense against someone suggesting that the average superhero comic is pretty low on the aesthetic food chain.
Don't have time today to reread whatever Berlatsky said, but I've never been concerned with interpreting him anyway.

I'm not sure most of the popular entertainments of Will S.'s time were all that much more advanced than video games-- Punch-and-Judy plays, bear-baiting, that sort of thing. The Bard's strength as I see it stems from being able to write narratives on at least two levels: blood and thunder for the masses and highflown rhetoric for the educated few.

The problem with many elitist critics is that they only know how to evaluate the high-toned parts of da Bard, and tend to dismiss the down-and-dirty parts of his dramaturgy.

And any critic that can't get both sides of the creative coin has no real critical moxie.

Top
Page 22 of 42 < 1 2 ... 20 21 22 23 24 ... 41 42 >


Moderator:  Rick Veitch, Steve Conley