>>

quote:

Anyone who thinks Feiffer's work is just "talking heads" doesn't understand the term at
all.


Speaking literally, Feiffer's strips (except for the ones with the dancer) are almost exclusively of
talking heads, and the way I understand the term "talking heads" is literally. Are you using it
differently?<<

Yes, but Feiffer's cartoons are not literal talking heads. Look more closely. There is an element of fantasy, of caricature, of metamorphosis in even the most "verbal" of Feiffer's work.

Best, Pat

>>"Two: As "intellectual" as I find these things (and be aware I use that as something of a put-down, as
I really consider them "pseudo-intellectual" at best), they are likely simplistic and naive to the
audience you think would like them."

Issue 1: What do you consider a true intellectual comic, then? <<

Maus, maybe. I don't think there's been a TRULY intellectual comic book. I'm not sure there can be; the medium, being visual, is at its best when it is visceral. I consider film the same way; most "intellectual" films are damned boring because they exclude the one thing film is best at doing--creating an emotional response.

>>Everything I've seen you mention to
your liking has the characteristic that it can be easily understood by a 9th or 10th grader. Note that
this isn't a putdown of those works (despite what you might think of us pseudo-intellectuals), but I do
wonder if anything that isn't so readily accessible is considered worthy of being read by you.<<

See above. It's a question of what works best in a particular medium. For example, stage plays don't work well when they rely on subtle facial expressions--because the audience in the rear and the balconies simply cannot read the expressions. Film, OTOH, is a medium where the face is enlarged and subtle expression is essential.

>> For
example, the 2 most difficult reads I've ever encountered (and I'd wager that anyone else might
encounter) are Aristotle and Kant, thus it seems your position would be that they're both
"pseudo-intellectuals." Both require previous knowledge in order to approach their works, neither
wrote (well, Aristotle's work is a collection of classnotes, to be fair) in order to avail themselves to the
masses, and both were fairly dismissive of mass opinion. <<

No, Aristotle and Kant were not pseudo-intellectuals. (Hell, Aristotle wouldn't have recognized what we mean by the word intellectual.) They were philosophers. But philosophy is not story-telling, and comics are stories.

>> Issue 2: The point is that such audiences might like such comics if exposed to them. Why?
Because, Eightball and ACME are, in fact, not simplistic, but Lee's superhero works and old
action/adventure strips are.
That is, this audience might discover that comics aren't limited to the types that you favor.<<

And discover that, when comics try to do that for which they are not suited, they do it badly.

Best, Pat

Would someone please explain what "typical Gen-X nihilsm" really means?

>>Why won't you just admit that some people want comics to be "more" than what the general public
thinks comics can be and that they're not phonies?<<

The ones who want comics to somehow be the equivalent of Joyce and Pynchon ARE phonies; because if they had any integrity at all they'd realize:

1. Joyce and Pynchon are elaborate jokesters--pulling the wool over the eyes of the intellectual elite. As was once said of Oakland, CA: "There's no there there." (I realize I have again branded myself a Philistine. Fine, the Philistines built a great civilization.)

2. Comics, as a medium, are not suited to this kind of work (even if it weren't an elaborate put-on). I've said why in other points of this discussion and elsewhere; I'll not repeat myself.

Comics can be "more" than the works I've cited. But that "more" lies in the direction of emulating Chandler, Hammett, John Ford, Howard Hawkes, Dickens, etc., than Joyce, Pynchon, Bergman, Godard, etc.

Best, Pat

>>>>Most of the Julie-Schwartz edited DC comics of the Silver Age. Russ Manning's Magnus. Hal
Foster's Prince Valiant on the strip side, along with both Caniff's and Wunder's Terry and the Pirates.
Sugar and Spike. Spider-Man up until Stan Lee stopped writing it. Challengers of the Unknown for the
first 25 issues or so.<<

Most of those are good comics, to be sure. But I notice there's nothing on your list that was created
within the last 30 years or so. Are there some more recent comics that meet your standards? If not,
why not?<<

Sure. Be aware that was a list made off the top of my head.

Add Calvin & Hobbes and For Better or For Worse.

Unfortunately, there's nothing I can unconditionally recommend from the past 30 years of comic books. There's stuff I liked, but a lot of it depends on an intense knowledge of the characters' multi-year history to enjoy.

Best, Pat

Sam Catalino: You're free to believe in whatever crackpot ideas you wish to believe in; just don't drag Harlan's name into your arguments to boost them or give them added credibility. That's all.

Re the general argument. Comics is as different from literature as are cinema or opera. There are great works in every medium, and trying to say that one is superior to another is sort of like comparing apples and oranges, no? Wagner's operas are not in competition with Proust.

The reason why I am happy to believe that comics can produce great works of art, to be judged on their individual merits (not as art, or story, but a combination of both), is because some comics works (or their creators) have gained national recognition from museums, art academies, and the usual tokens that go with it for, I'd say, now about 20 or 30 years in Europe, and as far as I know, in Japan as well.

(It is mostly in the US where comics have remained sort of like a second-rate medium. Not so elsewhere.)

Obviously, personal likes and dislikes matter, but I think that if Moebius can hang in museums across the world the same as Gustave Dore or Escher, his place in history is pretty much guaranteed.

JM

JML,

You too are free to spread whatever you wish; however, you are not free to misrepresent my views, and engage in deceit about my views as you did in your initial post.

If you are crystal clear about that, we have nothing further to discuss.

Sam

Pat, Gertrude Stein's quote is often misinterpeted as being about Oakland. She was describing the feelings she had when discovering her old home was destroyed.

------------------
Comic Relief: The Comic Bookstore

Pat:

"...you're beginning to appall me. There's something scary about stupidity made coherent. I can deal with idiots, and I can deal with sensible argument, but I don't know how to deal with you."

--Tom Stoppard, THE REAL THING

Exeunt.

Catalino:

This is exactly what I said:

"If it is true indeed that you are among the people who express doubts as to the reality of the Holocaust..."

and

"I seem to recall that you have also espoused creationist views publicly here in the past."

Please state clearly, without obfuscation and in a few words, how does this misrepresent your views.

1) Have you questioned the reality of the Holocaust on this board?

2) Have you questioned the scientific validity of the Theory of Evolution on this board?


-- a simple yes or no will do.

JM