With respect, Heidi, I disagree. I don't think anyone is contending that well-told graphic novels aren't of interest to critics. But there is, and always has been, a sharp divide between the taste of critics and the taste of the general public (unless you're Hannibal Lecter, in which case they probably taste pretty much the same.) Of the current top five films playing in theaters, three of them were eviscerated by the critics. The general public, however, expressed a desire to plunk down money for them. And the list is endless of TV shows which were criticially acclaimed and ratings anemic.

One can always peruse the NYT or EW and say that there is general acceptance of graphic novels. But how many people do you actually see *reading* them on your average airplane to pass the time?

PAD

The above is high-brow critic-speak for "convoluted," of course.



Then you should have e-mailed me privately, Heidi. It's impossible on this board to put my name in a thread and not make it a "Pat-bashing fest."



Big whoop. As if the average American knows who Plimpton or Gopnik is or cares what they think. So the literati now believe it's "safe" to like certain comics. And the few hundred of them will meet what exactly to the future success of comics in this country?

Bupkis, that's what.



Fine, delete the word "book" from my post. OTOH, whatever he might normally review, if he's reviewing a book in this article, he's a book critic.



Regular customers of Comic Relief, right Rory? Not newcomers? Not "general public"? IOW, folks predisposed to read comics, even stuff they've ignored in the past if a good review passes their way.

When somebody walks into the shop and says "I've never bought comics before but this article...." then we can talk about the effect of such coverage on sales, OK?

I find that interesting, Nat, since my anecdotal evidence is quite at variance with yours. You see, I routinely strike up conversations with shoppers in the SF sections of large bookstores (where graphic novels are routinely displayed.) And every time I suggest GNs to them--EVERY time--there's been zero interest, and the comment is always, "I don't read comics." Now I'll grant you, it's not remotely scientific, and it's most limited to New York, so maybe New Yorkers are just jerks (a novel concept.) Nor am I saying the fight to get people to change their buying habits is hopeless. But there's still a long way to go, and I would be most interested in whatever evidence you have--anecdotal or otherwise--regarding the apparently routine acceptance of comics that you've been encountering.

PAD

Peter David wrote: "Of the current top five films playing in theaters, three of them were eviscerated by the critics."

Which means that two weren't. If that ratio holds over time and across mediums, then two-fifths of the most popular stuff won't be critically despised stuff.

"And the list is endless of TV shows which were criticially acclaimed and ratings anemic."

This is true, but but what about Seinfeld, Everybody Loves Raymond, E. R., etc., etc.? I think Heidi's point isn't that critical boosting will result in certain success, but that it offers a possibility of success.

"One can always peruse the NYT or EW and say that there is general acceptance of graphic novels. But how many people do you actually see *reading* them on your average airplane to pass the time?"

But Heidi wasn't talking about graphic novels. She was talking about "difficult material." Actually, going back to Pat's concern about a comics page that takes ten minutes to read, one conplaint I often hear about comics is that they take less time to read and enjoy that other entertainment mediums. Meaning lower value for money in many peoples' eyes. Why spend six bucks on a "Prestige" comic when I can get a paperback novel or two videos for the same price? Maybe a comics page that makes you sweat a little will show a way out of this arguement.

I'm sure Heidi could have responded herself, but what the heck.

These are goofy threads. Pat and Peter obviously have completely different standards for what constitutes interest to the general reading public than Kim and Eric.

Kim and Eric believe that Jimmy Corrigan is of interest to the general reading public because it is reviewed and covered in mainstream magazines and newspapers with the same interest and much the same respect shown a well-considered and successful first prose novel. They point to the sales of the work vis-a-vis other first prose novels as an indication this likely has saturation on par with a promising first novel. Regarding a relationship between press coverage and sales, they point to rhetorical evidence like Rory Root's, or the fact that the Amazon.com sales number leaped to 71 by this morning -- but not too hard, confident that the critical mass will mean decent extended sales for the book.

For Pat and Peter, success in the general reading public is signified by Tom Clancy and Stephen King, not Dave Eggers or David Gates. They believe in the distinction between comics and prose to be so damning that, reinforced by close readings of the articles themselves, they firmly believe the only readers of ACME are culled from comics readers. They use this to explain any rhetorical evidence linking the article to sales. In the end, the number of units sold is placed in an ever-expanding context of "true" successes in the general reading public and exposed for the minor success it actually is.

It's up for everyone here to decide who has the more reasonable standard -- if you wanna -- but to argue as if there's any shared value here is silly. In fact, I have no doubt that if Jimmy Corrigan were to sell three million copies, if everyone on public transport with Peter David were to read a copy, and if "James Corrigan" were to rank above Superman and below Ronald McDonald in the recognizable icon survey of 8-10 year-olds, Pat would humbly step up to the microphone before defiantly screaming, "Well... that's ONE!"

Peter David-My anecdotal evidence is no more scientific or balanced than anyone's but FWIW, here it is: When I talk to people in the Birmingham, Alabama artsy-fartsy scene, I often do so with a comic in hand or a cartoon character on shirt. I don't evangelize for comics, but I try to be a living witness. And people will often ask me if I like Sandman or, recently, Milk and Cheese. These people are not comics aficianados or superhero fans, but have found a title or two that they enjoy. And once in a supermarket I heard two women looking at Star Trek novels. One woman stated that she enjoyed your Trek novels enough to read your comics. Dunno if it's relevant, just thought I'd share.

And Pat-I may be in the minority here, but I really like art that's convuluted, and I'm not the only one. I like to do hard mental gymnastics the way athletes like to do physical labor that revulses my lazy butt, or that workaholics like to do more activities in a day than I do in three. Maybe there's no better or worse about it, just differences.

Of course one response would be that there are more people who enjoy watching athletes (and I am one of them) than there are dedicated athletes. But how many people are nearly so interested in spectating intellectual rigor? Well, I didn't say people like me ruled the school, did I?

Aren't you glad you asked?

Maybe you could try Usenet?

Rory Root said:

(emphasis added.)

Pat O'Neill said:

(emphasis added again.)

I think we've got a cognitive dissonance thing going here.

One can always peruse the NYT or EW and say that there is general acceptance of graphic novels. But how many people do you actually see *reading* them on your average airplane to pass the time? <<

Mostly Men's Health or SKI Magazine, along witht the latest Ludlum Novel, or whatever it is folks do on their laptops.

But whenever I'm traveling I always bring lots of comics and pass them around. On my last air trip I had the DC Swamp Thing GN along with a couple of STARMAN's and a couple of TRANSMET's and I figure I turned at least a half a dozen people onto stuff they hadn't seen before. The woman next to me at first kept looking over at the book (ST) and finally asked me about it.

She was reading it shortly after that and then the guy across the aisle overheard the conversation and was even more curious and started to reminisce about the books he read as a kid. He was pretty blown away by how STARMAN and TRANSMET were so very much different from comics as he remembered them.

I think if we were more like hare krishna and hung out in airports pushing comics at people like tracts we'd get more depth, but I'll take a Chris Ware NYT plug for "comics as literature" anytime.

Thanks for the WB Rick, it was a joke, the lookalike comment.



[This message has been edited by jack (edited 04-05-2001).]