There is a bit of a difference between you dismissing an illustrated novel out of hand, and a customer mistakenly buying a novel when they were expecting a comic. And despite your assurance to the contrary people occasionally buy illustrated prose at comic shops, I've seen it happen and I've done it myself. Bernie Wrightson's Frankenstein comes to mind right off.

And what is you point anyway? Comic shop customers are only a part of the market for something like this. There are more book stores in the world than comic shops.

I'm generally opposed to illustrated prose. The visual interpretation of the words should be left up to the reader. Either the author is relying on the pictures to convey the imagery — not the case with either ERB or Mary Shelley, obviously — or the pictures are superfluous to the words. In which case, why are they there?

Wrightson's Frankenstein, I originally saw as a portfolio, and that was fine. This Yeates material should probably be offered the same way. I have the Frankenstein book with Wrightson's illustrations in it, and it just doesn't work correctly. The event shown in the picture does not take place exactly at the end or beginning of the text on the facing page, and sometimes not on the facing page at all. The "ooh-ahh" factor of appreciating his line work interrupts the flow of the narrative.

I don't think a comic book shop is the target audience for this, though. Of course it will be in comic stores, I'm sure, but I'm guessing this is something you'll see in book stores more than comic shops.
Jen

Well then, you aren't the audience for this book are you. But it does beg the question of how do you read a comic book if "the 'ooh-ahh' factor of appreciating [the] line work interrupts the flow of the narrative" for you? Or for that matter does this effect you with non-fiction as well? Do you not like books or magazibes about illustrators or about the history of any art related subject or person because they are cluttered with great examples of the topic at hand?

This is some beautiful work, and fans of Yeates work, fans of ERB and fans of old adventure strips like Flash Gordon, Prince Valiant, fans of illustrators like Hal Foster, Al Williamson and Mac Raboy among others might all possibly enjoy a book such as this, myself included.

And some of those people go to comic shops occasionally. The new comic shop I got to has a whole section of shelves devoted to books like this, as well as books by and or about illustrators. Next time I'm there I'll ask them how much trouble it causes them.

That's what I said, isn't it.


There's a difference between illustrations in a history book, a newspaper, or even an interview, because it's the words that are the interpretation of the visual and not the other way around. But it is still annoying when the illustration is not on the same or adjacent page as the text that is referring to it, when you have to flip a page back or forward to see the accompanying illustration.


Yeates' sequential work is better.

Well, you didn't answer the question, how do you read a comic book if "the 'ooh-ahh' factor of appreciating [the] line work interrupts the flow of the narrative" for you? Theoretically the art in a comic could be just as good as the art in an illustrated novel, how could you read it without being distracted?

And how is Frankenstein any different than reading an article in the paper next to a particularly well done graphic, or reading say a biography like Al Williamson: Hidden Lands loaded with great reprints of various illustration and comic work.

This is like the old gag, "Playboy has articles?" But a joke is just a joke, it sounds like you have some sort of learning disability.

No, just higher expectations.

The pictures in a comic book work in synthesis with the text to tell the story. Illustrations inserted into a prose story are superfluous. The author wrote a complete story for the reader to interpret visually. Who's to say the completely disconnected illustrator even got it right? How many times has Lovecraft's "The Outsider" been reprinted with an accompanying illustration? How often did the main character look the same? I've seen him look like John Merrick, a fish man, a dirty hobo, and even once a werewolf(!).

Also, who's to say ERB would approve of Yeates' work, even as accomplished an illustrator as he is. Laurell K. Hamilton apparently prefers garbage, in the forms of Brett Booth and Ron Lim.

And again, Wrightson's plates inserted into Frankenstein (make a joke) is different than a newspaper article with a graphic because the text of a newspaper article is the interpretation of the graphic, not the other way around. At the very least, an illustration in a newspaper article is used as a clarifying point — photo of a crime scene, drawing of a public persona referenced, courtroom illustration, pie charts, etc. They ideally work as a symbiotic conveyance of information. At the most, the illustration and the text could be considered separate interpretations of the same event(s). Wrightson's Frankenstein is one artist interpreting another artist's already-completed work.

This is an interesting discussion going on here. Makes me wonder what your thoughts are on formats 'in-between' illustrated prose and standard sequential comics. A comic strip like Prince Valiant is very text heavy compared to most comics today and no word balloons. I've heard some describe PV as a series of spot illustrations essentially. Myself,I still find plenty of visual flow in Foster's pages,but it's not typical sequential panels. Another example of something in-between short story and comics is Steranko's Chandler. The blurb on the cover describes it as a visual novel. Each paperback book sized page has two panels,though some really have one panel with a panel gutter splitting it in two anyway. Below the panels are a paragraph or three of text. You could follow the story perfectly without the pictures and you could follow it almost as well with just the pictures! So,is one unnecessary? Overkill or an enhanced reading experience? I thought it was pretty successful (how can you go wrong with a Steranko-drawn hard boiled detective story?),but it's not comics,it's something else.
Oh yeah,Tom Yeates' spot illoes are gooorgeous!

Arbitrary expectations. By your logic we should never had Frazetta's Conan cover paintings.


Yeah, some illustrators may get it wrong, (as much as something open to interpretation can be wrong anyway). Do you think readers are too stupid to understand that the illustration is just that illustrator's interpretation? Do you feel novels should not have cover illustrations as well? Frazetta's Conan covers fit very well into your argument against Wrightson's Frankenstein. They interpret specific scenes best left to the readers imaginations and they appear in a different location.

I've seen many, many enjoyable artist's interpretations of LOTR including the two completely different film versions, yet nothing prevents me from creating my own version in my head when I read the original.



It's not about whether ERB would approve of Yeates or not this book is HIS interpretation. Did Robert E Howard approve of Frank Frazetta's illustrations? Did ERB approve of the Disney Tarzan movie?

The audience is responsible for understanding they are watching an interpretation. In the same way Shakespeare is reinterpreted by contemporary creators.

Disney's Tarzan has no more or less valid an interpretation than Yeates' John Carter, But neither is the original.


Do you agree that any interpretation of an original work is NOT that original work. I'm guessing you do, But I would argue that Wrightson's Frankenstein or Yeates' John Carter of Mars, is just as valid an interpretation as Brannagh's version of Hamlet.

I'm a little confused by a lot of your arguments because many would still apply if Yeates had done a graphic novel and not just illustrations. Despite your original argument dismissing the work, because it was specifically an illustrated book. You even claimed to be interested in a portfolio version. So some how with the illustrations being physically separate from the original text it's easier for you to be objective and enjoy them? This just makes no sense to me.

Many of your arguments could be applied to comics as well, does the original creator/artist approve of the current interpretations etc., Is an illustrator interpreting a script in the way the writer originally had imagined? Often not, and that's the way it's supposed to work. It doesn't matter WHEN the interpretation happens. It's still an interpretation. That's pretty much my attitude towards most contemporary comics based on long running characters as well. Most anything being done these days, like Spider-man, Superman, FF, whatever, is just a contemporary interpretation and has nothing more to do with the originals than anything else we've discussed here.

The difference is illustrations inserted into prose is just that: an interpretation shuffled into an original and otherwise contiguous work. A freestanding interpretation, such as a comic book adaptation or portfolio or movie or modern production of Shakespeare, is its own beast. You don't see one version interspersed with another. And before you get the hamster wheel rolling, yes, I know there are good exceptions... American Splendor comes to mind immediately.

The Frazetta Conan covers are a gray area. Books need covers that attract potential readers' attention, and that bravura pulp style was one method that caught on. Although I certainly would rather he had continued doing comics.