No, any new interpretation is "it's own beast," as well. It's the same thing. Well, very often it is anyway.

The same text, with new artists interpreting the same text.



So cover illustrations depicting a scene from the book are a necessary evil? Yet inside illustrations don't "attract potential readers' attention." Despite the fact that the above illustrations for Yeates John Carter book, attracted my attention as well as yours. Hell, you even claimed to be interested in them if they were offered separately from the text.

This is not to say a book on it's own could not attract attention, but how many comics that you buy would you still buy if they were not illustrated?

You're missing the point that new interpretations are generally not interspersed with the material they're interpreting. You don't see a movie scene play and then the corresponding chapter from the novel play across the screen. Illustrations within a novel are a secondary (and superfluous) interpretation shuffled into the original (and complete) prose.


They may well. I'm certain that many people were introduced to Frankenstein through the Wrightson illustrated edition. Doesn't make the illustrations contiguous or necessary to the prose, though.


Not really. I said it should be offered that way, not that I would buy it. Yeates does excellent sequential work, but his basic drawing style is a bit flat to me. Like a cross between Burne Hogarth and Jason Disbrow. If he did a sequential adaptation, I'd buy it. Although I'd much rather he did something original.

Did anyone say it was necessary? The original Frankenstein is fine on it's own merits.

Wrightson's illustrations are necessary to Wrightson's Frankenstein.

You may be right about one thing, Wrightson's Frankenstein may have been some people's introduction to the original text, but I would think many people that purchased Wrightson's Frankenstein were already familiar with the story and may have already owned one or more published versions.

What an illustrator brings to an existing work is his own vision for his own interpretation and if it's successful it's an engaging and entertaining vision, that helps sell that particular edition. Whether it's done with the cooperation and approval of the of the author or whether it's done long after the author's death.

Or as some might argue, the illustrations compliment the complete and original prose, creating a unique and engaging new experience that didn't exist before with the text alone.

You say engaging, I say distracting. We disagree. Nothing new here.

Someone starts a thread. You say "he/she/it sucks," then I say "nuh uh." Yep, nothing new here.

Though apparently we are not special, the whole web is like this too. There was a piece on NPR a few weeks ago about how snarky the people online are and they listed a bunch of topics and communities and didn't even mention comics fanboys. Mentioned some clinical name for it too... something about anonymous message board posters being freed from the inhibitions of face-to-face interaction...

I keep hearing/reading that hypothesis. But no, I'd say the same things to your face.

Me too. I think the people making all these assessments about the hostility online aren't used to normal human interactions. Or at the very least don't care about anything well enough to get into a decent discussion about it...

I think you two have been pretty tame ....
Jen

I try to be nicer on your side of the board (does this part link from other sites besides Comicon? I notice it has many more people browsing), but we could certainly kick it up a few notches.