jcthefirst -> RE: I am pissed off because... (7/5/2013 12:12:44 PM)
I wrote this: http://www.followingthenerd.com/ftn_news/ftn-feature-nerd-and-proud-a-look-at-nerdism-in-popular-culture/ and ever since have been involved in an argument with a chum on the merits of comics. His stubbornness is doing my nut in.
His are the bold italicized ones.
Just read most of your nerd blog thing. How dare you use me as a negative example! (Panic not, I'm not actually annoyed. If you weren't such a word basically, I'd have just said lol or haha to save me writting this)
There is a big difference between a book and a comic. Most people need pictures when reading and would rather use their imagination. I just dont believe there is the same amount of detail in a comic.
PS. Nerds should know calling it a graphic novel doesn't improve things.
Haha, most of it. It's only a thousand words, could you not have read all of it?
Of course there's a big difference between a book and a comic, but I honestly believe that comics are just as sophisticated as a lot of books. Yes, you have your superhero stuff and they're all well and good for what they are, but you also have properly adult comics like Y: The Last Man (which you'd probably like. Maybe) or the aforementioned V for Vendetta (and I used you as my example because it sort of illustrated my point beautifully). And I feel that they're the closest print medium you'll find to films or TV, solely because of the art. Does you argument against them boil down to 'they've got pictures and are therefore for kids?'
I hate the 'graphic novel' tag myself. It's an attempt to make them sound more acceptable when they should just let the stories themselves do that.
No the argument against them is that to have pictures takes away from the point of a book, being able to use your imagination. In the same way I tend to not like paintings, I dont like most drawings, I far prefer photographs.
I also strongly hate the nerd aspect of it, the whole 1st edition mint untouched unopened owned by some random unknown comic is somehow interesting (I hate this about almost anything) and then nerds wanking each other off discussing the possibilities of what would happen if Superman fought iron man. I think I'll find in comic 12 limited run in Japan says Superman is stronger than steel. WHO FUCKING CARES!
I do think everyone is welcome to do as they please as long as it doesn't affect me, people just shouldn't be surprised if I look in derission at them reading something that I assosiate with children. In the same way I'd look down at a 30 year old playing with a yo-yo in public somewhere. I'm sure its fun, but primarily for children.
To the first bit, why not read a screenplay then instead of watch a film? A bit of a facetious argument but it sort of compares. To have the action happening on screen surely also takes away from using your imagination?
To the second, I don't really think this is strictly a comic thing; 1st editions and all that. As you say, you'll find it in any collectible arena. Oh, and Superman would win. He's a superpowered alien, Iron Man is just a man in a suit. And that argument doesn't happen as often as you'd think. Or ever, really.
To the third…well, that's your opinion. I disagree vehemently, but I'm not going to change what you think, but can you tell me why you read the novelisation, presumably after seeing (and liking) the film, and liked the novelisation if the thing it was based on was readily available. Why was it preferable, other than your dislike for the original medium in which it was released? And why, given that the subject matter of V for Vendetta is definitely not for children would you chastise someone for reading the comic of it?
No, I read v for vendetta before seeing the film and read it without realizing it was a novelisation as it wasn't on the file I downloaded. A mistake I know you wont forgive. It was far better than the film due to the amount of detail in it, detail I am confident couldn't be fitted in to a comic.
I watch films as I like photography. You may not have got it from my last email as I didn't include a drawing to depict what I was saying, but I prefer photography to drawings/paintings etc. Plus films have the inclusion of facial expressions etc that can add to the story (or take away from it if Tom cruise is in it).
Screen plays again don't include the detail a novel can, but some people enjoy reading screenplays, Shakespeare has been reasonably popular. I actually don't particularly enjoy reading screenplays, not sure why exactly.
Oh, we're doing that, are we? Being a dick.
I can read books that don't have pictures, I just don't dismiss comics as inferior due to some bizarre notion that they're on the same intellectual level as the Beano or the Dandy, which is likely what you're comparing them to.
So, let me get this right, films are great because of the pretty pictures they paint, and the nuance? And books are great because you use your imagination more? Yet comics, in which you do actually need to use your imagination (which you'd know if you read one that wasn't the Beano or the Dandy that you read when you were 8) and which paint pretty pictures for you, are childish? Gotcha.
[Also, I've read V in comic form, and while the novelisation might explain the dystopia for pages and pages, the artwork gives you that information in just a few panels.]
And you still didn't say why someone reading the comic of V for Vendetta would be childish, whereas you reading the novelisation, wouldn't. Is it snobbery? Go on, you can admit it.
I didn't read comics as a child. I have never liked them. I felt reading 6 lines of text a page annoying.
The whole idea of comics is to tell simple stories to children so dont have a lot of text and pretty pictures to keep their attendion, much like Spot the dog books. I'd equally deride an adult for reading one of those, perhaps even more so.
I'm sure there are now comics aimed at adults but I don't see the point when adult should be capable of reading a novel.
I guess the really counter argument to me which you have so far missed is cartoons. I love south park and archer but I can understand why someone would see it as childish. In actuality while there are adult themes they really are for a younger audience than us now. I certainly wouldn't make an argument defending cartoons and I admit I just find them funny sometimes. Would be far better if it was live action though.
Look at me being all reasonable!
So it is snobbery then?
You see something that despite the adult plots and stories (like V) and adult humour (as in South Park and Archer) you deem it as childish because of the medium it's presented in? Because you 'don't like drawings?'
And the whole idea of comics is not simply to keep the attention of children through the use of drawings. The whole idea of comics is to tell a story (in more than six lines of text a page; an assertion that's as churlish as it is wrong) and have the artwork alongside to enhance it, and to be appreciated, although not by 'drawing hater' you. You will argue that the 'pictures' are not needed, which is fair enough, but since when is presenting the pictures inherently a bad thing? By your logic, a series of photographs with text underneath would be better than a comic.
And just because a person can read a novel doesn't mean there's no enjoyment to be had reading a comic. It's a different storytelling medium, but not an inferior one.
It is inferior due to how little information can be put across within one edition. In the same way semiphore is inferior to broadband internet as an information transfer system. They are different mediums through which to transfer information but one is clearly inferior.
And yes photographs with text below would be better than a comic, however still an inferior story telling medium to books.
As I've said before, each to their own. This is just my opinion. What is upsetting you is that it is shared by a lot of people, albeit more thought out than most. Luckily you dont care what people think!
Since when was the enjoyment in a book had with how much information is put across in as few pages as possible? Surely, it's the story told whether it's all contained in one book or several volumes (as is the case with comics) which you get the enjoyment from. For example, a television series is built on the same foundation as the continuing volume, like Lost; each episode ends on a cliffhanger (whether you're watching it week to week or all in one go is irrelevant). Does that make a TV series, which can go into far more depth than one 2 hour film, inferior?
I'm not trying to say one medium is better than the other, just that all mediums are equally valid storytelling devices. And just because one utilises techniques that are primarily associated with children (the 'drawings') doesn't make it any less valid. I don't care what people think, I care when they give opinions based purely on outdated notions of what comics are.
I guess comics will always be thought of as a thing for children as that's where the originated. Much like computer games. I am rightly embarrassed by being an occassional gamer.
TV shows are generally an inferior medium to films for many reasons but mostly because they stretch a story that can told well in a film in to 140 episodes, each with almost no content and loads of filler. It would better if it used the story density of a film in every episode, that would be great.
So you could have told the whole story of Lost in a film then?
I think your problem with gaming is that you see yourself above it all, not in a snobby way (although there is a little of that), but rather in an 'I've outgrown this' way. I don't get why you should be embarrassed of being a gamer. It's another equally valid medium for storytelling, and it's fun. I'm never ashamed of things I enjoy playing, reading or doing.
Also, I don't believe comics or games were ever solely a thing for children. Just because you're introduced to something as a child, and enjoyed it then, doesn't mean it was necessarily for you at that age, and that you shouldn't enjoy it now.
The argument continues.