Comic books are incredibly stupid

Or so says Bill Watterson. You know, the guy who wrote and drew Calvin and Hobbes. Which is a comic. Which was published in many best-selling books. One of these books reprinting his comics (hmmm, what would a good name for a book of comics be?), is The Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book. In this book of comic reprints (dang we really need a convenient name for books that have comics in them), he has provided readers with essays to explain his creative process, and commentary on various selected strips from its first ten years. On a strip reprinted on page 171, Calvin complains that his mother doesn’t understand comic books:

Calvin: She doesn’t realize that comic books deal with serious issues of the day. Today’s Superheroes face tough moral dilemmas. Comic books arent just escapist fantasy. They’re sophisticated social critiques.

Hobbes: Is Amazon Girl’s super power the ability to squeeze that figure into that suit?

Calvin: Nah, they all can do that.

Mr. Watterson’s commentary regarding the strip: You can make your superhero a psychopath, you can draw gut-splattering violence, and you can call it a “graphic novel”, but comic books are still incredibly stupid.

Later on, a strip has Calvin and Hobbes discussing how comic strips are considered “low” art, while a painting of a comic strip panel hanging in a museum would be “high” art.

His commentary on this strip: “I would suggest that it’s not the medium , but the quality of perception and expression, that determines the significance of art.”

Earlier, he details exactly why he needed sabbaticals, the fights he had over merchandising and the battle for a less restrictive Sunday format. He resented the very rigid panel arrangements of Sundays, and wanted to be able to arrange the panels, or disregard them altogether, as he saw fit. All of this in the name of artistic integrity, because newspaper comics, though often vapid and unimaginative, have such great potential for showing people a new perspective on important ideas.

One of the examples he gives of the terrible work burden was the creation of new stories, lavishly illustrated, and freed from restrictive panel arrangements, that he wrote and drew to create added value to the Calvin and Hobbes treasuries. Multipage, illustrated stories, featuring cartoon characters, with free-form panel design. If one were to take such a comic story, and put a book cover on it, one might be tempted to call it a comic story book.

But it wouldn’t be a comic book, because those are incredibly stupid.

He’s right. Comic books ARE incredibly stupid.

Are you hinting, with such overpowering subtlety, that he’s a hypocrite? How so? He thinks the medium is stupid, but that doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t give in to the stupidity. Frankly, I think EVERY comic artist and writer - whether they do a strip or a monthly book - should constantly tell themselves, “This is stupid, stupid, stupid,” hopefully so that it makes them try their goddamnedest to prove that rule wrong.

and your point is?

I have to give Mr. Watterson the benefit of the doubt here. I am sure he is referring to the serially published hijinks of various costumed heroes. A bound collection of daily strips is not the same.

Despite my fondness for the genre, I also feel that the vast majority of “comic books” are stupid. Your average spandex-clad goober’s adventures are not worth the paper they are printed on, and attempts over the past three decades to introduce “adult” themes have ranged from the embarassing to the disgusting.

[QUOTE=SPOOFE]
He’s right. Comic books ARE incredibly stupid.

[QUOTE]

Ever read Sandman? :rolleyes:

I must respectfully disagree.

I can’t speak knowledgeably about “the majority of comics” because I have not read the majority of comics being produced.

I would, however, disagree with the idea that the attempt to introduce mature, meaningful content to “comic books” is a failure, much less “ranging from the embarrassing to the disgusting.”

Sure, SOME of these “attempts” have been … well, less than great. I can think of a great many comics whose sole claim to “mature content” included lovingly rendered female figures with gigantic hooters. In fact, it seems to me that there are still more’n a few of those on the market today.

On the flip side, “Sandman” has already been mentioned. I can name quite a few others, notably Alan Moore’s work over the years. It ain’t ALL crap, far from it…

Watterson seemed to develop a nasty pessimistic streak towards youth as his career progressed. It popped up more and more often and made for some lousy strips like the whole “Chewing Magazine” scenario. I always kinda saw that strip in that light. I imagine it’s sort of a double slam. A slam at kids these days and their mentality when it comes towards entertainment and a slam at entertainment and how it panders to the worst in them.

When I come to those kind of strips I typically just roll my eyes at them and move on. Actually since I tend not to read beyond the snow goons I don’t see them all that often.

As if all prose works are Shakespeare? Is all music Beethoven? All poetry Browning?

Every artistic medium has its share of stupidity. The ratio of hack to genius is outrageously high. To single out comic books as such is incorrect.

Heck, even comic books about muscle-bound spandex-clad superheroes don’t have to be “stupid.” Check out Kurt Buseik’s Astro City to see how much depth, pathos, and storytelling can be wrought from such a narrow genre.

KBAC: arguably the finest comic book series ever produced.

SPOOFE: Yes, I was saying that, in this case, he’s a hypocrite. If Watterson had been saying what you said, that both media are stupid, he’d be consistent. I still disagree, but I wouldn’t be criticizing. But he goes on and on defending the integrity of comic strips as a serious artform, then casually dismisses the entire medium of comic books. This is at best, merely ignorance, and at worst hypocrisy. I see it as hypocrisy based on ignorance.

Contrast these two quotes:

“I would suggest that it’s not the medium , but the quality of perception and expression, that determines the significance of art.”

“You can make your superhero a psychopath, you can draw gut-splattering violence, and you can call it a ‘graphic novel’, but comic books are still incredibly stupid.”

I happen to like this particular strip; superhero costumes, particularly those of the inevitably well-endowed heroines, tend to be a bit ridiculous.

The first quote directly contradicts the second. The first argues that one should evaluate art based upon its content, not it’s medium. The second disparages an entire medium based on his perception of some of it’s content. And both quotes occur in a comic book.

He engaged in a protracted battle with his syndicate and newspapers so that he would have the freedom to create the same kind of artwork for his Sundays that is routinely enjoyed by serial comic artists. He created stories in exactly that format for his treasuries when given the opportunity to do so.

He refuses to license his strip because he felt it would compromise the artistic integrity of his vision. This is a man who takes his art very seriously, and in this book repeatedly criticised others (chiefly syndicates and newspapers) for not treating it with the respect he believed it deserved.

I love Calvin and Hobbes. I think Watterson’s creation is one of the greatest newspaper comics of all time. I agree completely with his first quote above. Content is what matters, not medium.

“The significance of any art lies in its ability to express truths–to reveal and help us understand our world. Comic strips, in their own humble way, are capable of doing this.”

Substitute “books” for “strips” in the above quote, and it remains equally true.

Actually, those strips are about hobby magazines:

“There are magazines for every hobby, and they’re all the same. Calvin’s Chewing magazine is based on the cycling magazines I read. The silly articles I make up are so close to the real thing, it’s hardly satire.”

These strips I also have no problem with. The satirize a particular aspect of one type of magazine, just as the strip in my OP takes aim at one aspect of one genre of comic book. The comment however, paints an entire genre of magazine base on Watterson’s perception of the one type he reads.

Interesting point. I own several different formats of Modesty Blaise newspaper strip reprints:

  1. Pioneer reprints, 7" x 10" on newsprint with a wraparound cover (“comic book” format). The panels are altered in size and arrangement, but they’re still the newspaper strips.

  2. Comics Revue magazine, which reprints many different classic comics, several weeks in each issue. These are magazine size (8 1/2 x 11), on glossy magazine paper.

  3. Ken Pierce reprints, square bound, good quality paper, comic book size (7 x 10). Strips are greatly reduced, but printed unaltered.

  4. Titan reprints, square bound, better paper, treasury sized (9 x 12).

  5. Trade paperback reprints.

The content of all of these printing formats is exactly the same. Based on content, these are all comic books. Based on binding 1 definitely is, possibly 2 and 3, 4 probably not, 5 definitely not. Then again, if the manner of binding is what defines a comic book, then all of those trade paperback and hardbound Archive Editions on my shelves aren’t comic books. It’s a distinciton without a difference.

IMHO, the manner of binding is irrelevant. A book of comics is a comic book.

Number 5 on that list should be:

  1. Mass market paperbacks.

Yup. Stupid. Very less stupid than, say, Teen Titans, or The New Continued Extended Adventures Of Superboy’s Clone, but I still see it as stupid.

I guess I just interpret Watterson’s use of the word “stupid” in the same way Calvin often used the term… a catch-all term to refer to meaninglessness or inanity, not necessarily intellectual capacity. For example, I consider comic books in general to be a terribly, terribly limited medium - at least compared to novels - and by that extension, that self-imposed limitation is, indeed stupid. Typically, the way that comic books avoid the limited storytelling is with flashy artwork.

It’s the same way that a person can be smart, but still behave very stupidly… just reverse it: Comic books are stupid, and the smart moments in the industry don’t negate the fact that they are, indeed stupid. Good stupid fun.

Oh, come now, that’s just silly semantics. Watterson was clearly referring to the typical X-men/Spawn/Superman comic book. This is quite clear in his strips where he refers to this… he provides his own context, a context that you’re ignoring for the purpose of catching the man in a bind.

As much as I wanted to like comic books as a kid, I just couldn’t. I’m all for the idea of superheros I just wish they came with a bit more hard science and a bit less color and spandex. I always thought it would be cool to just have a normal looking guy do heroic stuff.

Walks to the microphone

Ahem

“Maus.”

*Walks away from the micorphone"

From Dictionary.com:
comic book (noun): A book of comics strips or cartoons, often relating a sustained narrative.

From Merriam Webster (m-w.com):
comic book (noun): A magazine containing sequences of comic strips.

Sorry. Any book containing Calvin and Hobbes strips is by definition a comic book. Watterson is, to me, a hypocrite. As if comic strips are not a limited genre and comic books are. Please… :rolleyes:

As for comics being a limited medium, I agree that it is a self-imposed limitation. But the market is not supporting anything else but the superhero/science/fantasy genre. A few standouts are the exception that proves the rule. Comic books could be just as expansive as novels, but there is no market for this nonexistent product.

Oh come on now. There’s nothing inherently inferior about comics as a medium. Not that I see why you should be comparing them to novels in the first place, either – if you’d said “moviemaking is stupid because books are better”, you would just have been laughed at.

Both mediums have their limitations, agreed - but for every thing you can do in a novel but not in a comic book, there are other possibilites that are availible in comics but not pure text. In the hands of a talented artist, comics are really damn versatile, sort of like a missing link between books (textual storytelling) and the visual part of storytelling from movies.

A recommendation would be to read David Mazzucchelli and Paul Karasik 's adaptation of Paul Auster’s City of Glass, preferably reading the novel and the graphic novel right after one another, or side-by-side. If you have them fresh in mind, you can compare how one page of musings from the novel gets translated to a few silent panels at the bottom of a page, both of the versions equally expressive.

If you haven’t read it already, Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics is essential as well. It really opens your eyes for some of the things that are availible in the comics format, that you might not really think about at first. Changes the way you read comics.

Besides, I don’t really see why we’re arguing, as any fool should see that text and images is clearly superior to only text. :stuck_out_tongue:

You MUST check out Starman, or possibly Preacher (depending on how easily offended you are). Starman is exactly what you describe, and it’s my all-time favorite series. “Sins of the Father” is a trade paperback that reprints the first six issues, if you’re interested. And Preacher is great too, but not for everyone.

There’s a certain school of thought that everything fun is always a LITTLE bit stupid. Hell, there’s a fair bit of Shakespeare that’s stupid, but no one would ever suggest that stage play as a whole is stupid.

Watterson, like his contemporary Berke Breathed, has always had a tendency to paint (no pun intended) with a very broad brush. There’s also much truth to the belief that his experiences with his own comic strip soured him quite a bit on the industry, but he apparently doesn’t subscribe to the theory that comic BOOKS and comic STRIPS are two very different animals.

I happen to believe they are.

Just like modern mass-market fiction, I’d wager that 90% of everything that’s being produced in comics today is utter crap. It’s the other 10% that make it worthwhile and interesting to pursue. Yet, somehow, people still (gasp) make money producing comics and mass-market fiction.

I’m almost loathe to say this, because fandom fervor over Bill Watterson is almost on par with PETA enthusiasts, but a lot of people put WAAYY too high a pricetag on BW’s supposed genius. The guy has thrown a lot of stones, and while he doesn’t exactly live in a glass house, you might say he’s got quite a few picture windows.

Simply put, comics aren’t all literature, but I wasn’t aware they were supposed to be. Good comics can be a bridge between literature and film. Great comics can be something even more than that. What’s wrong with that?

Yeah! I love how he can turn his body into living sand. He sure gave Spider-Man a run for his money!

(Or didn’t you mean that Sandman?)

I think this might be the crux of the issue. Watterson had to fight to do just the things that comic book creators take for granted. It irks him that the best a lot of them can do is to have Wolverine pop his claws and call someone ‘Bub’ for the millionth time. Like the rest of us, Watterson has his little issues, which may veer into the irrational or hypocritical.

My two cents: the medium of comics is inherently neutral, but in terms of content, the stupid does outweigh the noble (not that there’s anything wrong with that)!