Oh, boo-hoo, the snobs are trashing superhero comics again. :rolleyes:
<clutches Bat-books tightly to chest>
I’ll try. First of all, if they are “comic-haters” as you say, they are probably going to hate any comic they read, but on the off chance that they decide to give the medium a fair chance, why not start them out with a list that most agree is the cream of the crop?
I don’t follow. I don’t consider Sandman as being pretentious. The word has a decidedly negative connotation attached to it (at least as I understand and use it) that the thing being described as pretentious is claiming to a position of distinction or merit, when in reality it is undeserving of that description. I do not consider Sandman pretentious, but I have noticed that anytime a comic book attempts to take itself seriously, the word “pretentious” inevitably pops up. As a comic book fan, I realize I am not the most objective person. It’s just a pet peeve, I guess.
This is more than a little unfair. Those were the first definitions listed in both sources I cited. I hate to tell you folks this, but words mean things. What is the major difference between a book collecting Superman comic strips and a monthly Superman comic? Would anyone like to take that up and answer it? And I never hear the trade lingo outside of any trade publications that I read. Nobody calls it a pamphlet, despite any wisdom descending from Mr. Ellis, a man though he is talented is also of late both incapable of putting out a monthly book and is largely disillusioned with the comic book genre.
I’ll agree that the average person has more widespread exposure to different genres of novels than different genres of comics. And it is true that comics have a poor reputation brought on by characters such as the “comic book guy” on The Simpsons, caricatures that are often all too true to life. But to write off the entire medium as stupid is…well, stupid. IMHO, of course.
How do you think Watterson would define a “comic book”? Do you think he’d include a collection of strips? If he wouldn’t, wouldn’t you at least allow for the fact that he doesn’t use a precise dictionary definition for every term and word that he uses, and doesn’t feel the need to clarify and explain exceptions when he provides a context for his words?
I can’t crawl into Watterson’s brain and decide how he would define comic book. I can assume that he means your average Superman or X-Men comic, and that assumption is probably correct.
However, the fact remains that a book containing a collection of Watterson strips and a comic book containing the adventures of Superman are not that significantly different. Again…I open up my daily newspaper and read three panels of a Batman comic. I go out to Borders and buy a book containing a collection of Batman comic strips. On the shelf next to this book is a book collecting some issues of Batman comic books from the sixties that never appeared in comic strip form. Other than simple panel layout (which Watterson was so fond of “flaunting” to retain his artistic vision), what’s the difference? 
I see no difference. Maybe it’s just me.
You raise a good point, Psycho Pirate. For someone who professes to think comic books are stupid, Watterson was pretty strongly influenced by them. Where, if not '50’s superhero comic books, did the influence for Calvin’s Spaceman Spiff character come from? And doesn’t the introduction to The Essential Calvin and Hobbes look strangely like a graphic novel? Not to mention, as you say, the “flaunting” of panel conventions, which make Calvin and Hobbes look more and more like a comic book.
Hrmph. Hamsters ate my post.
Anyway: saying that a Calvin and Hobbes anthology is not a comic book is foolish. Calvin and Hobbes is a comic – no matter how genius you think it is, it’s a comic. A book of comics is a comic book. Saying that comic books are stupid when “obviously” you mean all superhero comics are stupid is rather like saying all anthologies are bad when what you really mean is Reader’s Digest Condensed Books are bad.
I think people may be taking his little quip too seriously. The comment was a caption to a comic which showed Calvin talking about a silly superhero comic book as if it were a great piece of art. Watterson was obviously directly replying to Calvin. I think it’s unfair to take the quote out of context and insert your own interpretation and throw around accusations of hypocrisy and all that. It was just a quick little one-liner to make a quick argument. He actually goes quite in-depth in his opinion of comics at the beginning of the book. I’m sure if given a moment, Watterson could explain the entire background and meaning behind the caption, but that wouldn’t be very fun (and he does at the beginning of the book anyway).
It wasn’t a caption, at least not in the traditional comics sense, in that it wasn’t printed with the strip; Calvin and Hobbes doesn’t typically come with captions. It was a commentary added for The Tenth Anniversary Book. The comment itself was one of many in which Watterson explains how he’s using Calvin’s interest in something to show it in a ridiculous light. He refers this later in the book as, “Calvin’s ability to precisely articulate stupid ideas.”
His in-depth commentary at the beginning of the book concerning comics is entirely conerned with newspaper comics; he doesn’t address comic books at all except for that one strip and the commentary that goes with it. He complains that newspaper comics are not treated with the respect that a serious art form deserves, that they are dismissed as juvinile and asinine merely because much of the content fits that description. He argues that they are capable of much depth, able to, “reveal and help us understand the world.” He says that it is the content of an artform that determines its worth, not the medium.
Then he does exactly what he’s been complaining about. He dismisses an entire medium by implying that it’s juvinile and asinine because much of the content–superheroes–fits that description. I like the strip itself; it successfully lampoons one of the more ridiculous aspects of superhero comics. It required no further explanation to make its point. The commentary itself makes a different, more general point, ie that comic books=superhores and therefore are dumb. After going to so much effort to convince us that newspaper comics=shallow gag strips is an unfair characterization based on a limited or flawed understanding of that art form, to make the same kind of claim regarding comic books, or any other medium for artistic expression, is a form of hypocrisy.
And it’s not taking the quote out of context. I provide more than adequate context in the OP: A summary and quotes from the strip itself and the entire quote unabridged. Waterson could have said superhero comics are stupid, or that superhero costumes are stupid, and he would have been criticising a specific aspect of one kind of content. He could have commented that the strip was about how fans can become so dedicated that they blind themselves to the ludicrous aspects of whatever they are fans of; this was how I interpreted the strip at first–it used a specific example to lampoon overzealous fans, and in this case did so successfully.
But he didn’t say any of those things. What he said was, “. . . comic books are incredibly stupid.” His example was superheroes, but his comment was about the medium itself. And it’s a medium in which he himself works, though he would undoubtedly dispute that.
<Pedant Powers Activate>
“juvenile”
(there were others, but I am not as nitpicky as all that)
<Pedant Powers Off>
In addition to the “intelligent comics” mentioned here, I have actually helped college students who were completely unable to absorb a topic in ancient history get into the topic (and from there go to the primary sources better prepared) by photocopying relevant sections from Larry Gonick’s Cartoon Histories of the Universe . It’s an incredible series in that it covers the basics of history (even using primary sources) presuming no foreknowledge yet doesn’t talk down to its audience. I sometimes consult it myself when I’m trying to remember the name of a particular Assyrian king or Babylonian deity that I know is in there and I don’t want to have to dig out a book on Assyrian history.
Oh come now, I don’t think it was meant as a serious window into his opinion. It’s like when you’re frustrated and you say stuff like “I hate people!” or “My boss is so stupid!” You don’t really mean those things at face value, but as a retort or quick comment they make their point.
Out of thousands of strips he had available, he chose that one to put in the book and comment on. I think he did intend for it to be taken at face value. We can argue intent all day long without coming to an agreement, but the statement itself is hypocrisy in light of what he says in other parts of the book.
That’s it, you’ve convinced me.
Waterson is a hypocritical doody-head who shouldn’t be allowed access to crayons because he doesn’t like comic books.
I shall boycott all “Calvin and Hobbes” merchandise from now on (no more tee-shirts or stuffed tigers for me!) and I shall immediately cancel my subscriptions to all newspapers running his work.
There is no Calvin and Hobbes merchandise. Watterson refused to license any to protect the artistic integrity of the strip. Newspapers no longer carry the strip; it ran for too short a period of time to qualify for the reruns that Peanuts is currently doing, and Watterson would not allow anyone else to write or draw it.
I thoroughly enjoy the strip, and I own all of the books, including the most recent museum catalog. I remain a big fan of the strip. Hell, I even like The Tenth Anniversary Book for its insight into the creative process. However, in this one case, I believe that Watterson is inconsistent in his predjudice against one particular medium of delivery for the art form he so strenuously defends throughout the book.
First of all, I would take Watterson’s comment as a bit tongue in cheek, and aimed squarely at the vast majority of superhero comics which are very stupid. Unfortunately, there is that little bit which isn’t tongue in cheek, and is very much self-hating and an attempt to distance himself from what he would consider the unsavory aspects of comicdom. Too much generalization is the problem. Look at Scott Kurtz’s “Maximo” PvP storyline and his subsequent justifications. The original strip was funny, but he went too far trying to explain himself and ended putting down an entire medium.
Of course, if you don’t read as many comics as I do, the above might not make sense.
I think a lot of the problem is that almost every comic book you will read deals in some way or another with fantasy elements. Of course anything that doesn’t deal with the daily life of everyday people is garbage in one way or another. That much is patently obvious. God forbid one day people will be able to communicate with each other transglobally or dream weird things. But comics (and movies and books and music) still insists on bringing these topics up. I mean, going to the moon? How much of this insane fantasy garbage can you put up with? Fantasy elements ruined “Macbeth”. Don’t even get me started on “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”.
That aside aside, it is still a fact that even the people who practice the “art” of comics will put it down at the drop of a hat. It’s just a stepping stone for the graphic art of advertising, or maybe, if they dream big enough, a career in movies, where realism is key and respect rains down like mana from the heavens.
In other words, and let me drop my sarcastic facade, it’s what you do with it, stupid. If you want to write adolescent power fantasies, and God knows there’s an audience for it, do it. If you want to write in depth explorations of the human condition and explore the medium of the comic page, God knows there is next to no audience for it, do it. Just be prepared to deal with the ignorant assholes who have already decided what comics are and should be for the rest of time without ever bothering to actually look at what they are so smarmily declaring to be incredibly stupid.
Jackasses.
RE: Sandman
No, it’s not. And that’s not a subjective “I like it so it’s not” thing. The concepts behind it, the topics it takes on, the amount of intellect that went into the creation of it, all keep it from being stupid. You can call it pretentious, you can say that it aims high and misses, but it’s not stupid.
No, even with your back-pedaling redefinition of “stupid”, it’s not stupid. If it’s meaningless, then all fiction is meaningless. If you consider comic books to be a terribly limited medium, then it’s a good thing you don’t write them. There are plenty of creators – more than have been mentioned in this thread, even – who realize that it’s possible to work within the limitations of the medium and create something worthwhile and intelligent. Again, whether it works for you or not is all a matter of taste, but saying that the medium is inherently incapable of producing anything more than “good stupid fun” is just absurd. I’ve read plenty of novels that don’t have as much depth as “The Sandman.” Even “Hellboy,” which tries to be good, stupid, fun, is more creative and intelligent than the bulk of the “real” books I’ve read.
And the claim that a few exceptions don’t disprove the fact that comic books are stupid – I don’t get that at all. If a creator can take a medium that everyone assumes is inherently stupid and create something intelligent from it, then what more do you need to prove that the limitations are in the creativity of the author, not the medium itself?
I disagree. Strictly speaking, both of your definitions describe exactly what Watterson makes and not what I’d go down to the comic book store to get the lastest Spider-Man in every month. If we hold Watterson to a literal interpretation of his statement with your definitions in mind, he finds nothing wrong with Spider-Man and thinks that the collections of his own books are “incredibly stupid.” If you want to, we can argue on what constitutes a comic strip, but that’s not really worth our time.
The reason for bringing up the difference between a “comic book,” “trade paperback,” etc. is to use a more precise definition and one that comic book fans will recognize. Yes, someone who isn’t a “serious” reader of comics would not make a distinction between those terms, but I think that we can say 1) we are and 2) Watterson is. Trying to say that Watterson is condemning himself based on what the dictionary says vs. what we can more correctly assume his terms mean is arguing semantics, which is, in this case, counterproductive at best and pointless at worst.
I should have left my commentary about Sandman out of the argument. Unless Gaiman really turns things around in “The Wake,” I’m sticking with pretentious (or self-important if you prefer). We can argue that in another thread though.