Just watching "Spaced" now (really good, pick up the DVDs) and in the commentaries the director and writers/stars happily point out comic references and how much they love certain comics - and not just the big ones; one brief characer is modelled after a character in [B]"Preacher"[B/], and at one point, two characters in one scene wear "Strangers In Pradise" shirts. The two writers/co-stars, Simon Pegg & Jessica Stevenson, wrote the entire two series, and have been comic fans for ages.

Also, I've noticed this in other audio commentaries (Donnie Darko? I forget), and M. Night Shyamalan made his tribute to comics a tight little film with "Unbreakable" (hey, I'm entitled to my own informed opinion).

Finally, there's the posters I see here who read (and sometimes write their own) comics, and I'd be hard pressed to find an uninteresting bore among any of them.

So are comic books a catalyst for creative thought? Do they take the step up from text books and enhance imagination by using pictures? Are the experts wrong when they say that illustrations can hinder a child's imagination as they progress?

Thoughts?

Spaced is a very, very good comedy series IMO. As well as the comicbook side, I think it had many film references also.

If you don't already know about them, a couple of other series worth checking out in similar vein (well, imaginative, occasionally surreal and with sometimes less-than linear plotting) are "Coupling" and "Black Books".

So far as the comics and creativity thing goes this may be a chicken-and-egg situation....

I'd say NO. I used to read comics. Years ago, I read many of them. But I quit because I outgrew them. I sometimes thumb through an issue on the newsstand, and every onen I pick up is purile purple prose, written on the level for someone with the mind of a child. Of course, on the other hand, children are pretty imaginitive, so...

It's possible. You see different types of stories in comix told in ways that normally don't get utilized in other media. The medium has awesome potential. But the inherent powers of a medium are meaningless until the potential is realized.

Nope. they are not MORE creative. I wouldn't call them more or less. it's the person, not the reading public.

then again, there is some folks who never EVER read a book and they are more creative then others.

it's all based on person to person.

It's all about the genes

I think we can close this argument with a single image:

to bad, with a red x... it's hard to get closing.

Damn those censoring Fox weasels are cruel.

I see. Maybe you just read children's comics...like Archie.

No. I read children's comics like X-Men and the other X-spinoffs, plus multiple other Marvel titles I won't list. Used to love them. Owned hundreds of them. But now, when I happen across one of the titles, EVEN AN OLDER ISSUE I HAD ONCE READ, I see what melodramatic, expository purile pablum they are. Written by (or for, or both) the utterly sexually repressed, too. They do NOT hold up with age.

I can say the same thing about current titles, having picked up and browsed Star Wars and Buffy comics on the newsstand. They are candy, more likely to ROT the brain than expand it.

It reminds me of the letters to the editor that I used to read in comics where adults would write in and complain that how DARE people say that adults who read comics are losers-- after all, they are 35 years old and live in their parents basements surrounded by comics and aren't losers.

Oh, yes, they are.

Darren,

Did a comic-book fan piddle in your cheerios or something?



Signed,
Jepthah(a casual fan of the comic-book format who occasionally manages to get laid)

Well, I was going to offer some title recommendations, but it seems you already sought out the best that the medium has to offer.

When I was younger, I used to love reading novels. As I matured, however, I reread some of my Hardy Boys collection and suddenly realized what purile trash novels truly are.

No, I'm one of the least creative people I know.

Al Infinitum!

I couldn't argue with you there, as I never got into juvies. I used to read lots of science fiction, but the large majority of my reading now is non-fiction with maybe 5% fiction.

I don't want to assume you missed his point, but your post doesn't sound like it's being sarcastic, so....

What he was saying is that judging the comic book world by the X-Men related titles and movie and TV show related adaptations is like judging all books by Harlequinn romance novels.

There's quite a bit of diversity in the comic book world. I'm not suggesting you should try reading more comics, just that you might want to consider that having read only Marvel comics and Star Wars and Buffy adaptations isn't a good basis upon which to judge all comics or their fans.

---------------

As for the topic at hand, I don't think comic book fans are really much different than fans of any other creative medium, be it film, theater, music or books. All these mediums have their mass appeal works, as well as works that are a little more interested in exploring a theme than in simple entertainment.

-David

<small></small>Yes. I too read the post as a deliberate and ironic example of comparing apples and oranges.

Of course some pesky folk have now put up this site: D'Oh!

Oh, I saw his point-- and was agreeing that books like The Hardy Boys are also likely mind-rotting palp.

And, back to the original question-- are comic readers more creative-- I still say NO.

Showing little drawings of exactly what people and situations are supposed to look like is LESS likely to bring about thought and creativity than having to stitch together the images in your own mind. Reading heavy-handed exposition in thought bubbles does NOT stimulate minds more than figuring out subtilities only implied in text. So, NO. It isn't apples and oranges-- it's apples and cow manure.

Harsh words, Darren Garrison, although, for much the same reason, some people do say that television rots the brain....

.... to anyone else following up, I think it might be best to concentrate on the initial question - as opposed to focusing on any perceived rebuke concerning the inherent quality (or lack thereof) of their chosen reading in the "text+" medium that is comicbooks.


Benedict

You convinced me: visual = viewer's lack of inspiration.

Michaelangelo and Rembrandt OUT, Danielle Steele IN.
Orson Welles OUT, Elmore Leonard IN.

Sarcasm aside, if you read much about modern authors you'll find that several of them were as inspired by trends in modern cinema or yes, comics, as literary classics. DeLillo and Chabon come to mind.

I do not think that comic book fans are any more or any less creative than other creative types. I don't believe that Shakespeare had any comics to view.

A good comic (as opposed to something like Buffy) is a synthesis of words and pictures, not simply expository dialogue and redundant imagery. I've heard the argument that comics are unique because they require activity in both hemispheres of the brain.

An art form needs to be judged by its finest examples, and should certainly not be judged only by its dregs.

Despite all that I've stated above, I agree that comics probably do not make individuals more creative. We should be assuming that the comparison is to an individual that dedicates equal effort pursuing other artistic forms of entertainment (e.g. painting, drawing, reading, etc.).

...

How creative!!