I'm definitely not in favor of that.

Crotch shadows? I am not sure what that means but if people want explicit shots of characters' privates in comics, then I would have to disagree. Or if people want them gone just to reduce the "sexualization" of these characters then I'd have to say that it is only part of characters' overall superbody image and one particular area should not be reduced as it would be inconsistent.

Male body idolization is a great phrase since I work out regularly.

I tend to only read X-Men comics on a regular basis but I admire many of the male characters' (Beast, Wolverine, Colossus, etc) huge muscles but I am not gay.

One female character that often may serve as eye candy for straight males may be Emma Frost but I don't think women have any complaints about that character since she is at least intellgient, as are other female members of the X-Men team.


I don't think comics are "looked down" at all. Just not everyone can get into it.

I've actually asked this question to quite a few people over the years, and I've come to the conclusion that the perception is that comics are for people that can't read "proper" literature without illustrations to keep their attention focused on words/story. Most people don't understand that the art tells the story as much, or more in some cases, then the words.

I once had a History teacher tell me that he had reading problems when he was a kid and that the simple set-up of comic books helped him learn to read. I think he said it was a good stepping stone to more advanced stuff. Anyway, that has always stuck with me over the years.

With all respect to Tracer Bullet, I think the depictions of males vs. females in comics is a red herring in this discussion. It's certainly a topic worthy of discussion, but I highly doubt the way men and women are rendered in comics is the reason it's looked down upon by the general public. Most of the public have never actually picked up a comic before they put it down, so I don't see how the artwork is going to be a determining factor. And just to continue the discussion further, I think the way females are depicted in American comics are no more unrealistic than Barbie, and certainly less outlandish than the way manga depicts females, and absolutely less freakish than the women depicted in Metal Hurlant (or is it only called Heavy Metal now?). Hell, I have a manga about Death from the Sandman series where every female character, including Death and Delirium, have massive mammaries despite being fairly flat-chested in the American comics. So while they may be oversexualized, they certainly aren't the only or the worst offender in that department.

As for the original question, I think comics are looked down upon because of the old preconception that they're just for kids (although very few are actually for kids anymore), and a lack of strong writing. Of all the enduring characters in the world of literature, film, and other forms of entertainment, comic characters are the only ones whose adventures are essentially endless. And not only endless, but with every event having an effect on everything else going on. There are limited stories about Sherlock Holmes, Luke Skywalker, King Arthur, Frodo Baggins, and other landmark figures. But Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, their stories haven't stopped for decades. Spider-Man has been around for over 40 years, Batman and Superman have been around for over 60. How many good stories can you tell about the same character nonstop for decades at a time? Sure, all of these heroes have had excellent storylines and arcs, but they're always ruined when the story writers come up with a creative block and decide to kill someone for three months (looking at you here, Captain America), or change the character's costume or something equally gimmicky and stupid. It's no surprise that the best any of these series has to offer are story arcs that can be collected in graphic novels. These are essentially self-contained stories within the larger universe that let the reader read something with a beginning, a middle, and an end. Monthly comics used to be self-contained stories, but eventually the graphic novel mentality took over and every single comic title has become nothing but long-running stories, usually published across several titles (i.e. Amazing Spider-Man, Spectacular Spider-Man, Spider-Man, Nonplussed Spider-Man, Curious George Spider-Man, etc.), with no sense of resolution to any individual issue.

Now, I know I just seemed to contradict myself. On the one hand, I'm saying the best thing about a long-running title are the stories that lend themselves to graphic novels, while at the same time decrying stories written solely for the purpose of publishing a graphic novel. What I'm trying to get across is that any of these titles are best in smaller, more digestible doses, whether that dose be a graphic novel or a one-off, but Marvel and DC have interpreted this to mean that people want to see major events all the time, and it's become more about gimmicks than actual good storytelling.

Look at early issues of Spider-Man, or Fantastic Four, or any Marvel comic. 90% of them were one-offs. A very few ran for two (count them, TWO) issues. If I recall correctly, the entire Silver Surfer/Galactus story in FF was introduced and resolved within two issues. People like full narratives. You can't expect to draw in new readers by having all comics be one long, unending story. That's what soap operas are, and that's what comics have become.

What comics need more of is a sense of finality. Look at Sandman. Neil Gaiman single-handedly wrote 76 issues of Sandman (some of them with multiple stories in a single issue). That's over 6 years with one character. And yet, the writing in the comic never grew stale. Fantastical things happened, but they never felt like a draw for wider readership. Gaiman wisely put the issue into 8 story arcs with a few one-off issues thrown in to let people catch their breath. This also let people jump in without having to know a ton of backstory. He worked with specific artists for each arc, and made many bold stylistic and narrative choices. But what happens in the story is what happens in the story. Gaiman doesn't kill someone in issue 10 only to bring him/her back in issue 49. Gaiman didn't need to worry about continuity because he never wrote anything that would cause him continuity problems. But more than anything, he knew where he was taking the character and when to end the story. How many comic writers working in the industry today can say the same? And how many would like to write to their full potential, but are being told by Marvel and DC that Infinite Crisis on Multiple Planets or Secret Civil Wars is more important? Oh, and by the way, Sandman is one of the few (maybe the only) comics to boast equal readership between men and women.

I think, more than anything, this is what's holding back the comic book world. In any other form of entertainment, people are generally content with a few entries in a series. Only in comics are people determined to make their main characters ever young and never changing, except in the small details that only the most fanatical comic collectors care about. It's completely turned me off to mainstream comics, except in graphic novel form, but even then, I'm pretty choosy. I have been enjoying the new DC line of Absolute comics, especially The Watchmen and Sandman. Again, though, these are already established greats that are being given the royal treatment. I'm far less interested in reading the latest Spider-Man or Iron Man graphic novel, because I know it will just be a lot of flash with little substance.

Great post Suprmallet.

The one thing I disagree with is your assertion that the advent of the "graphic novel age" caused this continuous story telling problem. Long before issues were regularly collected into graphic novels, we had long continuous stories over several issues, some of which are some of the greatest comic stories of all time. What superhero fan doesn't love Byrne's FF, Claremont and Byrne's X-men, Simonson's Thor, Miller's Daredevil, etc.?

What the graphic novel boom has caused is "writing for the trade" which seems to at times mean that what used to take only a single issue gets expanded into a seven issue run. This may make things more cinematic, but man does it make me not want to collect anything monthly anymore.

I do agree with your soap opera comment. I think part of the problem are editorial shifts and lack of continuity in writing. The great runs I mentioned above (which admittedly still are all in the superhero realm), and other classics such as Sandman, Preacher, Cerebus, are all pretty much done with some constant of a creative team... if not the artists, then certainly the writers. That means less contradictions, less retconning to cover up other people's writings, etc. It is kind of odd that we have all of these different writers writing all of these different characters that are supposed to share the same universe, and thus are all dependent on each other. And because of eternal youth, we know nothing of importance will happen that won't shift back to the norm years from now, when a new writer and/or editorial team decides to do another revamp.

Continuity itself is a problem in gaining new readers. Old readers who have been collecting for a while like to think that their investment in comic collecting has some kind of payoff in tightly written continuity, in knowing the intricate details of the histories of these characters and all the various crossovers going on. This means that new readers are left confused. I highly doubt any readers who hadn't been following the DC universe at all would have understood half of what happened in Infinite Crisis or 52.

I think something like All Star Superman (but not Batman) shows how great superheroes can still be when they're written cohesively and not tied down by continuity.

This is what I was trying to get across. Except you just said it far more succinctly.

Robo is onto something. Mixed text and graphics is the best way to communicate with semiliterate people in print. That's why propaganda has used it for decades, whether it's advertising brochures, Chick tracts, or anti-drug comics. It's powerful, and easy to understand.

Since comics are easy to understand, even by those who can't read well, people make the leap that only those who can't read well enjoy comics.

But it gets worse. Since the potential readership of comics is mostly the semiliterate and the immature, why would a talented author or artist want to create comics? I have a Batman comic written by Harlan Ellison. It's hilarious. But it was written as a lark, and he's spent his career trying to do something more serious. Neil Gaiman and the handful of others like him are the treasured exceptions -- talented artists and writers go elsewhere.

Finally, authors and artists live by respect. If the world respects your work, it gives you money. If the world doesn't respect your work, you have to drive a taxi to pay your rent. What talented young author would want to work in a medium which garners no respect, and offers him no future? So comic books are mostly written and illustrated by people who can't aspire for anything more. Writing soap operas about men in tights is pushing the edge of their talent.

That last bit reminds me of an anecdote I read in a Neil Gaiman interview.

Gaiman, during the time Sandman was still in its initial run, was at a publisher's party, with several prominent authors and a ton of critics. One of the critics sidled up to Gaiman and asked what he did.

"I'm an author," Gaiman replied.

"Oh, really? What have you done?" The critic asked.

"A few novels, but right now I'm writing comic books." Gaiman answered.

The critic, upon hearing the words "comic books" looked down his nose at Gaiman.

"And what comics might those be?" He asked with disdain.

"Well, I worked on an issue of Swamp Thing, an mini series called Black Orchid, and I write Sandman."

Hearing that, the critic perked up.

"Oh, you don't write comic books, you write graphic novels!" He exclaimed with delight.

Gaiman, in the interview, commented that he thought it was sad the man had to put the work in the "graphic novel" box in order to respect it.

Sorry to post this off-topic, but I tried (unsuccessfully) to send this as a PM. Just wanted to say that I figured there was no way anyone named Tracer Bullet would be unfamiliar with a C&H strip.

Very true.

PMs aren't enabled here, by the way.

You see that with all the the coverage of Frank Miller movies now too. Frank Miller, the graphic novelist. I roll my eyes at that. That's like saying you don't like movies, but enjoy the cinema...oh wait, there are people like that too!

I think comics need to have their own TV series, movies, and video games for them to be succesful.

If that fails, maybe if a comic can win a Pulitzer. Then comics are set.

Don't we already have TV series, movies and video games based on comics? Some of them are quite successful but despite that success comics is still a niche market.

A Pulitzer is far fetched, I think. It's not impossible, I just don't see it happening anytime soon. The next best thing is to have the mainstream media recognise the quality of some the comics out there. This has happened. TIME magazine listed Watchmen as one of the must read books of the 20th Century (or something like that). It was the only comic in their list.

I remember "MAUS" was on that level...


Maus: A Survivor's Tale is a memoir by Art Spiegelman, presented as a graphic novel. It recounts the struggle of Spiegelman's father to survive the Holocaust as a Polish Jew and draws largely on his father's recollections of his experiences. The book also follows the author's troubled relationship with his father and the way the effects of war reverberate through generations of a family. In 1992 it won a Pulitzer Prize Special Award. The New York Times described the selection of Maus for the honor: "The Pulitzer board members ... found the cartoonist's depiction of Nazi Germany hard to classify."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maus


Awards
1988 Angoulême International Comics Festival Awards - Religious Award: Christian Testimony & Prize for Best Comic Book: Foreign Comic Award (Maus: un survivant raconte).
1988 Urhunden Prize - Foreign Album (Maus).
1990 Max & Moritz Prizes - Special Prize (Maus).
1992 Pulitzer Prize - Special Awards and Citations - Letters (Maus). [6]
1992 Eisner Award - Best Graphic Album: Reprint (Maus II).
1992 Harvey Award - Best Graphic Album of Previously Published Work (Maus II). [7]
1993 Los Angeles Times Book Prize for Fiction (Maus II, A Survivor's Tale). [8]
1993 Angoulême International Comics Festival Awards - Prize for Best Comic Book: Foreign comic (Maus: un survivant raconte, part II).
1993 Urhunden Prize - Foreign Album (Maus II).

And the worst part is....I have MAUS in my collection. Okay, so a Pulitzer is not so far fetched. But it still hasn't improved the status of comics among the general public has it?

Hah! Just so we're clear, I didn't post that as a, "Gotcha" or "you're wrong" post.

Peace

It doesn't fit their business objective. Same reason that there's independent labels and non-independent labels. Same reasons there's small film distributors and big ones.

And, just like in music and in movies, the big guys usually have some arm that deals with capturing that demographic. Vertigo, for DC Comics, for example.

Also, where can you buy comics besides a comic book store? The only ones I see outside of them are either Archies at the supermarket or TPBs at bookstores, Border's, etc. Weren't comics usually sold in pharmacies and supermarkets and what not back in the day?

And isn't there a "cheap" line of comics? Maybe I'm thinking of golden/silver age reprints but I distincintly remember something about a comic going with cheap print and black and white, and then there being a premium edition.

I've lent my brother and sister some of my TPBs and bought ones on store owner's recommendations. Don't recall the titles of what I got them but I lent them Bone, for example.

Also my last post was tongue firmly in cheek.