Complaining about the Zinn-Buhle-Konopacki People’s History of American Empire put me in mind of a side issue. I refer to Rius’s works and the Beginners series as comic books. But they aren’t, because in my view a comic book must center around a narrative or argument conducted by a series of pictures. Words will be involved too, in most cases, but the chain of pictures really makes up the comic’s spine. Rius and the Beginners series do something else. The text, skimpy as it is, carries the reader from point to point; the pictures, big as they are, provide a counterpoint to the text. What do you call a book like that? A comic, if you’re blogging and in a hurry, but the term doesn’t really fit.
Realize that there are exceptions to this rule. Steve Gerber or Neil Gaiman or a bunch of other guys may take a break from image-to-image sequencing and bung in a number of pages where text carries the day and pictures are there as dressing. You might then argue that a given issue of Howard the Duck or Miracleman is a comic book from pages x to xx, something else for a while, and then back to being a comic again. But life is tedious enough.
if the text is doing enough of the heavy lifting, that's probably when it shades into "illustrated book."
a lot of the history "comics" seem to be like that… although i'd argue that larry gonick stays on the "comic-book" side, both because his pictures seem so essential, & because the whole thing has such an underground comix sensibility, up to the fact that all of his extra-panel text is handlettered or in a handlettery font (which i really think more of these text+comics books should do. it gives the text a comicky voice in my head, & it seems like an extremely easy way to bind the two elements closer together).
Gonick’s definitely a comic book, in my view. Panel-by-panel progression, word balloons, captions. Take the words out and you have a comic without words; take the pictures out and you have a script.
I disagree about the role of lettering. For example, if I remember right, Rius uses handlettering but his books are formally the same as the Beginners books. Sounds like the handlettering vibe affects you, whereas it leaves me untouched.
As for “illustrated book,” that’s more like what we’re left with than it is a really useful term. A copy of The Adventures of Marco Polo with drawings every few pages is an illustrated book. Rius and the others have text and illos doing a dance together, even though the text leads. An illustrated book is more likely to have text and illos segregated from each other, each on its own page.
So I’m left with my mystery.
I tend to think that formalist definitions of genres or mediums rather miss the point. Comics are a historical and cultural category, not a formal one. If something is marketed as a comic and thought of as a comic, then it’s a comic. There’s obviously a formal component to that (words and pictures, panel borders, word balloons) but they matter a lot less than the first bit (which is why, say, Fort Thunder stuff is comics, even though it might as well just be visual art.)
This is why I find Scott McCloud’s definitions kind of silly. Separating single panels and strips, for example, may make formalist sense, but medium isn’t about form,; it’s about history and culture.
Now saying, “these are bad comics because they don’t integrate words and text well” is a whole ‘nother issue….
You said “mediums”!
Well, it beats me. In Guatemala they talk about how some Indians are considered white because they’ve chosen to live in the white culture. Still, they’re Indians who’ve gone white, not just regular whites.
When you think about how differently comics are viewed in different countries, it becomes harder to say a comic is anything society labels as such. Despised here, accepted in France, but in either country Tin-Tin and the Hulk are instantly recognized for what they are: comics. Because they’ve both got panels, word balloons, etc.
And I don’t think unintegrated text and pictures have to make for a bad comic. I liked those crazy text pieces Gerber used to do.
Indian nations historically really didn’t base criteria for admission on race, though.
The U.S. and France have a lot of cultural overlap (much to the horror of both, I’m sure.)
And, yeah, I promised to use “mediums” from now on, and I’m going to stick to it….
Well, we’ll let Miriam settle it.
Seeing how she has Cherokee blood and all.
i think noah's right, that strict definitions & what is & isn't comics, & needing categories in order to talk about different kinds of comics, are unrewarding & ultimately unnecessary.
thinking about it, i'd rather call "the people's history" whatever (not that i've read it, just going on your description) a half-assed, poorly executed comic, rather than an illustrated book.
from this, we start to get into eddie campbell what-is-a-graphic-novel kind of crap, which, i've gone there before, but this might not be the time for it.
& "whiteness" has always been a cultural construct that has rather little to do with either genetics or the colour of one's skin. (besides the classic example of irish-americans not being white a hundred years ago, despite being *fairer* than most of the people around them, the two most interesting cases to me currently are arab-americans & hispanic-americans.)
there you go. anything else i can decide for you?
Huh. This isn’t over.
a full disclosure which could be confused with a plug: i myself did a piece for an anthology, which is mostly text but comicky in spirit (the first page can be seen here).
i called it a drawn essay, by way of dodging the question.
So … the definition (rigid or loose) of “comics” is like the definition of “white”? or for the matter of a native american tribe that in 2007 voted to exclude the descendants of American slaves, “Cherokee”? Just because both categories (or a concept, “whiteness”) are vastly expansive to mean a lot of different stuff?
That would be weird, since one issue is about the definition (formalistic or cultural/histoircal)of a medium, and the other one concerns the issues of political and material interests, power, racism, equality, democracy, hierarchy, civic status, class, etc. The former can be talked about in terms of later, but they are not the same, is all.
“The former can be talked about in terms of later, but they are not the same, is all.”
Well, that’s what makes it an analogy, as opposed to talking about the same thing twice.
All right, thought I’d post this before I go for my walk. All this stuff about white being cultural is true but beside the point. White skin is different from black skin; comic books with panels, etc., are different from other word-picture melanges. For the purposes of my argument that’s all that is necessary.
And whether definitions are necessary is one thing; whether I want to make a definition is another.
Black is a cultural definition, which sometimes has something to do with skin color, sometimes not. There are “black” people with lighter skins than many “white” people.
You can define anything anyway you want, of course. But if other people don’t accede to your definition, or find it a useful way to categorize things, then you’re kind of just talking to yourself.
right. darker skin is different from lighter skin. but wavy hair is different from straight hair, & greater distance between the eyes is different from less distance between the eyes. but we don't find it necessary to have categories of people based on those differences.
the definition of a movie has something to do with motion. is a ken burns documentary that relies heavily on panning across still frames not really a movie? i find it more interesting to talk about how the use of still frames affects the viewing experience, rather than deciding a movie that holds on one image for a certain amount of time needs its own category, & we have to decide who's in & who's out.
so in that sense, what interests me here is, as you said, "whether I want to make a definition." why do you want to make a definition?
do you not want to call text-heavy, panel-progression-light books comics because you feel they're cheating, & somehow unworthy? or do you feel they are so different that they don't bear comparing to other comics, as scott mccloud hemmed himself into believing about comic strips? cause both those decisions trouble me.
like, i think the term "graphic novel" is an eminently useful one for any book-length work of sequential art. but a lot of people hate it & will never use it, & a lot of their antipathy comes from the unworthy crap that calls itself graphic novels. which means you have to make yourself a new, idiosyncratic label, & if anyone takes your label & puts it on crap, you have to fight them for it, or disown it & make another label.
& that is all sooo beside the point to making good work, or talking about it, to me.
(i don't mean to gang up on you, even though i seem to be arguing the same thing as noah. i woke up & saw your comments, then tried to go back to sleep, but couldn't for the response that kept trying to form in my head. when i got up & decided to try to compose it, noah had already replied.)
Yeah; I mean I should just add that I thought your take on the Zinn thing was great; whether it’s a comic or not, it’s definitely lousy, for exactly the reasons you said.
Well, hey, I don’t mean to cause any trouble. I just think we’re talking past each other.
A key point is that I would never say “standard comic good, other comic bad.” You guys may think I’m faulting the Zinn book for not being a standard comic. No! It is a standard comic and it stinks. Rius’s second Cuba book is not a standard comic, and as I recall it was quite good. Kind of heavy-handed and suffering from disenchanted-fellow-traveler syndrome, but still a fine piece of work graphically. Just not a comic book.
Does that matter? Not when it comes to enjoying or respecting the thing, but maybe in some other ways.