No innovation in comics past WWII

Also, I think this neglects the kind of medium ground artists that people at ILC usually love, like Grant Morrison. It seems like there are two canons--the one dictated by Wizard (Watchmen/Dark Knight; Image comics; Crisis of Infinite Earths to Dark Phoenix, Marvels/Kingdom Come; and more recently--JLA, New X-Men, etc.), and the indie one (Maus, etc.). This is obvious, but I think the upshot is that (1) GM, who seems more creative to me than any other comics artist I read, doesn't really get the same sort of general critical attention as someone like Adrian Tomine, b/c GM is so embedded in superhero conventions; and (2) there's a category of artists between the two categories who will largely be ignored. Jamie Delano is a good example--he's a pretty good writer, quirky different, but is neither highbrow nor a big seller. He's the midlist mainstream writer. I'm also thinking of Anne Nocenti, maybe Paul Jenkins before he became popular, maybe even Peter David.

I don't think necessarily that Ware, Tomine, et al are being singled out as exceptions so much as they are seen as representatives of the higher-brow strain of comics, the way, of course, that Joyce, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, etc. (why can't I think of any non-Modernist writers??? Ok: Melville?) are always lifted out from more popular novelists when snobs talk about Literature/the Novel.

Museums and, apparently, the author of the article don't care a whit about the narrativity of comics, which to me is the most important thing I take from them (which also explains why I don't seek out undie/indie comix). It really doesn't surprise me, in other words, that traditional cultural pillars ignore the spandex genres.

Academia possibly has more tolerance for spandexy scholarship; why, on my computer I have a journal article on the X-Men! And another about From Hell!

Superhero comics are never gonna get any props bcz you need to know about a whole load of continuity. The superhero comics that are held upas being great outside of comics itself sre the ones where you donb't need to know this stuff - Watchmen, Dark Knight, early Marvel.

So much here I don't really get. Why would realizing that Archie and L&R work in the same tradition and discourse stop anyone from loving one and dissing the other? Does it really matter to a reader (a non-scholarly reader) if L&R and Archie are part of the same tradition and discourse, if there is some aspect of one that the person likes that isn't present in the other? I'm not entirely clear on why viewing Ware or Tomine as exceptions is elitist, or at least not in a bad way (surely any review that makes a claim that a work is "good" or "bad" is elitist in some way, but so what?). And your claiming that, if they like Ware and Tomine but dislike or aren't aware of Morrison, that they don't really "like comics", but are only pretending to -- that seems a bit over-the-top. How many comics do you have to like before you can earnestly say you "like comics"?

I don't think necessarily that Ware, Tomine, et al are being singled out as exceptions so much as they are seen as representatives of the higher-brow strain of comics, the way, of course, that Joyce, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, etc. (why can't I think of any non-Modernist writers??? Ok: Melville?) are always lifted out from more popular novelists when snobs talk about Literature/the Novel.

Does it have to be framed in terms of "high-brow" or "snobbery"? I mean, obviously there's a tangled history here, but I think it's possible to prefer Joyce to more "popular novelists" (although I don't know if I could say that for Hemingway) because he's doing something very different from "popular novelists" (even though, at the same time, he is often doing the same things).

A few people have posted things (and I don't have time to hunt them down) lately about what they like in superhero comics (even pointing out that the lack of those qualities makes them disinterested in "indie" comics), and I read those and think, hunh, that doesn't really sound interesting to me at all, and that's not what I want out of a comic. (Similarly, the things I've gotten out of the novels I've enjoyed seem to be different from what most people get out of novels -- I don't read Ulysses because I care about Bloom as a character, certainly!)

Anyway, I don't think of Ware and Tomine as being a "higher brow" strain of comics, but certainly they are an "other" strain of comics, which makes them "exceptions to the medium" (assuming that most of the comics printed are of a different strain).

And I don't think the New Yorker's responsibility is to cover every strain of every artform. Though, sure, it would be nice if it gave some cred to Morrison et al.

And I think it is an issue of snobbery. Here, I'm not inventing the hierarchy, just reporting it. I don't see Jim Lee don't the covers of the New Yorker. Newspaper articles typically say that comics don't have to be just about superheroes, assuming automatically that superheroes (i.e., whatever's not indie) is infantile. Art Spiegelman usually rolls out his rote condescension in any interview on superheroes and the way things like Little Lit are marketed is done to insinuate that these are "safe" comics, not the mind-rotting types. Surely, if you pictured a grown man reading a Rob Liefeld comic or an elegantly bound Chris Ware edition, you'd have different and not exactly equally flattering mental images, wouldn't you? In fact, the very way you've set up the these names (art comics = Joyce; superhero = Hemingway) sort of suggests that there is a high-low distinction.

To address your point about superhero comics and Joyce. First of all, the distinction isn't just superhero vs indie, but indie vs other non-vintage comics, from Howard Chaykin to Dave McKean. Second, when you look at the comics we're talking about, the experimentalism might not be in the indie side. Adrian Tomine's narratives are one-dimensional, trite, pseudo-Chekovian re-runs, all character, no visual innovation, while WE3 or Seaguy in any other form would be obviously experimental and strange. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't typically go to non-indie comics for straight narratives. (I go to indie comics for that--see Ghost World or L&R). I go to non-superhero comics because the narrative norms allow them to do experimental and weird things!

Also, I don't think a lot of people care about Bloom as a character -- it's everything else that goes on around him that's interesting in Ulysses (and FYI Stephen bores me to death).

But basically, the point that seems to be grappled with in this thread is: "Wow, the mainstream press still thinks (superhero) comics are for kids" non shocker.

Ken, I lose your point towards the end! I think you mean you go to spandex comics because narrative norms let them get freaky, yes? That said, in some cases, yes. In the vast majority of the cases, you have simple, straight narrative in a spandex story, though no innovation/experimentation is necessary for a successful/great comic. Singling out Morrison as a representative exemplar of superhero writers ignores writers who write narratively standard stories (and there are relatively more writers like BKV, BRUCKABAKER, Bendis (maybe) and so on, than there are of GM), but those stories in terms of thrillpower (or whatever metric you use for a story) are not inferior -- just different, satisfying different needs.

I for one will say this: if the writer (and I do see the apples/oranges element in this debate now, since the piece more or less focused on art) is funny, then s/he's possibly worthy of being called a genius. Otherwise, you're a blowhard with a compelling story, Mr. Spiegelman.

Of course, to continue along that metaphor, my personal literary canon (the books I think are interesting and important and that I would have people read) includes Joyce but don't include Hemingway. I find very little in Hemingway interesting.

If I was trying to come up with a canon that would explain how the average contemporary popular novel came to be what it is today, then perhaps, for scholarly reasons, I'd have to include Hemingway. But that's not a project I'm interested in (and I doubt it's a project that the New Yorker is interested in). I might be interested in coming up with a canon that explained how the books I find interesting today came to be what they are, but Hemingway isn't on that list.

Surely, if you pictured a grown man reading a Rob Liefeld comic or an elegantly bound Chris Ware edition, you'd have different and not exactly equally flattering mental images, wouldn't you?

Me? Why would I read ILComix (and hail it as the best board on ILX) if I felt that way? I'm not laughing up my sleeve at you all because I think you have low-brow tastes in comics. (Similarly, I'm not going to snicker at you for likeing Hemingway, or even, I dunno, Dan Brown.) (Maybe if you like the Left Behind series, I would.)

And, while some people at the New Yorker (or wherever) might express snobbery -- I don't remember reading Spiegelman on superhero comics lately -- I'm not entirely sure that they'd like superhero comics even if they gave them a "fair try". Or, at least, I know that so far, with the exception of, say, Wathcmen (which hardly seems like it counts), I haven't, even with all of you showing me (pretty much every day!) how exciting the scene is.

But, like I said, lately people have been putting some ideas at what they get out of superhero comics, and the immediately strike me as things I'm just not interested in. I don't think they're "bad" or "low-brow", just not my thing. (But I'll point out that many "indie" comics are very very very much not my thing as well, most notably anything "semiautobiographical" about a sad guy who can't get laid.)

In fact, the very way you've set up the these names (art comics = Joyce; superhero = Hemingway) sort of suggests that there is a high-low distinction.

There is a "me like" "me no like" distinction. And I can be more explicit and divide it like Joyce & Ware vs. Hemingway & Tomine, but I didn't really want to go there since I haven't really read any Tomine, because it just looks awful, story-wise. (I did see the Ghost World movie, which I thought was very "meh".) By which I mean, it's all about the story. Well, you really pin the nose on it yourself, actually.

no visual innovation

I'm not entirely sure this is accurate -- like I said, I'm not big on the concept of "innovation", but when an immediately detectable style is suddenly everywhere, and is blatantly imitated, that seems like some sort of "innovation" has happened.

(And yes, I realize that my book canon could be considered mostly "high-brow", but it certainly doesn't map to the "high-brow canon" and there are "high-brow" books I don't care for etc., etc., etc.)

xpost

"Wow, the mainstream press still thinks (superhero) comics are for kids" non shocker.

Is that what the mainstream press thinks, or is it what they say because it will sell more magazines?

are not inferior -- just different, satisfying different needs.

But they are inferior at satisfying the needs you, uh, need. Surely. I mean, there's little point in trying to figure out everyone's every possible need. In theory, for any artwork X there could be a person whose needs are sated by it. But so what? I don't want ILComix to be about the sorts of comics I'm interested in, I want it to be about the sorts of comics you all are into. And the comics coverage in the New Yorker should be able the comics that they're interested in.

saying any comic (even one with boring art) is "all story" seems pretty misguided to me, since what seems to me to be the unique thing about comics is that narrative and art are inseparable.

In the meantime--barely related:

Moca's comics exhibit has an online gallery that's pretty amazing:
http://www.hammer.ucla.edu/exhibitions/94/works_1.htm

I wish that a quota of art was set aside to have the same quirky, lyrically-formal-but-not-bashing-you-over-the-head-with-it texture as gasoline alley. (If you don't have those D&Q issues, you should definitely get them.)

Oh, right. No more ranting when I'm tired.

saying any comic (even one with boring art) is "all story" seems pretty misguided to me, since what seems to me to be the unique thing about comics is that narrative and art are inseparable.

That, uh, that seems to imply that you can say a comic is "all story". I mean, similarly the unique thing about novels is that the narrative and the language are inseparable. (Sorry to keep bringing stupid language back into it, but it's what I'm more used to talking about.) So the shall-we-say "physicality" of the words disappears at the service of the story, or rather the story is what you are supposed to pay attention to -- it is where the pleasure of the text is supposed to lie. And the same thing with (certain) comics -- the "physicality" of the comics disappears, the medium is meant to be relatively transparent and get you at the story.

It's not a black and white issue, of course...