Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Page | Next Page

Woo! New month, new book. Both reference book AND graphic novel, no less. Go us!

The introduction is certainly... brief! But amusing. Poor guy. Although I guess he could always be "too old for that sort of thing," which would be worse, so... count your blessings, comic dude?

Really, the first chapter seems to serve much more as a proper introduction, but hey, maybe I'm picky. ;)

And when he introduces himself, I still want to tack "of the Clan McCloud" to the end of it, Just Because. Anyone else? Anyone?

Although I'm also taken aback in the very first chapter by the egregious abuse of fonts. Seriously, dude. I'm going to take away your Italics License at this rate, and also review your license for increased font size. It makes it hard to take in the content when everything is read in the tone of OH my GOD, EVERYthing is AMAZING and LET'S DISCUSS it!

Hrm, between the hyper tone at the start, and the fact that he has to stop and define "juxtaposed," I'm starting to wonder who the target audience for this book is? Enh, oh well.

The dipping into history is a bit... interesting, definitely. (I'm definitely going with the "Ocelot's Claw" translation on this one, because tigers? In Mexico? Really really?) And I do think he's stretching the definition of comics a tad, but I guess it does add some historical, ah, gravitas to the subject matter? Which he seems to be a bit defensive about... again, maybe that's just me! Also, checking the copyright I see that this book was actually released almost 20 years ago (good grief), back when comics were seen more negatively, before they "boomed" again. So I guess we should keep that at least somewhat in the back of our minds as we read.

Anyhow, to give my own thoughts on this - I applaud his definition for not limiting it by genre, style, etc., but... I think it's not quite *right*. Then again I'm not sure I could do much better - my idea of a comic seems to be more along the lines of "I'll know it when I see it." Not very helpful. Although I do note that he says "A new generation will no doubt reject whatever this one finally decides to accept and try once more to re-invent comics," and that seems to be pretty accurate. And as it should be, as he realizes.

Any other thoughts on the introduction and, well, introduction?

Remember, next time we discuss Chapter 2, as per the schedule. See ya then!


(Deleted comment)
Sep. 7th, 2010 02:37 am (UTC)
I agree to a point on the talking-up-and-down, but it's still a bit confusing at times. But I guess it can be argued that that's unavoidable, to some extent, given the nature of the work.

I still won't quite give him the definition through history - I can totally agree that these are related to comics, forerunners of them, and examples of what more "highbrow" stuff that comics could be, but I wouldn't consider them comics, and I think he's trying to force the definition just a little too much, rather than being willing to just step back and say "okay, they're quite similar."

Maybe it's just me though. :p

And yeah, although here it's more that he's emphasizing too many words, rather than the wrong ones... (And this is coming from *me*, of all people. :p )

Seriously though, on a quick glance-through, the only panels I saw without any emphasized words were.... ones with no dialogue. Even a panel with a measly two words had one of them bolded!
Sep. 8th, 2010 05:11 pm (UTC)
I think I give him the Max Ernst example. It's available online, and while I certainly couldn't make heads or tails of the story, there definitely seemed to be fragments of story & continuity between panels.

Re Mr. Ocelot: Would you accept "jaguar" instead of "tiger"? According to this, one was often called the other by early Spanish explorers.
Sep. 10th, 2010 07:33 pm (UTC)
(Sorry I'm running late on my responses...)

Heh, jaguar is *totally* acceptable! But tiger? Not so much!