Thursday, January 08, 2004
I'm planning on reading this article at Salon (subscription required, but worth it IMHO) on why Ben Yagoda doesn't like detective fiction anymore. (Yagoda is identified as "the author of "About Town: The New Yorker and the World It Made" and the forthcoming "The Sound on the Page: Style and Voice in Writing." He directs the journalism program at the University of Delaware.")
This has, of course, sparked a round of letters - mostly criticizing the critic. Like I said, I'm going to read the article, but I skimmed the letters. One of them, though, struck a chord that critics of comics will be familiar with:
"Just one example: Yagoda fails to take into account the series aspect of the detective novel. The only book he discusses in detail, "City of Bones" by Michael Connelly, is indeed a late installment in a long-running series. The character of Harry Bosch has evolved over the years by subtle degrees that can be appreciated by readers who have been following the series over time. Would anyone tune into, say, "The Sopranos" for the first time in the third season and blame the writers because he didn't "get" it?"
My guilty pleasure is Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe. I'm also a huge Travis McGee fan. One feature about those books is that you don't necessarily have to read any other book in the series to "get" it. The stories are self contained, the characters at least adequately introduced. That's something I strive to do.
Comics have been criticized for demanding too much from their readers - superhero continuety that spans decades and manga series that span dozens of books. That by itself isn't a problem - but when the new stories not only build upon previous ones but also depend on those stories to provide clarity and information I think that's cheating the reader.
They're reading THIS story, not one still back in the bookstore. That kind of thing strikes me as appealing to a collector or an obsessive, not a reader. I'm not surprised that it's happening in the mystery field - I only hope those kinds of things don't dominate the genre.
I strive to have my stories self-contained. You won't need to go back and read book 3 to enjoy book 5. Hopefully, you'll want to.
What do you think?
This has, of course, sparked a round of letters - mostly criticizing the critic. Like I said, I'm going to read the article, but I skimmed the letters. One of them, though, struck a chord that critics of comics will be familiar with:
"Just one example: Yagoda fails to take into account the series aspect of the detective novel. The only book he discusses in detail, "City of Bones" by Michael Connelly, is indeed a late installment in a long-running series. The character of Harry Bosch has evolved over the years by subtle degrees that can be appreciated by readers who have been following the series over time. Would anyone tune into, say, "The Sopranos" for the first time in the third season and blame the writers because he didn't "get" it?"
My guilty pleasure is Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe. I'm also a huge Travis McGee fan. One feature about those books is that you don't necessarily have to read any other book in the series to "get" it. The stories are self contained, the characters at least adequately introduced. That's something I strive to do.
Comics have been criticized for demanding too much from their readers - superhero continuety that spans decades and manga series that span dozens of books. That by itself isn't a problem - but when the new stories not only build upon previous ones but also depend on those stories to provide clarity and information I think that's cheating the reader.
They're reading THIS story, not one still back in the bookstore. That kind of thing strikes me as appealing to a collector or an obsessive, not a reader. I'm not surprised that it's happening in the mystery field - I only hope those kinds of things don't dominate the genre.
I strive to have my stories self-contained. You won't need to go back and read book 3 to enjoy book 5. Hopefully, you'll want to.
What do you think?
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
Is it time to abandon the graphic novel shelves? Seriously, this ¡Journalista! article provides some evidence of what I've been saying - the graphic novel shelves are no place for independent creators.
Where is the shelf space for creators who don't adhere to the restraints of the two publishing styles - superhero and animanga? And no, I don't care to get into a flame war on the benefits of either. I'm saying it's a bigger, more varied and nuanced world than what can be described as "drawing comics the Marvel/animanga way."
I'm tired of hearing the lament of "at least they're reading comics." That's just pitiful. Hoping that people taken with a particular product will gravitate to a different product is not a plan.
If the comics you're creating and/or publishing don't conform to those two cultural/corporate preconceptions then the only obvious choice is to go where readers would be open to your product. (later I think I'll talk about what those products should be)
And one obvious place is out of the GN section.
For independent creators, that means going through the traditional book publishing establishment: getting an agent and submitting to publishing houses that sell books based on their content, not the form in which the content is presented.
For small comics publishers, they may want to seek alliances with mainstream book publishers - companies with the clout to get the books in the places where readers will be. They'll also be able to help with marketing plans such as book tours, in-store displays, interviews and other publicity needs - things sorely missing outside the closed comics community.
Of course, the other alternative - the one I'm also taking advantage of - is the web. In that same day's entry, Dirk implies that the debut of PV comics is somehow bad news for Moderntales.
No, it's good news. With that site, Onlinecomics.net, and the rise of Bitpass, it's not about the competition. It's about the beginnings of an industry model. One site is just an oddity. Multiple sites ... well maybe Dirk could consider linking to webcomic publishers on his site? That would be a step at least.
Tell me what you think
Where is the shelf space for creators who don't adhere to the restraints of the two publishing styles - superhero and animanga? And no, I don't care to get into a flame war on the benefits of either. I'm saying it's a bigger, more varied and nuanced world than what can be described as "drawing comics the Marvel/animanga way."
I'm tired of hearing the lament of "at least they're reading comics." That's just pitiful. Hoping that people taken with a particular product will gravitate to a different product is not a plan.
If the comics you're creating and/or publishing don't conform to those two cultural/corporate preconceptions then the only obvious choice is to go where readers would be open to your product. (later I think I'll talk about what those products should be)
And one obvious place is out of the GN section.
For independent creators, that means going through the traditional book publishing establishment: getting an agent and submitting to publishing houses that sell books based on their content, not the form in which the content is presented.
For small comics publishers, they may want to seek alliances with mainstream book publishers - companies with the clout to get the books in the places where readers will be. They'll also be able to help with marketing plans such as book tours, in-store displays, interviews and other publicity needs - things sorely missing outside the closed comics community.
Of course, the other alternative - the one I'm also taking advantage of - is the web. In that same day's entry, Dirk implies that the debut of PV comics is somehow bad news for Moderntales.
No, it's good news. With that site, Onlinecomics.net, and the rise of Bitpass, it's not about the competition. It's about the beginnings of an industry model. One site is just an oddity. Multiple sites ... well maybe Dirk could consider linking to webcomic publishers on his site? That would be a step at least.
Tell me what you think
Sunday, January 04, 2004
Two entries for the death pool from my family: here our picks:
Pts - Name
10-Pope John Paul II
9-Ronald Reagan
8-Kirk Douglas
7-Fay Wray
6-Harry Morgan
5-Charlton Heston
4-Harvey Korman
3-Jerry Lewis
2-Billy Graham
1-Don Knotts
Under 40 pick: Eminem
Kennedy pick: Eunice Kennedy Shriver
Pts - Name
10-Eddie Albert
9-Marlon Brando
8-Mickey Rooney
7-Tony Curtis
6-Zsa Zsa Gabor
5-Bob Barker
4-Dick Cheney
3-Phil Rizzuto
2-Ronnie Biggs
1-Will Eisner (cartoonist - the Spirit)
Under 40 pick: Brittany Spears
Kennedy pick: Eunice Kennedy Shriver
I'm interested in seeing how these work out. I copied a number of picks from around the internet, put them in a data base and sorted by name. Then I assigned each name a number, based on the number of times they showed up - the pope at 7 and Ronnie Biggs at 1 for instance.
Then I sorted by the number, coming up with a list of names that had the consensus - um - potential corpses at the top.
The first group is basically the top ten with a few lower tier folks moved up. The second group is the next highest, again mixing some lower folks up higher.
It's as good a system as any other I suppose.
What are your picks?
Pts - Name
10-Pope John Paul II
9-Ronald Reagan
8-Kirk Douglas
7-Fay Wray
6-Harry Morgan
5-Charlton Heston
4-Harvey Korman
3-Jerry Lewis
2-Billy Graham
1-Don Knotts
Under 40 pick: Eminem
Kennedy pick: Eunice Kennedy Shriver
Pts - Name
10-Eddie Albert
9-Marlon Brando
8-Mickey Rooney
7-Tony Curtis
6-Zsa Zsa Gabor
5-Bob Barker
4-Dick Cheney
3-Phil Rizzuto
2-Ronnie Biggs
1-Will Eisner (cartoonist - the Spirit)
Under 40 pick: Brittany Spears
Kennedy pick: Eunice Kennedy Shriver
I'm interested in seeing how these work out. I copied a number of picks from around the internet, put them in a data base and sorted by name. Then I assigned each name a number, based on the number of times they showed up - the pope at 7 and Ronnie Biggs at 1 for instance.
Then I sorted by the number, coming up with a list of names that had the consensus - um - potential corpses at the top.
The first group is basically the top ten with a few lower tier folks moved up. The second group is the next highest, again mixing some lower folks up higher.
It's as good a system as any other I suppose.
What are your picks?
