Real quality (re: "correct" comics)

[The Fenske's]

At 07:24 PM 12/10/02 +0100, you wrote:
>SIGVALD in reaction to DAVE FENSKE:
>
>Dave>> Calvin & Hobbes is popular because it's both very funny
> >> (not at all a bad thing), and it makes observations about
> >> us (life, family, friendship, interactions with peers,
> >> the world of the imagination, etc.) that are both
> >> poignant and accurate.
> >
>Sigvald> These qualities may fit well for a simple news paper
> > strip, but IMO it looks a bit strange in big hard cover
> > books.
>
>Michiel: Er, Sigvald? Dave is actually trying to say that Calvin &
>Hobbes is, because of these very qualities, *not* a *simple*
>newspaper strip.

Exactly.  In fact, Watterson found the limitations of the Sunday
strips "limiting," and fought hard to be able to break out of the
linear box kind of thing.  If you look at some of his colour Sunday
strips, you find great creativity in design and layout that really
look wonderful in a book format.  The Essential C&H, for example,
is wonderful to sit and read and just look at, because the colour
strips really come to life.  True, the b&w daily strips aren't
particularly improved in the book format, except they bring
continuing strips together in one place.

>Dave>> I have a large collection of Disney comics from the
> >> 60's, when I was young. Many contain great Barks
> >> stories, but there are a lot of rather juvenile (and
> >> totally shallow as far as reflections on life are
> >> concerned)
> >
>Sigvald> Of course they are - real quality comics should be
> > concerned about entertaining not about reflecting.
> > Well of course reflections itselves doesn't make a
> > comics bad, but a comics can IMO *only* be concerned
> > as good if it's entertaining - just like as it is
> > with movies.
>
>Michiel: Are you trying to say that 'real quality comics' *should* be
>'rather juvenile' and 'totally shallow'?

That's what it sounds like, but I can't believe Sigvald means it quite
that way.  What do you (Sigvald) mean by "entertaining" anyway?
Of course I'm not going to read a comic or watch a movie that is
boring or dull, but if by entertaining you mean "devoid of deeper
meaning," then I couldn't disagree more.  Now, a Disney comic
(even one by Rosa) isn't going to get all dark and philosophical.
However, what Don does offer us are characters well drawn (and
I mean that in a psychological sense) with believable motivations
in a story that is fun and interesting.  He creates a world we want
to inhabit.  C&H does that as well, and offers us insight into ourselves
at the same time.  Contrast that with the rather trite Duck stories that
were in many of the old Gold Key comics.  Those stories were just
childish, not very entertaining, and not very funny either.  The best
stories are always going to operate on 2 levels: the fun entertaining
story, and something deeper, be that insight, or character development,
or whatever.

This is a little off-topic, but you mention movies.  And here I feel we may
disagree even more.  I enjoy a movie that is entertaining, but the
films I really enjoy, and the ones that stay with me, are the ones that
give us some insight into the human condition.  Now, this isn't always
the case: some films are just so well made that even if they aren't
deep, they are genuinely funny or touching or whatever (think of Mel Gibson
in Maverick, for example), and are still worth watching.  But some,
take Star Wars, for example, are entertaining on the surface, but offer
something more: what made the original trilogy great
were the themes of good, evil, and ultimate redemption, that ran through
them.  Some films are really heavy on the meaning or message, and aren't
necessarily fun to watch (and therefore may not be considered entertaining),
but leave you thinking, or emotionally impacted.  The Canadian film
"The Sweet Hereafter" falls into this category, or even a film like
"The English Patient" (hmmm... another Canadian one) or Monster's Ball.
Those are still good (or even great) films.

>Dave>> But a comic like Calvin & Hobbes, or Bloom County, is
> >> about so much more. Sure, the humor is there, thankfully,
> >> but those comics also contain a lot of insight, political
> >> commentary, etc.
> >
>Sigvald> So what? As stated above comics should IMO first be
> > concerned
> > about entertaining, not act like "60 minutes".
>
>Michiel: I think that reflections on 'life, the universe and
>everything' *do* make a comic (or a book, or a movie) more
>entertaining ('onderhoudend') and more worthwile to read.
>
>(What do you mean by 'act like "60 minutes"'?)

And going back to the "so what" part, the inclusion of a bit
of politics, or current issues, or human condition, can make
the comic more interesting, as long as it doesn't overpower
the story.  Kind of like the little historical facts that Don puts in his
stories.


> > No I mean that it's *in* among "cool" people. These
> > people can say "Donald Duck is for kids",
>
>Michiel: I don't know if these people are either "correct" or "cool",
>but I think they might like Calvin & Hobbes and other gag
>comics just because these are funny or also because of
>Watterson's artwork and the realistic, if cynical, worldview
>of its main characters.
>Which is exactly why I like Barks' stories, for example.
>(Funniness, good art and very real characters.)
>
>I think that somewhat the same criteria can be applied to
>define good long stories as well as good gag comics.
>
>By the way, Donald Duck *is* for kids, they're the main
>audience. Donald Duck is only not *just* for kids. Good Duck
>stories have certain qualities that appeal also to a more
>mature audience, but a Duck story that can't in any way be
>enjoyed by children has missed its target.

I would tend to agree here, except: a few years ago I read my
younger kids Don Rosa's long wonderful story about the
JW guidebook and the libraries of antiquity... and they found
it kind of boring.  It had lots of traveling and cool historical
facts and I loved it, but they didn't.  Perhaps that one was more
aimed at adults, but for me it didn't miss the mark.

>
> > Well, I am different, I prefer long comics stories
> > with an intelligent plot. So I very seldom read
> > modern humor gags comics.
>
>So do I. I prefer intelligent comics in general. So
>fortunately I'm able to enjoy both: gag comics as well as
>long stories.
>
> >> or the better super-hero stories (of which there are a >>
>few that are worthy of consideration).
> >
> > I don't read such super-hero stuff (well except from
> > Captain Kentucky).
>
>Maybe you should give it a try.
>Take for instance "Watchmen" by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons.
>It's a long, humorous, if cynical, comic story with an
>intelligent plot.
>
>Michiel Prior.
>_______________________________________________
>http://stp.ling.uu.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml