Saturday, April 24, 2010

Comics are literature AND art.

Pretty much from the from the beginnings of buying Pegasus Books, I've been using my own family as a touchstone as to how to reach the general public with comics.

My Mom wouldn't let me read Classics Illustrated when I was kid. Fundamentally, she just had no real respect for comics -- they were for illiterates and stupid kids.

My siblings still have similar feelings toward them. Nothing I could say or do, no amount of Sandman graphic novels in the Christmas stockings, would change their minds. Normally, I try to convince them of the literacy of the stories -- the intelligent content, the wild creativity of the stories, the play between words and pictures.

Nope.

They're having none of it.

This morning it occurred to me, that the one thing that might have really caught my Mom's attention -- and by extension, my siblings, and by further extension the general public, may not be the writing and story at all.

It's the art, stupid.

My Mom was an art major. I think I might --just might-- if I could get her to even glance at a few pages--caught her attention with the art, which after all, can be fabulous.

Probably not. But I probably would've had a better chance with the art, then trying to convince her how clever the writing was.

So maybe I should be trying to catch them with the art --- and then tell them all about the storytelling. Even though, for me, the writing is so much more important. Or, perhaps I should say, equally important. Because a great comic has the two elements working in tandem.

3 comments:

rotorman said...

I've always been amazed at the ability of some fiscal conservatives to be head-stuck-in-sand liberals when it comes to social spending. You are a prime example. You run your business very prudently. You don't overspend. You have learned from years of experience that if you overextend yourself you can find yourself in serious trouble. Yet when it comes to the government paying for social programs you have your head in the sand. Somehow, paying for social programs does not have to meet the test of prudent spending. The tea party (tea baggers as you like to call them) are fiscal conservatives. They are asking that government spend within its means.
Try getting your news from sources other than just the liberal ones. I like a balance. I read the NY Times, Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. I read Krugman, Rich, Brooks, Will, and Krauthammer. After reading these sources of information I choose to be conservative fiscally and socially. You can do as you like, but since your blogging about it I can tell you what I think.

Duncan McGeary said...

I don't think that's true. I hold the local government accountable for their missteps with the BAT, Juniper Ridge, etc.

I, too, read a wide variety of media. Don't think that's it.

We could get into a huge argument, to what effect?

Wes said...

In Oregon, state and local governments are required to spend no more than they make. This constitutional limitation explains the wild fluctuations in service levels as government expands in good economic times and contracts when things go bad. It explains why facilities like the Mulnomah County Jail get built but never used.

By the way, why limit yourself to social spending? Why aren't you conservative about defense spending or ag subsidies?

Most of the Tea Party people I see are retired folks who would no more give up their Social Security or Medicare benefits than they would their right to gamble at the casino of their choice.