11 March 2006
Defending the Outpost

Welcome.

Since this is the first of these regular columns, I thought I’d open with something general. My manifesto, if you will. Something to break you guys in gently. So, let’s start with a simple question. Something that gets to the heart of what I believe about the comic medium. What is a comic?

A novel definition

You may have asked yourself this before. After all, if you’ve found your way to this web-site, it’s pretty safe to assume you read comics. If you’re bothering to read the columns here, then there’s also a pretty high probability that some of you are practicing or would-be creators. So what is it you’re reading? What is it you’re creating? What is a comic?

Most definitions will give you an answer that, in one way or another, boils down to this: a story in pictures and words. Read that last sentence again. Read the last two words again. They’re especially important. The "words" constitute 33% of that definition and yet the importance of a comic's text is currently under-valued by both publishers (yes, majors and independents) and many creators (yes, established and wannabe).

But I digress. I could spout forth for hours on the importance of the text to a comic, so perhaps it’s best to leave that for a later column. For now, let’s get back to the definition: a story in pictures and words. Is that it? Twenty-eight pages (excluding covers!) of thumbnail illustrations interrupted by funny little balloons? Actually, yes. At one level that is all they are. At the same level, in fact, that would see a novel described as words printed on paper and bound between two sheets of cardboard.

And yet, strangely enough, I’ve never seen a novel described that way.

The primary definition of a novel in my dictionary describes it as “an extended work in prose […] dealing with character, action, thought etc., especially in the form of a story.” Notice it describes content as well as form and structure. Why is that? Surely, if you substitute “words and pictures” for the word “prose”, this definition is just as valid for a comic. Don’t comics deal with “character, action and thought”?

Lessons from the past

One of the foremost reasons for this difference in treatment is, of course, because the novel is a recognised art form while the comic is not. Is that justified? I have to assume I’m preaching largely to the converted here but, in my opinion, no. We shouldn’t ever forget that the novel was once considered unworthy of serious literary consideration. Serious fiction took the form of drama or epic poetry. As an art form, the novel was deemed low-brow, populist and of interest only to the young or the poorly educated. Adults caught reading a novel would hide it or apologise for it. (“Oh it’s nothing … only a novel”). Sound familiar?

The comic, in my view, is to the 20th and 21st Centuries what the novel was to the 17th and 18th. A new and potentially important literary form. Just as cinema has managed to establish itself as a valid form of theatre and the musical has managed to establish itself as a valid form of … well, music, the comic is quite capable of establishing its credentials as a valid literary form.

Study the classics

For many (or even most) aspiring writers and artists, the comic hasn’t yet achieved the recognition that would make it the obvious medium in which to showcase their talents. I firmly believe, however, that the first classics of this new medium have already been written. I would happily stand Alan Moore’s Watchmen and Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns side by side with any prose novel I’ve read. The characters have psychological depth, the story-lines are cleverly plotted, the major themes are epic and the style is assured. Not to mention the fact that they’re also fun to read.

You might say that these are not exactly unexpected titles for me to choose and you’d be right. I’m not trying to show how esoteric my tastes are. I’m trying to recognise quality. There are other great titles out there. For example, I’d certainly give a “highly commended” rating to Top Ten, LXG or Sandman. And I stand in awe of the ambition behind Batman: No Man’s Land. But, for my money (and, after all, this is my column!), judged by the same standards against which you would assess other forms of literature, these are the only two true classics the medium has produced to date.

The point here is that we have a self-perpetuating cycle. There are too few classics for the medium to achieve recognition as a literary form. However, before there can be more classics, the medium needs to attract more writers and artists who would otherwise choose to work in competing fields. And yet, before those writers and artists will choose comics over the competing fields, comics need to achieve greater recognition as a literary form ...

Can the cycle be broken? Of course it can. It’s being broken even now, albeit slowly. It just takes those responsible to acknowledge it’s their fault. Which brings us to the next question. Whose fault is it?

Blame culture

Well, if you’ve left school and work for a living, the fault is probably yours. If you hide your comics away in your bedroom rather than standing them on the bookshelf next to the Stephen King novels and that copy of Shakespeare you never read, then it’s your fault. If you only read comics when you’re alone rather than in public, on the train, then it’s your fault.

Even though novels are now “respectable”, 99% of them are still little more than pot-boiler pulp fiction. The plots and quality of writing in the latest title from, for example, Maeve Binchy or Dan Brown are no better than (and, in many instances, are vastly inferior to) those in a comic written by, say, Jeph Loeb or Dennis O’Neill. So why shouldn’t these be considered acceptable reading material for adults?

No reason. Read them in public. Don’t apologise for them as people once did for novels. Defend them from criticism as ardently as you used to defend your younger sister (assuming, of course, you did defend your younger sister and didn’t just throw her to the playground bullies while you ran for the hills …)

I’m convinced comics will one day be as accepted as novels are today. Most of us are too young to have been there at its birth but I believe we’re now seeing the first steps towards maturity being taken by a new literary form. Because that’s what I believe a comic is. Stand up for it. Be proud of it.

[The substance of this article first appeared in a slightly different form at Comic Avalanche on 12 January 2005 and is reproduced by kind permission of Mr Avalanche. The views and opinions expressed in this column are entirely those of the author. If you wish to agree or disagree with any of the views expressed in this column, please leave your comments in the Forum].