Broken Frontier

- Things to be clear about concerning comics -

First, comics and sequential art are not the same thing. Scott McCloud is a very smart man, but he confuses -- perhaps intentionally -- the difference between the two in Understanding Comics. This is why the late Will Eisner titled his book Comics & Sequential Art; he wasn’t being redundant. Generally speaking, sequential art is what comics, be they strips or books, uses. Sequential art is the tool, not necessarily the product -- comics are the product, not necessarily the tool.

Corollary #1: Comics don’t have to use sequential art, per se. It’s just the best thing we’ve found so far to tell stories with words and pictures. Check out some of the later issues of Promethea for some leads on other options we might have.

Corollary #2: Sequential art isn’t limited to comics. That much is easy to accept, I think. Any multi-piece museum art installation could provide evidence. (I would recommend Thomas Cole’s four-part Voyage of Life, myself.) Or, alternatively, grab an in-flight safety card. Not only does it also feature sequential art, but you’re allowed to actually touch it! (Unlike those stinking Cole paintings...)

Next, superhero comics are a genre, not a medium. Genres can include tropes, characteristics, conventions, conceits, forms, themes, motifs (not to mention leitmotifs!), foils, and so forth. And there’s no reason they can’t include tights, mutants, or alternate realities. However, comic books are the medium, like film or song. Therefore, there’s a superhero genre for cinema (X2, Incredibles, Mystery Men), a superhero genre for music (Batdance by Prince, Jimmy Olsen Blues by the Spin Doctors, Superman Song by Crash Test Dummies), and a superhero genre for comics. You can be a fan of the entirety of the superhero genre across all media, for sure -- just avoid being a fan of “the superhero medium.” People will look at you funny.

Oh, and media is the plural for medium, not mediums. But it’s an understandable mistake.

Independent and small press are not necessarily the same thing. First of all, “small” is relative. Marvel is small compared to DC (read: AOL/TimeWarner), Top Shelf is small compared to Marvel, and Runemaster Studios is small compared to Top Shelf. So, there’s a sliding scale when determining just who is small enough to be truly small press. Compound that with the fact that most Image projects could be considered “independent”... but so could the mini-comics of Pam Bliss. The fact that both terms are fairly subjective to begin with is pretty much the only thing we can say for certain that they must have in common. Can a publisher or imprint be both? Sure, if they want to. But that leads us to...

Corollary: The labels “independent” and “small press” largely correspond to the “weed-test” of nomenclature. It sounds silly (and maybe confusing), but follow me on this a second and it will make sense: Gardeners plant things in their gardens, and they expect them to eventually sprout. However, there are things they don’t plant which sprout also; regardless of what the flora actually is, no matter how varied, if it sprouts and it wasn’t something that was planted by the gardener, it’s called a weed. Dandelion, poison ivy, crabgrass -- You name it. They have nothing in common except being weeds. The same goes for “small press” or “independent:” If it isn’t something produced by (what we casually agree to considering) the mainstream, big-time corporations like Marvel, DC, Archie, Tokyopop, or even Harvey, then it could be considered a “weed:” “small press” or “independent.” (Here’s a stumper: Is Dark Horse a small press? What about Fantagraphics? Hmm.)

Incidentally, if the “weed-test” sounds hokey, you should probably know that it equally applies to another thorny term: Literature.

This one drives me crazy, so, as obvious as it sounds, I have to say it: Superman #1 and Action Comics #1 are not the same book!

Similarly, Action Comics #1 is not the first comic book. First superhero comic book? Maybe. First fully-realized superhero comic book? Almost certainly. First appearance of Superman? Absolutely. And first explosion of the superhero medium?

Nope. Trick question. S’not a medium, sucker.

Some terminology that’s problematic (or will be soon): Marvelman, Frames, gutters, volumes, Superboy, reboot, revamp, Pre-Crisis, Post-Crisis, Charleton, foil, variant, Terran, direct market, newsstand, universe, and (my favorite) death. I’ve got reasons for them all, but why bore you?

With all this esoteric criticism packed into this month’s installment of the column, let’s end on a positive note, shall we? According to several sources, including Andrew Arnold of Time.comix, retail bookstore sales of graphic novels are on the rise dramatically. There are almost more comic book-inspired major motion pictures already produced in the first five years of the twenty-first century than in the entire last century. More universities are examining the medium than ever before, and more colleges are teaching the specific skills required for their production. Finally, the superhero genre itself -- perhaps the only genre actually indigenous to the medium -- has infiltrated almost every medium of human art, from fashion to sculpting. Regardless of the American “mainstream’s” official, fiscal status, both comic books as a medium and the superheroes in a genre are robust, in no peril of vanishing.

Rather, I think, our concern should be on what these trends might lead comic books to become...And, of course, what we’re going to end up calling it.

If the pamphlet format diminishes. If the audience becomes bookstore shoppers. If the industry is fueled by film royalties. If -- and this is reaching, but plausible -- writers become tasked to create scenarios and artists are charged with designing wireframe, digital elements, leaving participants to shape their own, online, interactive stories.

We’re going somewhere, folks. But there are a lot of loose ends to tie up before we get there.