Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: Comics opinion

From: jean-pierre jacquet (
Date: 04 May 2008

Indeed. A perfect adequation between the script and the artwork is essential for comics/graphic novels to work and appeal to fans and non fans of the medium. I personally like to peruse or leaf through graphic novels, reading them kinda sideways, shuttling lazily back and forth, resting on particularly stong panels. Being an artist myself, I like to pick the mind of the graphic artist at work, asking myself about his intentions in the cutiing, the framing, the lighting, etc. Just like you writers on this list who are so able at deconstructing the writing process of authors. In the 70's and 80's, self-indulgent artwork became the norm, with a large proportion being total crap; and I remember buying some only because of the art, not bothering to read them. The new generation of graphic novels authors is sometimes of the highest caliber. One of my favorites chooses to have wordless books, with oustanding artwork, which should satisfy listers who seem to be intimidated and unable to read a graphic novel. I am talking about Thomas Ott, a Swiss veteran, whose work is now published in this country by Fantagraphics Books. I recommend "Cinema Panopticum", and not only because it is both noir and drawn in black & white. jean-pierre jacquet On May 4, 2008, at 1:08 PM, Rick Ollerman wrote:

> I had one other quick thought: it's really about the style. You
> wouldn't take a noir film script and shoot it in the bright sunshine
> with a cast that looks like they stepped off an Up With People set.
> It wouldn't come out noir. Likewise you can't do a noir graphic novel
> in a Pokemon style and expect it to read true to the story. The style
> of the art needs to match the tone of the script or you get something
> that, I think, most people would find difficult to read.
> Seriously, now I'm really done.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 04 May 2008 EDT