I think Alan Moore and JH Williams III's PROMETHEA is a prime example of your definition of a "literary comic" here. Every page heavy with theme and meaning, while the comic *could* nevertheless be read quickly for the mere plot, but that would be missing the point.
And while the definition you're laying down here is certainly one way to approach a "literary comic" I'd argue it's overly limiting, and overly dismissive of authentic comic techniques. Comics are textual-visual in nature, as film is audio-visual. They share a lot while still being distinct, but the boundaries wherein certain effective techniques are shared between the two aren't automatically a sign of a creator wishing they were working in the other. That dismisses the shared structures of the formats. Same with the textual elements as shared with prose.
It's fine (and wonderfully ambitious) to want to create a comic that is free of all shared qualities, to create a comic that only uses techniques specific to comics. But that isn't what comics *should* be, any more than silent films or specific editing techniques or movies made to please cinephiles are what movies should be.
Most non-Big Two comics are made with ample nuance and layers of meaning, both visually and textually. The reader has to choose to slow down to take it in as such, but when they do, the complexity is there. People "read" audiobooks on 1.5x or even 2x speed. when I was younger I knew adults that took pride in "speed reading" through novels - learning how to quickly scan a page for keywords and blow through books at an alarming pace. People binge watch Twin Peaks. The problem isn't that the mediums aren't giving people "literary" works, it's that people are choosing not to consume them as such.
It's possible that your upcoming literary comic will force them to slow down, or at least only draw in people who want that. (Likely more the latter.) But it will still come down to the reader wanting to do it. When I take in a comic, most comics (I read very little Big Two anything) there is always subtext and nuance and incredible technique being used that I hadn't seen before and/or wouldn't have thought of myself - the joy of so many creators working in the field today. I'm looking forward to seeing what you're cooking up with this one, but not sure I agree with your take on the status and use of the comics format on the whole.
Dave! First and foremost, thank you for not only engaging with the post but taking the time to write such a thoughtful reply. This is the type of feedback and discussion I long for; I would love for the comments section of my newsletter to be filled with this kind of stuff. And it would probably incentivize me writing up my rants more often!
Next up, you'll be glad to hear that I think we're primarily in alignment! Here's a list of what we agree wholeheartedly on:
- Promethea is brilliant, literary comics, to be sure.
- People read entirely too quickly. Speaking for myself, it was only as an adult that I learned the benefits of slowing down when reading, in realization that I'd only ever read with purpose, not for pleasure. (If they allowed footnotes in comments, I'd go off on a tangent about how audiobooks aren't actually reading.)
- People also move through material entirely too quickly. Your bingewatch mention is well taken and I gasp when I hear how quickly people will burn through a run that came out monthly over the course of years, if not a decade or more.
- There's more than one way to skin a cat; my approach isn't the only valid one. Also, there's no accounting for taste; I recognize that my comics preferences are rather far afield from what the industry currently values and rewards.
Next, by way of clarification, it wasn't my intention to imply that a good comic can only utilize techniques that are unique to comics. I can't even imagine what that would look like, as some techniques (e.g., close-ups, metaphor) are essential to multiple mediums. Apologies for my unintentional ambiguity there.
As for where we disagree, I think it comes down to our perceptions of contemporary comics broadly. It's a tough conversation to have here, as I find it inappropriate, unpleasant, and tactically boneheaded for a creator to publicly critique the work of their contemporaries. As a result, to successfully bring this discussion to its full and satisfying completion, you'll have to find me at a convention and buy me at least three (3) drinks.
That being said, to further blow out my thinking without getting me beat up by a colleague in the middle of our future convention drink-up, my dim view of most contemporary direct market comics extends beyond Big 2 work, which is unsurprising, as most people doing contemporary direct market comics are either currently working for the Big 2 or aspiring to. That's not a knock; it's the only viable way to become a working, full-time comics creator in 2024.
My assessment isn't solely based on the presence of movie/television techniques but, rather, the use of such techniques that make for – what I, in my personal assessment, consider to be – bad comics. Poor uses of space, techniques that would work great elsewhere, ideas that don't work without motion and/or sound, and, most notably, books that adhere to a story over everything approach. And that's not a knock either, per se. Having worked at and for numerous publishers over the years, I can say with great certainty that, in the vast majority of cases, due to the assembly line nature of comics and the levels of approvals required, the story has to be written first, separate from visual and comics-specific concerns such as page turns, spreads, etc. This is as true for Big 2 work as it is at publishers that brand themselves, dubiously, as "creator-owned." Then, once alignment between interested parties is reached, there's usually no time, energy or desire to start the process over again in order to make the story better utilize or fit the comics form.
If you see a book militantly adhering to a Robert McKee three-act structure – which a distressing amount do – and that actively works against the strengths and weaknesses of comics as a medium, I think there's two possibilities. First, we could assume, as I did, that they're failed or aspiring screenwriters, eager to light off for greener pastures; that is, admittedly, a cynical take. The other possibility is that well…they just don't know any better. Which I find to be even more upsetting!
Finally – and most importantly – thank you for engaging so thoughtfully. I hope my response did it justice.
That's right, I want Justice with a capital-J for my engagement! It was trying to comply, there was no need to rough it up :P
Thanks for the very thorough reply - definitely capital-J stuff there. Like you, I always cringe on the inside when people talk about binging. Sometimes it can be a great experiment/experience as a rewatch or reread, etc. But to do it as a first exposure to a work? Yikes. I try not to shame anyone for it though, because so many industries require consumers binge in order for the work to be considered a success. Not for me, but I look forward to the business model shifting away from it in the future, as business models always do. Change is thankfully the only constant.
We're on the same page regarding audiobooks not entirely being "reading", it's literally not, as it engages different parts of the brain in different ways, you *will* lose the skill of reading and reading deeply if you never actually read, so plainly it's not "the same as". But I would love for a controlled study to show which parts of the brain light up and are engaged and to which extents between the two activities. Until then, I'll at least acknowledge that there are similarities and shared skills between the two. Especially in regards to non-fiction, which rarely includes subtext or theme or things like that.
And I bow your experience as a creator in terms of how the creative process plays out within most comic publishers; I can only speak from a consumer/reader perspective. And admittedly I'm very selective these days. I just re-read the OG Luther Arkwright graphic novel by Bryan Talbot and was amazed at how ahead of its time and experimental it was, but also how sometimes it could put all the artistry aside and just deliver a filmic-style moment that remained cinematic and powerful even without sound.
That said, I often need a comic to appear in some way "interesting" in order to spend money and time on it. So a comic that looks skillfully made, beautiful art, well paced story - okay, cool, but is there anything that makes it worth reading over the entire back-catalogue of comics I've already read? And maybe that's a piece of what you're advocating for here.
Though one last caveat: I can enjoy a Kevin Smith talking heads CLERKS film as much as the abstract audio-visual mindfuck of a Skinamarink. Both have their place. Sometimes a solid story, just seeing people or characters play out a plot or be characters for a spell, that's enough. Not every creator has to be a format nerd and love playing with technique and pushing the medium forward from that standpoint.
I get that it's no good if the former is 95% of what's being offered, we agree there. I just suspect it's more like 75%, with a good 25% actually doing things worth reading or watching, and that's healthy if you ask me. The majority of anything will *always* be "safe". And many creators are probably more concerned with just telling a story as a "standard" comic vs. wanting to make movies/tv, per se. I'm sure they'd all like to take a stab at film, just as how Playwrights eventually do, too. But I'm non-cynical enough to give 'em all the benefit of the doubt beyond that.
The easy answers to your question could be The Dark Knight Returns, Watchmen, Daredevil Born Again, and others. And while I had that kind of reaction while reading those books, the most recent time I’ve had an experience like the one you described is while reading the collected editions of the Usagi Yojimbo Saga.
I would not be the first or the last to say Stan Sakai is a master, but I will say it again anyway. I am currently working on Volume 8 and every time I pick it up, I am taken into that world. The stories are the same and different each time but it doesn’t matter because I just want to be in that world. I want to be on the road with the ronin, never staying in one place too long, going from town to town, solving problems.
The more I read it, the more I am drawn into the world of rabbits and rhinos. Usagi’s journey is the closest experience I’ve felt to reading Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. I was immersed in those two novels so much so I just wanted to be in those worlds. Stan Sakai does the same thing with Usagi, I just want to exist there for a little bit each day.
Each time I read a Usagi comic get the same feeling, like a warm blanket is being pulled up on a cold night, like arriving home after a long road trip. I read a lot of other comics but nothing takes me to a certain time and place like Usagi.
I don’t know if that’s what you mean but that’s what it meant to me.
You're in the right place, mon frere. Usagi Yojimbo was formative comics reading for me; I bought and read upwards of 30 volumes of it and had the exact same experience you did. While not terribly inventive in terms of formal approach, the depth and complexity Sakai achieves over the course of the run is unmatched. It also doesn't hurt that Stan is one of the nicest guys in comics, a notoriously vicious and vindictive industry. The only bad part about Usagi Yojimbo is that it makes me wistful for a time when long-running creator-owned series that delve deeply into people's idiosyncratic interests weren't so very rare.
Also, if you dig DKR, Watchment and Born Again, you owe it to check out my Uncle Chaykin's work from the same period. American Flagg is a classic and alarmingly influential (especially when you consider it came out before DKR and Watchmen), Time2 is utterly brilliant and his Shadow series is probably my favorite, pound-for-pound.
Thank you for the suggestion, I put American Flagg and The Shadow on my to read list (which for the first time in a long time only has four books on it).
I got to meet Stan once and he was the nicest guy. I have a drawing he did of Usagi hanging on my wall that is one of my favorite pieces I own.
Thank you, Matt. As I know you are fully aware, as a writer, it's always a pleasure to know that one has successfully used one medium (in this instance, a newsletter) to capture the feelings evoked by another medium (in this instance, getting berated by me, in a bar, about formal comics concerns).
I think Alan Moore and JH Williams III's PROMETHEA is a prime example of your definition of a "literary comic" here. Every page heavy with theme and meaning, while the comic *could* nevertheless be read quickly for the mere plot, but that would be missing the point.
And while the definition you're laying down here is certainly one way to approach a "literary comic" I'd argue it's overly limiting, and overly dismissive of authentic comic techniques. Comics are textual-visual in nature, as film is audio-visual. They share a lot while still being distinct, but the boundaries wherein certain effective techniques are shared between the two aren't automatically a sign of a creator wishing they were working in the other. That dismisses the shared structures of the formats. Same with the textual elements as shared with prose.
It's fine (and wonderfully ambitious) to want to create a comic that is free of all shared qualities, to create a comic that only uses techniques specific to comics. But that isn't what comics *should* be, any more than silent films or specific editing techniques or movies made to please cinephiles are what movies should be.
Most non-Big Two comics are made with ample nuance and layers of meaning, both visually and textually. The reader has to choose to slow down to take it in as such, but when they do, the complexity is there. People "read" audiobooks on 1.5x or even 2x speed. when I was younger I knew adults that took pride in "speed reading" through novels - learning how to quickly scan a page for keywords and blow through books at an alarming pace. People binge watch Twin Peaks. The problem isn't that the mediums aren't giving people "literary" works, it's that people are choosing not to consume them as such.
It's possible that your upcoming literary comic will force them to slow down, or at least only draw in people who want that. (Likely more the latter.) But it will still come down to the reader wanting to do it. When I take in a comic, most comics (I read very little Big Two anything) there is always subtext and nuance and incredible technique being used that I hadn't seen before and/or wouldn't have thought of myself - the joy of so many creators working in the field today. I'm looking forward to seeing what you're cooking up with this one, but not sure I agree with your take on the status and use of the comics format on the whole.
Dave! First and foremost, thank you for not only engaging with the post but taking the time to write such a thoughtful reply. This is the type of feedback and discussion I long for; I would love for the comments section of my newsletter to be filled with this kind of stuff. And it would probably incentivize me writing up my rants more often!
Next up, you'll be glad to hear that I think we're primarily in alignment! Here's a list of what we agree wholeheartedly on:
- Promethea is brilliant, literary comics, to be sure.
- People read entirely too quickly. Speaking for myself, it was only as an adult that I learned the benefits of slowing down when reading, in realization that I'd only ever read with purpose, not for pleasure. (If they allowed footnotes in comments, I'd go off on a tangent about how audiobooks aren't actually reading.)
- People also move through material entirely too quickly. Your bingewatch mention is well taken and I gasp when I hear how quickly people will burn through a run that came out monthly over the course of years, if not a decade or more.
- There's more than one way to skin a cat; my approach isn't the only valid one. Also, there's no accounting for taste; I recognize that my comics preferences are rather far afield from what the industry currently values and rewards.
Next, by way of clarification, it wasn't my intention to imply that a good comic can only utilize techniques that are unique to comics. I can't even imagine what that would look like, as some techniques (e.g., close-ups, metaphor) are essential to multiple mediums. Apologies for my unintentional ambiguity there.
As for where we disagree, I think it comes down to our perceptions of contemporary comics broadly. It's a tough conversation to have here, as I find it inappropriate, unpleasant, and tactically boneheaded for a creator to publicly critique the work of their contemporaries. As a result, to successfully bring this discussion to its full and satisfying completion, you'll have to find me at a convention and buy me at least three (3) drinks.
That being said, to further blow out my thinking without getting me beat up by a colleague in the middle of our future convention drink-up, my dim view of most contemporary direct market comics extends beyond Big 2 work, which is unsurprising, as most people doing contemporary direct market comics are either currently working for the Big 2 or aspiring to. That's not a knock; it's the only viable way to become a working, full-time comics creator in 2024.
My assessment isn't solely based on the presence of movie/television techniques but, rather, the use of such techniques that make for – what I, in my personal assessment, consider to be – bad comics. Poor uses of space, techniques that would work great elsewhere, ideas that don't work without motion and/or sound, and, most notably, books that adhere to a story over everything approach. And that's not a knock either, per se. Having worked at and for numerous publishers over the years, I can say with great certainty that, in the vast majority of cases, due to the assembly line nature of comics and the levels of approvals required, the story has to be written first, separate from visual and comics-specific concerns such as page turns, spreads, etc. This is as true for Big 2 work as it is at publishers that brand themselves, dubiously, as "creator-owned." Then, once alignment between interested parties is reached, there's usually no time, energy or desire to start the process over again in order to make the story better utilize or fit the comics form.
If you see a book militantly adhering to a Robert McKee three-act structure – which a distressing amount do – and that actively works against the strengths and weaknesses of comics as a medium, I think there's two possibilities. First, we could assume, as I did, that they're failed or aspiring screenwriters, eager to light off for greener pastures; that is, admittedly, a cynical take. The other possibility is that well…they just don't know any better. Which I find to be even more upsetting!
Finally – and most importantly – thank you for engaging so thoughtfully. I hope my response did it justice.
That's right, I want Justice with a capital-J for my engagement! It was trying to comply, there was no need to rough it up :P
Thanks for the very thorough reply - definitely capital-J stuff there. Like you, I always cringe on the inside when people talk about binging. Sometimes it can be a great experiment/experience as a rewatch or reread, etc. But to do it as a first exposure to a work? Yikes. I try not to shame anyone for it though, because so many industries require consumers binge in order for the work to be considered a success. Not for me, but I look forward to the business model shifting away from it in the future, as business models always do. Change is thankfully the only constant.
We're on the same page regarding audiobooks not entirely being "reading", it's literally not, as it engages different parts of the brain in different ways, you *will* lose the skill of reading and reading deeply if you never actually read, so plainly it's not "the same as". But I would love for a controlled study to show which parts of the brain light up and are engaged and to which extents between the two activities. Until then, I'll at least acknowledge that there are similarities and shared skills between the two. Especially in regards to non-fiction, which rarely includes subtext or theme or things like that.
And I bow your experience as a creator in terms of how the creative process plays out within most comic publishers; I can only speak from a consumer/reader perspective. And admittedly I'm very selective these days. I just re-read the OG Luther Arkwright graphic novel by Bryan Talbot and was amazed at how ahead of its time and experimental it was, but also how sometimes it could put all the artistry aside and just deliver a filmic-style moment that remained cinematic and powerful even without sound.
That said, I often need a comic to appear in some way "interesting" in order to spend money and time on it. So a comic that looks skillfully made, beautiful art, well paced story - okay, cool, but is there anything that makes it worth reading over the entire back-catalogue of comics I've already read? And maybe that's a piece of what you're advocating for here.
Though one last caveat: I can enjoy a Kevin Smith talking heads CLERKS film as much as the abstract audio-visual mindfuck of a Skinamarink. Both have their place. Sometimes a solid story, just seeing people or characters play out a plot or be characters for a spell, that's enough. Not every creator has to be a format nerd and love playing with technique and pushing the medium forward from that standpoint.
I get that it's no good if the former is 95% of what's being offered, we agree there. I just suspect it's more like 75%, with a good 25% actually doing things worth reading or watching, and that's healthy if you ask me. The majority of anything will *always* be "safe". And many creators are probably more concerned with just telling a story as a "standard" comic vs. wanting to make movies/tv, per se. I'm sure they'd all like to take a stab at film, just as how Playwrights eventually do, too. But I'm non-cynical enough to give 'em all the benefit of the doubt beyond that.
Until that Con drink! (or three)
The easy answers to your question could be The Dark Knight Returns, Watchmen, Daredevil Born Again, and others. And while I had that kind of reaction while reading those books, the most recent time I’ve had an experience like the one you described is while reading the collected editions of the Usagi Yojimbo Saga.
I would not be the first or the last to say Stan Sakai is a master, but I will say it again anyway. I am currently working on Volume 8 and every time I pick it up, I am taken into that world. The stories are the same and different each time but it doesn’t matter because I just want to be in that world. I want to be on the road with the ronin, never staying in one place too long, going from town to town, solving problems.
The more I read it, the more I am drawn into the world of rabbits and rhinos. Usagi’s journey is the closest experience I’ve felt to reading Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. I was immersed in those two novels so much so I just wanted to be in those worlds. Stan Sakai does the same thing with Usagi, I just want to exist there for a little bit each day.
Each time I read a Usagi comic get the same feeling, like a warm blanket is being pulled up on a cold night, like arriving home after a long road trip. I read a lot of other comics but nothing takes me to a certain time and place like Usagi.
I don’t know if that’s what you mean but that’s what it meant to me.
You're in the right place, mon frere. Usagi Yojimbo was formative comics reading for me; I bought and read upwards of 30 volumes of it and had the exact same experience you did. While not terribly inventive in terms of formal approach, the depth and complexity Sakai achieves over the course of the run is unmatched. It also doesn't hurt that Stan is one of the nicest guys in comics, a notoriously vicious and vindictive industry. The only bad part about Usagi Yojimbo is that it makes me wistful for a time when long-running creator-owned series that delve deeply into people's idiosyncratic interests weren't so very rare.
Also, if you dig DKR, Watchment and Born Again, you owe it to check out my Uncle Chaykin's work from the same period. American Flagg is a classic and alarmingly influential (especially when you consider it came out before DKR and Watchmen), Time2 is utterly brilliant and his Shadow series is probably my favorite, pound-for-pound.
Thank you for the suggestion, I put American Flagg and The Shadow on my to read list (which for the first time in a long time only has four books on it).
I got to meet Stan once and he was the nicest guy. I have a drawing he did of Usagi hanging on my wall that is one of my favorite pieces I own.
A missive of this caliber is what I call "getting the Full Aubrey"!
Thank you, Matt. As I know you are fully aware, as a writer, it's always a pleasure to know that one has successfully used one medium (in this instance, a newsletter) to capture the feelings evoked by another medium (in this instance, getting berated by me, in a bar, about formal comics concerns).
Congrats!!
Thanks, Alex!!!