Foolishly Defining Comics
In my last post, I talked about throwing my hat into the parlor game that is definition seeking with the following entry:
Comics = A sequence* of images** traversed through reader action.
*inclusive (temporal or spatial)
**inclusive (with or without words)
I work as a programmer and don't doubt that my definition is influenced by the conceptual patterns of programming. Be this as it is, I'm going to go full on in this direction. My definition is loose and less formal. In many ways, it conforms to the idea of duck typing. In the briefest, most concise way I can describe this idea is to say, if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Any image collection that is bound together by some mechanism of reader traversal will act like comics, as far as I'm concerned. My goal is discuss mechanisms. The topics I bring up won't apply to something that doesn't have this mechanism.
Individual illustrations that include conventions from comics, such as speech balloons and the like, are sometimes referred to as single panel comics. This term is an oxymoron, it doesn't make a lot of sense. A single image is a single image. No one considers a single film frame a short film, or a single frame film. The very notion is ludicrous. In the same way, you can't have comics that are not an oddly plural singular. Most of this confusion is likely historical, comics and single narrative panels shared space in newspapers and got lumped together forever more. Also, there can be convention sharing and they are frequently illustrated.
The fact that the traversal of the comics sequence is reader paced is also fundamental. This addresses the difference between reading and watching, which is the main difference between comics and movies. You read a book but watch a movie. What's the difference? The movie keeps happening even if you fall asleep. Some number of frames are delivered at the same rate whether you are hopped on caffeine or half asleep. In a book you advance from word to word when you see fit. Comics function more like books than movies. The reader moves to the next image whenever she feels like it. When Mark Waid claims that Yves “Balak” Bigerel "broke the code" of digital comics, this is part of it. The readerly advancement of the image sequence mandates engagement. The reader isn't forced to sit through music or transitions that happen at their own pace. The reader is the clock.
Motion Comics
I've never liked a motion comic. They've never felt "comicy" to me; I didn't get the same enjoyment from them that I got from my paper comics. I couldn't tell if this had to do with the digital nature, the new format, etc. I have noticed, however, that the offerings at Thrillbent.com and the Guided View (tm) comics from Comixology.com feel like comics. I attribute my reactions to the watching vs. reading split. I've always been a reader. Half the time I'm watching a movie I'll be working through some text on my laptop or e-reader. I want to be able to pause, to re-read, to examine some images longer than others to make sure I'm ready to move forward before I move forward.
This isn't to say that I couldn't like a motion comic. The problem has always been one of marketing/packaging. I don't like that they claim to be comics. I love the "movie" Le Jetee even though it consists of little more than photographs, sounds, and dialog (with panning and other not-really-animation effects). It's practically a motion comic. Thing is, it never told me it was a comic. It told me it was a movie. When I enjoy it (once a year at the very least) I watch it.
There are also a number of issues surrounding whether something was made for the medium in question or later adapted to it. I don't think many motion comics, at least as of now, started out as motion comics. I'll leave any discussions on this topic for another day.
Next time I'm going to propose some new terms that will hopefully facilitate some discussion along the lines I've already advanced.
No comments:
Post a Comment