I talk a lot about the balance between story, art, and the narrative tools of comics, but in truth I'm not even sure how they all come together. Story is simply that--the story being told. Art, again, is straightforward--the style and quality of the image being used. The narrative tools of comics are something else entirely--how comics works is a topic that has filled many a book (Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics probably being the most widely known). And even as simply as I've painted the role of story and art--the relationship is not that simple. It may be the case that certain stories and art are better suited to the medium of comics than others--that comics may be not just a medium, but something of a genre. Likewise, the storytelling devices that we take for granted--that I include under story as a category--like first, second, third -person perspective and narrative structure all have to be thought of in terms of the medium within which they are presented. There are certain storytelling devices that work in film that cannot be made to work in the written word. Likewise, there must be some storytelling devices that work in some mediums that won't work in comics, and vice versa.
It doesn't help that comics is such a nebulous category. What makes something comics? McCloud defines comics (basically) as the use of sequential images. This disqualifies images paired with text (like the Far Side comic strip). Intuitively, this disqualification seems both right and wrong. Right because the prime means of storytelling of comics does appear to be the juxtaposition of images. Wrong because there must be something in the relationship between words and images, even if that relationship is outside the panel (And McCloud seems to put undo emphasis on the use of panels). Certainly, someone like Eddie Campbell would disagree with McClouds definition (although if I remember his views correctly--it's been awhile--defining is precisely part of the problem). This issue alone causes many a headache. As a result, coming to grips with the interplay between story, art, and the narrative tools of comics is especially slippery.
In a lot of ways, the quality of a story is the most subjective aspect when talking about the worth of a comic. Certainly there are aspects of any story that will cause them to be bad regardless of medium, but beyond that much comes down to personal taste and, beyond that, the skill with which the story is told. But art is not much less subjective. It may be, as McCloud says, that the more realistic the art the less it allows the reader to unconsciously use the narrative tools of comics (although there are reasons to doubt this, which I'll deal with another day), but ultimately the appeal of a specific art style is very much in the eye of the beholder--the independent comic scene has long been beholden to a lack of criticism for generally poor art skills.*
The actual balance between story, art, and the skillful use of comics' storytelling tools seems the main point of focus that any review should take into account. Some comics may be so successful in one area that their deficiencies in other areas can be overlooked. For example, I would suggest that in general Paul Pope's skill with the medium of comics--both in art and use of storytelling tools--overshadows any flaws in the stories themselves. Meanwhile, Alex Ross often gets a pass for the realism of his art, even though his stories and use of storytelling tools are sometimes flawed. But all comics have to succeed at the most basic level with each of the three elements. A great comic needs to succeed brilliantly in all three areas.
*and I certainly don't mean this as any serious criticism in itself (or as a blanket generalization).
No comments:
Post a Comment