Comics rule - but why do they rule?

While writing the last entry, I came across this quote from Terry Moore (whose creator-owned series, Echo, just keeps getting better and better).



"It's amazing how powerful the comic book format can be because it incorporates the best of both film and prose. Novels and movies or television are creative vehicles that rely on something moving in order for you to experience them. The film has to roll, your eyes have to run across the page to get the experience … whereas in a graphic novel, you're looking at the scene. It stays there on the page all day, and you experience the moment for as long as you want to experience it. It's just an amazingly powerful medium."

That's what I've been struggling to get across over the past several comics-related blogs. In fact, I've been struggling with it since I started reading the comic book adaptation of The Odyssey. As much as I love the original epic (Okay, I've never read the original GREEK.) I kept thinking to myself how happy I was that this was finally done as a comic book. For one, I can read the story much faster than I can when I read my huge Robert Fagles' translation. Secondly though, I teach this every year, and it'll be much easier to refresh my memory by scanning through the comic than scanning through all that epic poetry.



Most importantly though, and this gets to the heart of what Moore said, comics are great because it's so easy to relive the experience. If I want to re-experience Odysseus getting past Scylla and Charybdis, it's so easy to flip to the right page. And then I can sit and absorb the work for as long as I want. This is something that you just don't get with either a novel or a movie - as much as I like both of those genres.

Yeah, comics are awesome.

Comics rule - What goes into a comic

I got into a long Facebook conversation/disagreement/debate/battle to the death recently with Andrew "Poo in the Pants" Nolan. It was about the relative merits of sports versus comics fandom, as I personally think that obsessive sports fans are just as void of meaningful lives as obsessive comics fans are. While I don't want to rehash the entire debate, mostly out of fear that I'll misrepresent Nolan's points, it did get me to thinking about an aspect of comics fandom that eludes people. (And for some strange reason, I couldn't seem to spell "eludes" correctly.) Basically, Nolan was saying that push comes to shove, sports are real things done by real people, whereas comics are works of fiction where fictional people do fictional things.

This is true, of course. However, that's not all there is to comics. In my last entry, I wrote about a couple of favorite creators. While these people are creating works of fiction, the very act of creation is as real as anything gets. In other words, the craft of creating comics is worthy of note.

When I started reading comics as a kid, I think that I only took a quick glance at the credits. Within a few years though, I started to pay attention, and by the time I got to my teen years, I was following certain writers and artists, just as I do to this day. I imagine though that most non-fans probably think very little about the people who actually produce a comic, and they probably don't even realize what goes into it. Well, for the uninitiated, here's the breakdown:

1. The writer - This person creates the story, obviously. While there are several different ways to go about this, most of them write what's called a "full-script" where they indicate how many panels should be on the page and what exactly should be going on in each page.

2. The penciler - This person takes the script and draws it. While this seems like a no-brainer, the penciler is just as much a storyteller as the writer. With some writer/artist collaborations, the penciler will have a bit more input into the story, but even when drawing from the script, they are still responsible for subtle, but important, things like facial expressions. Most importantly, a good artist knows how to arrange the artwork in such a way that the eye easily flows from one panel to the next. Ever look at a comic and be confused as to which direction you should read? Chances are good, you don't have a very good storyteller. While there might be some pencilers who are wonderful artists, that doesn't necessarily mean that they know how to tell a clear story. Likewise, there are some pencilers who don't draw so well, but their work is always easy to follow.

3. The inker - There's a whole bit in Chasing Amy about how inkers are simply "tracers," and while I don't want to get into that whole thing, let's just say that I've been reading enough comics to know that a good inker can make all the difference. I've seen different inkers work with different pencilers, and it can make all the difference in the world. The reason for all of this is that most pencil work simply doesn't show up well when reproduced - at least, they didn't when comics started to be published in the 30s. Nowadays, there are some pencilers whose work is so detailed that an inker isn't even necessary.

4. The colorist - With today's computer technology, colorists have a lot more power over the final product than ever before. A good colorist can make mediocre work look passable, and a bad one can ruin something that's brilliant. For me, I tend to prefer colorists with a "less is more" attitude. There once was a time when comics were limited to three colors (and combinations of those four) and a lot of colorists really made that work well. A lot of the new stuff can be simply distracting as the finished product gets muddied in Photoshop effects.

5. The letterer - This is the guy who physically writes out all the captions and word balloons. Most of this is done by computer nowadays, but once upon a time it was all done by hand. I once heard it said that a good letterer is like a good movie editor - if they're doing their job well, you don't notice them.

6. The editor - This job depends a lot on what kind of comic that you're reading. If you're reading something that's creator-owned, then the editor is probably just proofreading and making suggestions. With mainstream superheroes, an editor has a lot more influence and can be a major driving force in the direction that the books is taking.

I need to point out that a lot of people do two or more of these jobs. Guys like Frank Miller and Terry Moore handle the writing, pencils and inks of their books.

So, to continue with the sports comparisons, a creative team is like a good sports team. One talented guy is hardly enough to create magic, but when they're all working together and you have a pool of talent, the (to use a cliche) total is worth more than the sum of its parts.

Comics rule - favorite creators

I've written before about the frustrations of being a comics fan. What I wrote about before was that one of the most frustrating things is that comics fans are few and far between. For instance, I'm really pumped about what's happening in Green Lantern right now, but there aren't many people with whom I can talk about it.

Another thing that's frustrating is that a lot of people simply don't get what the hobby is all about. First off, you have people who simply don't read in general, and they can't understand the concept of anybody reading anything for any reason at all. Those are the kinds of people who get fixated on how much the comics are worth, and no matter how much I tell them that most comics won't be worth much of anything, they keep asking those kinds of questions.

Other people don't seem to realize that one of the things that interests fans is not so much which characters are in a comic but who's doing it. For instance, I get people asking me inane questions about what superhero could beat up whom. While there are some obvious no-contest scenarios (Superman versus almost anybody), I usually tell them "It depends on who's writing it." Honestly, I'd rather discuss that than who can beat up whom. I lost interest in that sort of thing when I was a teenager, and now that I'm in my thirties, I care even less.

I would say that more than half of my comics purchases are based on who's doing the series. I suppose that the writer is the most important to me and then the artist, but a really crappy artist can ruin a good story and a really great artist can make me more interested in a mediocre story than I would have been otherwise. From there, I make my purchases on what looks interesting, and then there are a few characters whom I tend to follow almost no matter who's doing the book (Spider-Man and Batman are the only ones that spring to mind though).

So, who are some of my current and/or all-time favorites? I'll start with the writers:

Geoff Johns - He's currently writing Green Lantern and he's also working on a lot of Superman stuff. I had gone nearly 20 years without picking up a regular series with either one of those characters, but I've been pretty hooked lately - mainly due to the stuff that Johns is doing. The Superman stuff is good mainly because even though it's difficult to give somebody as powerful as Superman a real challenge, the comics have been pulling that off quite well lately. Currently, there's a "New Krypton" where thousands of displaced Kryptonians are orbiting a planet that's on the opposite side of the sun as our own, and many of them do not possess Superman's altruism. Superman has had to leave Metropolis behind in order to make sure that these Kryptonians don't pose a threat to his adopted homeworld, and that means working with General Zod. (That's right - Zod, as in, "Kneel before Zod".)

Green Lantern I won't even attempt to explain, but let's just say that Johns managed to tie up years of continuity and create a very compelling story with an interesting character. Basically, whenever comics stories attempt to "fix" previous storylines by telling a "what you thought happened didn't actually happen" story, it's usually only interesting to long-time fans. Well, as I've stated before, I never picked up a monthly Green Lantern comic until Johns started writing it, and I've been hooked ever since.

I just realized that I could probably devote a series of blogs just to this, so let me write about just one more, and I'll pick a writer/artist this time: Alan Davis.



I first discovered his work on an X-Men Annual back when I was in middle school. From there, he started drawing Excalibur (which was an X-Men spinoff, not a King Arthur one). It's difficult to explain exactly what's so great about his work without copying and pasting entire pages, but let's just say that it was a combination of his clean linework, his expressive characters, and his solid storytelling skills that caused me to go back and reread his work again and again. (By storytelling, I'm referring to the fact that it was always clear what was going on from one panel to the next - something that not all comic artists can do.) Another thing that I also loved was the fact that his characters all had very distinctive features - especially his females. A lot of lesser artists know how to draw an attractive female, but when they have to draw another one, all they really do is give her different hair. Not so with Alan Davis - they all had distinctive noses, cheekbones, chins, etcetera.



Years later, he came back to Excalibur, only this time he was writing it as well. I won't attempt to explain the entire storyline, but let's just say that it was complex without being confusing, and it managed to have a healthy mix of action and humor. The really nice thing is that I recently re-read it, and it's just as good as I remembered it to be. That's not something that we can say often now is it?

The storm of the gay agenda

I'm really worried, as I just saw this ad about the threats to our liberty posed by dudes who want to marry other dudes and chicks who want to marry other chicks:



Ominous, isn't it? Well, this advertisement barely scratches the surface, as I have recently gained access to some secret documents that reveal the very truth behind the gay agenda. Oh sure, it's bad enough with its lies about how people don't choose to be gay. I mean, I don't know about you, but every morning I have to look in the mirror and make the conscious decision to be attracted to women. Of course, I have to make sure that I am only attracted to my wife, because according to Da Jeebus, if I look at any other woman lustfully, then I'm pretty much an adulterer.

Anyway, it's worse than you thought, as this agenda also covers the following insidious plans:

• Getting rid of strawberry-flavored Starburst
• Forcing all balding men to get a buzz-cut (They already claimed me on this one!)
• Making a third Scooby Doo movie that introduces Scrappy Doo
• Putting a dress on the Lincoln Memorial
• legislating that all sprinklers must be in the shape of naked men
• changing the end of the Pledge of Allegiance to say "FAAAABulous!"
• Raising the price of tacos
• promoting Barbara Streisand to Empress of the Universe, where her iron will shall be enforced by the Village People

Frightening, isn't it? Is this what you want, America? Well, as though that list isn't enough, that video has subtly revealed something even more disconcerting. Apparently, a storm is coming and that can only mean one of two things:

1. The gays have recruited Thor to their side. Now, it's possible that maybe they recruited Zeus or some other storm-god. More likely, they have ALL of the pagan storm gods on their side now! Figures that the gay agenda would stoop so low in order to destroy the one, true religion: Taoism. No, wait, I mean Christianity.

2. The gays have joined up with COBRA and now have use of Destro's Weather Dominator! This, my fellow Americans, must not stand!

So there you have it. The gay agenda is far more insidious than you could possibly imagine, and their recruitment drives have potentially reached pagan pantheons and/or COBRA (the ruthless terrorist organization that GI JOE fights. You want to be on GI JOE's side, don't you?)

Oh, and then there's this crap that I found:

All apologies

I got into a debate (with perhaps a bit of overzealousness on my part) online recently regarding a certain Christian apologist named Lee Strobel. This got me to thinking about Christian (and any religious, for that matter) apologetics.

The thing is, and this particular statement isn't very original on my part: if Christianity was so true, then why would it even need apologetics in the first place? Now, I realize that the word is somewhat misleading, as it sounds like these people are apologizing for their religion, and to be fair, I should have to point out that's not what it means. The word's original Greek origins mean more along the lines of "to defend".

Still, if it's so truthful and obvious, why must they spend so much time coming up with a defense? Could it possibly be because there are so many things about the religion that simply don't make any sense? Now, we're not talking about the kind of defense that one would have to do with something like evolution. In that case, those who defend the teaching of evolution are making an effort to make sure that evolution is being understood in the first place, as those who attack it tend to not even really understand what it even is. Evolution defenders are making an effort to show that all the facts are actually known, and any honest defender would be willing to seriously consider some real evidence that would disprove it. In the case of Christian apologetics, it's all about trying to make sense of the nonsensical.

My personal favorite deals with the simple question of why a loving God would allow for so much suffering in the world. I'm familiar with the defense, as I used to say it myself until I finally admitted to myself that my reasoning was more of an act of trying to rationalize the nonsensical than me having had found a logical explanation. Anyway, the argument goes something along these lines: God wants us to have free will, and as a result of this, we have to pay the consequences. Since we have chosen to turn our backs from God, he allows for bad things to happen.

This still makes crap-all of sense though. I suppose that if you stop your thought process right there and don't allow yourself to keep thinking about it, then it's a perfectly acceptable explanation. The bottom line, however, is that this loving God watches children in third world countries die of diseases like malaria. And why? Because of free will? Where is their free will? They suffer because people like me turn away from God? Where did they even get the chance? What kind of a just system allows for people to suffer because of the actions of others?

Then of course comes the "Well, God's ways are not our ways. We can't understand his plan." Now, why this is a satisfactory answer I'll never understand. Sure, that's possible, I suppose, but why should I even be willing to go there? Isn't the notion that a loving God simply doesn't exist a simpler answer? That makes sense at least. Why should I accept an answer that requires me to be okay with the fact that something doesn't make sense?

Because the bottom line is that this "loving God", if he's omnipotent and omniscient, watches little children die on a daily basis. He hears their cries and he feels their agony. He can do something, but he doesn't want to. Apparently, he's got some kind of a point as to how we all can't live without him. Of course, he can't prove that point any other way, can he? Why can't he just show us all a movie of what would happen without his interference?

So back to this Lee Strobel guy. He's a pair of clown shoes if there ever was one. What I find dispicable about him is that he makes this pretense of doing some kind of genuine investigative journalistic approach to learning about Jesus and finding out whether the Bible is historically accurate or not. I could go on and on about him, but I remember seeing him on a show one time when he said that the thing that made him convert over from atheism was the empty tomb.

You know, the empty tomb. The one that was supposed to have Jesus in it but didn't because it was, like, empty. That's what convinced him. I'll wait until you pick your jaw up off the floor.

Excuse me, but how the hell is this proof of ANYTHING? Isn't that kinda like saying that the Trojan Horse is proof of the historical accuracy of The Odyssey? Isn't it kinda like saying that Obi Want's empty robe is proof of the accuracy of Star Wars? What the hell is wrong with these people? That's just part of a story! There's no proof that there ever was an empty tomb in the first place. And even if there was, why does miraculous resurrection get to be the only possible answer? Ever hear of, oh, I don't know, A FRIKKEN' GRAVE ROBBER???? (And let's never mind the fact that it's highly unlikely that a man like Jesus would have ever been buried in the first place. Part of the punishment of crucifixion included that your body wasn't give a proper funeral/burial. I can't imagine the Roman soldiers allowing Jesus' followers to take him off the cross.)

So, when people hear the word "apologetics", what they think is "apology". When apologists use it, they mean "defense". When I hear it, I think "massive cop-out".

Wherefore marriage - part 2

While I was walking my dog this morning, I realized that I never really made a clear definition of what I thought that marriage was in my last post. I suppose that this is because I just don't seem to have one.

The definition of marriage depends on those who are married. For my wife and I, it means a monogamous relationship where we hope to spend the rest of our lives together and eventually have a family. There are some people out there with "open" relationships, and while that sort of a thing doesn't really appeal to me (when I really think about it) who am I to tell them that it's wrong? So long as everything is out there and in the open, and nobody is being deceived, then more power to them.

So maybe the definition of marriage is that it's a trust between two people. From there, that's up to them.

Wherefore marriage?

Back when I was writing all sorts of prop-8 related posts, somebody asked me to write about what I think the purpose of marriage is in the first place. No doubt that person (assuming you're still out there) probably thought that I either forgot all about it or was deliberately avoiding the question. Truth is, I was thinking about it, and I didn't want to write on it until I felt like I was ready. In all honesty, I still don't feel completely ready, but since my wife has been out of town all week, I've had the subject on my mind. Oh, and recent events in Iowa also brought the issue to my mind.

I guess one of the reasons why I put off writing on this is because I can only write about what marriage means to me. And the one thing that I really want to avoid is making it sound like what it means to me should be the same for everybody. So, if I start to sound like I'm defining marriage for everyone, please realize that's not my intent, as I can only answer for myself.

This May, I will have been married for seven years. I was living with my wife for a few years before that, and I had been in a relationship with her for a few more years before we moved in together. Obviously, moving in together created a different dynamic. However, I had heard it said that when you live together and then get married, things will be different. Honestly, I don't remember who the hell ever said that, but for some reason it sticks in my mind. Did things change? Not really, as far as I can tell. I didn't suddenly feel like some new rules were thrust upon me. It's not like before I felt like cheating on her was an option but once we got married that went completely out the window. I honestly don't feel any more committed now than I was before.

There was a bit of trepidation on my part about getting married. It wasn't severe though, as it didn't actually bring me to the point of reconsidering the idea of getting married. It was more of a nervous thought that would come to mind. The reason why is that around the time I got married, my parents got a divorce and my sister divorced her first husband. My other sister had been divorced not too long before that. So, my family track record wasn't exactly great in that regard. I'd be lying if I said that didn't spring to mind. Still, I've often been an exception to the rule, and I don't like to make decisions based on what other people have done. I have to do what's right for me.

But why did I want to do it? I'm not really a person who's big into symbols and ceremony. I'm also not a fan of doing things simply because they're traditional. Why go through the whole thing then? I was perfectly happy with my wife before the ceremony, so what's the point?

This is going to sound bad, but bear with me here. A big reason is that I got married because that's what Kirsti wanted. Okay, that sounds awful. It sounds like I was somehow coerced into doing it, or just as bad, I did it just to pacify her or something. That's not what I mean. What I mean is that I love her, and it was important to her, and she's worth it. So, her wanting to do it made me want to do it.

Does this mean that I didn't have any desire of my own to get married? Of course not. I wanted it too, but I probably would have gone a longer time before getting around to making it happen if it wasn't for Kirsti wanting it as much as she did. I always pictured myself as a married man some day. Why? I don't know. I guess that I'm just the kind of guy who wants to be with one woman for the rest of his life. The thought of growing old with somebody always appealed to me. I guess it just makes sense with the type of person that I am, as I value long-lasting, deeper relationships than brief and superficial ones.

The third reason is that the wedding was a celebration of our love for each other - as corny as that sounds. It was a chance for all of our friends and relatives to be there with us and be a part of what we've built together.

There are no doubt other reasons that aren't occuring to me right now, but what does marriage mean to me then? For me, it's having somebody to be there for you so you don't have to go through this life all alone. My wife is my friend, and I feel good when she's around. I hope to have a family some day, and I can't think of anybody else with whom to have one. My marriage is a promise to be there for her when she needs me. Also, my marriage is a "thank you" to her for being able to put up with me and all my issues.

The bottom line is though that she's been on vacation for more than a week, and I haven't felt normal since she's been gone. Notice that I haven't written any blogs since then? Dammit, I just don't feel like I'm functioning properly.