(urth) Wolfe and Gaiman

[Son of Witz]

I don't want to start ranting about comics, but calling him a "comics author" is very appropriate in that it highlights the particular problems of the craft.  Comics are a distinct visual art form, with problems and solutions that are specific to it's form. The probelms of a painter, a film maker, or a novelist are very very different than the problems facing someone trying to tell a story in a serial juxtaposition of images into a complicated arrangement of sub-compositions. I've made a lot of comics pages, let me tell you that it busts my brain as much or more than trying to do computer programming.  It can be very simple if your form and content work that way, sure, but to do something complicated...



On Jan 4, 2011, at 8:22 AM, António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

> Lee Berman wrote (04-01-2011 16:18):
>> 
>> 
>>> Gaiman is, IMO, a superior comics author. Those are not so easy to come by.
>>> Of course comics are seen as a lesser art compared to proper Literature.
>>> Gaiman of course doesn't claim to be on the same league, even in his
>>> non-comics stuff.
>> 
>> I'd like to suggest the adjective "comics" be changed to "visual arts" or
>> something like that. Neil has had more than one of his works transferred
>> (through an obviously very expensive process) to the big screen. After 40
>> years we may need to accept that Wolfe's work just isn't seen as amenable
>> to this process.
>> 
>> I think it would be quite a mistake to think that Wolfe looks down his nose
>> at authorial work which translates well to visual.                       
> 
> 'Irregardless', that's how it's seen, a minor form of art.
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net