Comics and Sequential Art

[dancemonkey]

So I just completed Will Eisner's Comics and Sequential Art. My initial impressions after completing the book are the same as when I started it. Wow. And anyone who believes that Scott McCloud's books make Eisner's obsolete has clearly not read it. As a collection these are really especially good

Comments

[pure_doxyk]

Thanks for the review! My husband writes a comic (in case you didn't know), and he says he's been meaning to check out Eisner's books for some time now, but you gave him the push. ;)

[dancemonkey]

I saw you posting about Leave it to Jesus a while back, but I had no idea it was your hubby that wrote it. Kick ass! It is now a part of my rss reading.

And I'm very glad to hear that anything I wrote actually evoked a reaction. I'm especially pleased that it encouraged him to read it. I'll be very interested in knowing his opinion on it once he finished it. I'd also be interested in knowing what he thought of Scott McCloud's Making Comics. I assume he's read it.

Graphic Storytelling was already on my list and I plan on moving it to the top now that I finished with Sequential Art.

I also assume that he's on LJ. What's his username?

[pure_doxyk]

RSS is among the highest readership compliments there are -- thanks!

riotmod is my very awesome boy, and he has this to say about Making Comics: It's okay, but S.M.'s conclusions are too broad (you have to remember LITJ is on the experimental side!), and he's a bit full of himself. Reinventing Comics is better.

Thanks!

[dancemonkey]

I didn't notice that McCloud actually made any conclusions in Making. And I can completely understand why riotmod would think that he's full of himself, but most evangelists are.

I also wouldn't say that LITJ is on the experimental side. I'd just say that LITJ is experimental. Haha! Which is kick ass, by the way. Me loves the experimental. And due to LITJ being experimental it would make perfect sense that riotmod would like Reinventing. From what I've heard, mind you. I haven't read it yet. Another on my list of to-read.

But with that in mind, riotmod may not like Comics & Sequential Art as much as I did because it doesn't address experimental much at all. This was originally written in 1984 with an extra chapter added in 1990 to deal with the digital revolution. Point of note, all the images in the final chapter (which is pretty weak, actually) show a computer that has a 3.5" floppy coming out of it. Sweet!

[doctorellisdee]

I HATE eisner's writing. He's schmaltzy and has a poor ear for dialog. His storytelling, from a a literary standpoint, is quite poor. He's a technical god, no doubt, but damn, I wish he'd've worked with someone who knows how to write convincing characters. That said, his tech manuals are worth reading.

One of things I love about Moore is how carefully he considers the artist he's working with, and how he ensures that the art and artist remain consistent through a project. Contrastingly, Gaiman just doesn't seem to give a a shit sometimes. There's some remarkably poor art in Sandman, frex.

Have you read The Invisibles?

[dancemonkey]

That's quite a mouthful you just gave me there.

First off, I wonder if there could be some confusion with Eisner since he was more or less writing comics before they were even remotely considered a viable media. Meaning, that he was more or less developing the art form in many ways. So for him to work on producing viable characters was less important than creating sound artwork. And this would actually work considering his emphasis on art versus story in Sequential.

I've read that Moore writes intense scripts for his novels. It definitely shows. But moreover, Moore works on graphic novels. I wonder if it is fair to even compare The Sandman series with something like The Watchmen. If you haven't, you should check out The Sandman Volume 3. At the end of it Gaiman includes a copy of his script for Calliope. He is really detailed about his artwork but when you compare the script to the published version you'll see that there was some pretty substantial variations from the script either done by the artist or by one of the suits

kaaah kaaaaaah kaaaaaaah mix

[doctorellisdee]

I give Eisner lots of credit, but eventually, a work must stand on its own merits, regardless of if it came first. To make a reference almost no one would get; sure, Venom did that Slayeresque Black Thrash before anyone else, but they really didn't do a very good job. That's why everyone knows Slayer but not Venom. dig?

Eisner does alot of formalism, that is, he's more interested in the storytelling techniques than in the story being told. That means I'm interested as a comix guy, but unengaged as a reader. Not a winning combination.

Moore does ongoing series as well, and he cares about the art there, too. Of course, he has an unprecedented level of control over his creations. I wasn't comparing Watchmen v. Sandman specifically. Yes, saying Gaiman don't give a shit about the art is quite general, and demonstrably false. I said it sometimes seems as though..., in terms of the actual results on the page. He certainly picked specific artists for appropriate stories, and wrote to their strengths, but not always, and sometimes I just

Re: kaaah kaaaaaah kaaaaaaah mix

[dancemonkey]

You make all sorts of right on the money points here.

You definitely have a far better knowledge base than I do about The Sandman series (disclosure being I've only read the first four volumes of it and I'm still working through it). However, that said, he does state that he doesn't control who the artists are in the series. That the publishers select the artists and then he attempt to write to their strengths.

I'd have to actually read some of Eisner's actual comics works rather than his writings on comics before I could make any sort of judgment on his prowess as a creator.

But this is why this entry still falls under the vein of searching for comics knowledge. Thanks for your input, man.