Talk:Comics

Sound effects

Perhaps something about sound effects? They say that in a lot of strips sound effects are an important part of the mood and story. Shinobu 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, at least as a portion of the medium's unique devices. IIRC, Scott McCloud writes some things that could be sourced, and Eisner? MURGH ^disc. 19:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what could be written, though, since sound effects are more visually part of the medium, than might be assumed. The art style of the sound effect is just as useful in conveying sensations, as the particular letters used... (That's one reason I don't like computer fonts being used for sound effects. It looks too mechanical. I'm more tolerant to computer lettering, except for Cerebus and a few other comics, it's rarely used as an artistical device.) 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 22:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons template

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the template to link to Comics instead of Cartoons? Or perhaps a second template (or link within the template?) should be added? B7T (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Hiding Talk 15:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Campbell deletions

An observation: There is no way whatsoever to ascertain whether anonymous IP 58.174.37.27. who claimed to be writer-artist Eddie Campbell and removed the Campbell references from this and Graphic novel just now, is really Campbell. See Essjay controversy.

However, it is true that the both the direct link and the web-archive link to the cited Campbell comments are both dead links, and don't appear to be available independently, at least online, so that material would have to have been removed at some point anyway.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

i like it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.238.185.157 (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

eComics

I'd like to create an article entitled "eComics", under the category "Comics". But there is a large set of specific topics related to this subject, that don't fit the standard Comic article:

• Web comics and web strips (I think there are articles for them, too)
• The emerging culture of printed comic scanning
• Techniques and processes for enhancement of the scanned comics
• Standards for archiving of these images
• Softwares for reading and organizing these archives
• Emerging communities all over the world dedicated to exchange (usually via peer-to-peer) and translate these "eComics" to foreign languages.

The last item above might be the "hottest", because there is the debate on royalties and piracy versus "free initiative", "out-of-market" and other "arguments". But this can be debated later.

I thought about this initiative after the deletion of the article "ComicRack" which talks about a freeware software to organize and "read" eComics. Most arguments pro-deletion talked about "low visibilty", and, after a research, I found many eComic-related articles (most of them stubs) without this "main" article to mend them (perhaps even as a category).

Please, suggestions and opinions preferrably at my talk page. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayton.Aguiar (talk • contribs) 01:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Low art?"

The article states: "Comics are seen as a low art," as if it's a fact. Isn't that an opninion?PatrickWB (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a referance to stating they are seen as a low art, it should be removed. However, I remember seeing them reffered to as a low art, but the articles have often stated that they were gaining in acceptance as an art in their own right. Corrupt one (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Do art critics or scholars actually refer to anything as "low art" these days?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Added references which show that comics are typically seen as being a low art. Also, it is a fact that that opinion is held, as shown in the works cited. The changing of that opinion is certainly something which can be discussed within the article, but I would suggest not within the lede itself which acts as a summary of the article and also as a standalone by itself. The distinctions between and the terms "high and low art" are still used and discussed by scholars and critics, certainly within the last three years, and I would suspect they will still find some usage within scholarly discussion within some context of framing debate for the next decade or two. The 2005 The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics contains an essay discussing the concept, so it still has some cultural value. 84.92.54.229 (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. We could do with some more references in "Publication formats" but isn't a deal breaker. (Emperor (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

Heavily Western Article

This article takes the "Western" perspective of "Comics" when many world cultures have comic traditions. This article does mention others, but it still sounds like an after thought, which is surprising being Egyptian Hieroglyphs have been around a lot longer than Trajan's Column.

--Vehgah (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's arguable whether hieroglyphs really are comics, or just a "sequential art form". I'd say modern comics emerged around the 19th-20th century in European/American traditions. (Early manga was heavily inspired by American Comics. Fans of manga often stress Toba scrolls and such material, but I think they're just a "sequential art form", as well.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not even a sequential art form, any more than "our" literature is a sequential art form. Hieroglyphs are a writing system where the words are written in recognizable symbols. Writing a text in Wingdings wouldn't turn it into a comic either... Fram (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that after I wrote my reply, but I believe there possibly might be sequential art found in connection to the hieroglyphs in one or some of the pyramids. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A glib way of looking at it. Japan has had stories told in "sequential" pictures for years, like Japanese picture scrolls. Then there is cave art, and not only that, but even Hieroglyphics could have told much like comics...We can't really know for sure. They even have pictures in addition to the hieroglyphs, which acted as the caption, or have you forgotten? Hieroglyphs are sequential, and is often cited as an ancient example of such. Check the Internet please. So you can add the pictures of Osiris with those "Windings". So to assume that what we call "comics" started in the west is as ridiculous as saying that fire started in Indonesia. It's impossible to know. Sequential art is probably as old as human beings are.

You can make a case for "modern comics", but you can't pretend that non western culture never told stories in the form of pictures.

And there is why making the article "west" centered is problematic. Everyone has made comics, even before they were called as such. And the Trajan reference has to go, if you insist on calling it one of the earliest.

Rome's Trajan's Column, dedicated in 113 AD, is one of the earliest surviving examples of a narrative told through the use of sequential pictures, while Egyptian heiroglyphics, Greek friezes, mediaeval tapestries such as the Bayeaux Tapestry and illustrated manuscripts also demonstrate the use of images and words combined to convey a narrative.

The fact that this pillar is highlighted when Hieroglyphs and Cave Paintings are much much older is like saying:

"Spiderman is one of the earliest superheroes, there is also Superman, Batman, and the Green Lantern."

If you know your history, this sentence makes no sense.

Comics are "Sequential Art". So that means if these forms are sequential they are essentially the forerunners of comics, if not comics themselves, then that means the sentence: "...Toba scrolls and such material, but I think they're just a "sequential art form", as well. " makes no sense either, especially when the phrase "Sequential Art" links you to the COMICS page.

You can't have it both ways.

--Vehgah (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Depends on if you'd consider "sequential art" and "comics" identical, or if you'd consider comics a particular form on sequential art. I don't think the redirect proves that the concepts are identical, per se.

Anyway, I agree we should probably include some more cases of sequential art forms, although I'd disagree they are a direct ancestor to modern comics. (Maybe more of an embryo or something.) The Toba scrolls might be sequential, but I think that pre-WWII imports of US and (some) European comic books, cartoons and animation had a bigger role in the creation of manga. Opinions differ, though.

惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And yes, of course, the statement about the Trajan column could be rewritten. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In Scott Mccloud's book Understanding Comics, he looks into the question of just what is a comic. There are a lot of factors to look at. However, he agrees that these ancient drawings, should count. he even specifically looks at some hyroglyphs. Corrupt one (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was hieroglyphs, per se, just Egyptian art. (?) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Language

I have some trouble with this phrasing:

As noted above, two distinct definitions have been used to define comics as an art form: 
the combination of both word and image; and the placement of images in sequential order. 
Both definitions are lacking, in that the first excludes any sequence of wordless images; 
and the second excludes single panel cartoons such as editorial cartoons. 

I don't think "lacking" is a good choice of word, since by this definition, the exclusion of single-panel cartoons is a basic point in the definition. However, I think McCloud's definition is lacking, since it completely ignores the issue on layout, and the impact the layout has on the reader. I don't know the English name for the theory, but theoretically you read the whole page/spread and each single panel separately, simultaneously. I think this is a key point for a theoretical discussion on the medium, but it's quite complicated to explain it verbally. (Interestingly, discussing layout, the time/space equivalence isn't a necessary factor, but several panels could take place nearly simultaneously etc.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

African comics

Surely I should start an article about that. I found www.univie.ac.at/ecco/stichproben/Nr5_Beez_Kolbusa.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Go ahead and write it. Although it doesn't appear to me that Africa has such a long and rich comics tradition as USA, France/Belgium or Japan, it would be interesting to read it. My impression is that African comics are mostly done in old French and English colonies, to a great del inspired by their Western counterparts. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely go for it - by the very nature of the English language Wikipedia it will naturally be strong on American and other English-language comics and we should try and improve the coverage of other areas. Here is the category which is a little thin: Category:African comics. If you start sections on the different countries as information comes in we can see what needs starting and also it may be the sections get large enough to warrant being split off to their own articles.

Also:

• Africa Comics.net
• New York Times
• [1]
• [2] looks like the PDF is freely available

Looks like there have been a couple of recent exhibitions which have made the news and raised the profile.

As there is enough material to be going on with we can also work on the "if you build it they will come" principle, because once there is a place for the information other knowledgeable editors will drop by and add what they know. (Emperor (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

And if you'r interested, you could start checking out the books "The Essential Guide to World Comics", by Tim Pilcher and Brad Brooks (ISBN: 1-84340-300-5), as well as John Anthony Lent's "Comic Art in Africa, Asia, Australia, and Latin America through 2000: An International Bibliography" and "Cartooning in Africa". (I don't know their ISBN, but I think they're fairly easy to find on Amazon etc.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sequential art

I've never heard of the term "sequential art" being used to describe comics. I was wondering about turning the current sequential art redirect to this page into the main page for Sequential Art (webcomic), and started a discussion here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The term "sequential art" has been used in theoretical circles since at least 1985, when Will Eisner's influential "Comics and Sequential Art" first came out. It's a term tha's not entirely related to comics, but to art where images in a sequence are used narratively to tell a story, or in a (more or less) fixed order are juxtaposed to each other to create a sensation etc. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for disambiguated name "Comics (print media)"

To disambiguate from the 'comedians' meaning of 'comics'.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The hatnote seems adequate for heading off any confusion and the other article is called comedians (as opposed to something like "comics (performers)") so there isn't any crossover in the naming either - of articles named "comics" this clearly is the one that should have the top slot. So on both counts this seems fine. (Emperor (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Webcomics is not a print media, anyway. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Public

There are different types of comics depending on the reader, as baby comics (comics for people under 3 years old with low text. generally onomatopoeias) and other infant comics (including ones to teach to read). And example Muppet Babies(comic book), [3], Jack and the Box.... --Nopetro (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't know, writing and drawing your own comics books is a sport. Along with other activities most people don't think are sports such as singing, playing music, and dancing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.127.86 (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Indian Comics

Paul Gravett --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

R.C. Harvey's definition

We're given R.C. Harvey's definiton of comics -- "... comics consist of pictorial narratives or expositions in which words (often lettered into the picture area within speech balloons) usually contribute to the meaning of the pictures and vice versa." -- and then told "This, however, ignores the existence of pantomime comics."

I think his saying "usually" would only indicate a tendency in, and would still include pantomime comics.

Is this someone's opinion? A citation is needed if this is actually a widespread interpretation of the quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidtoyman (talk • contribs) 02:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Asterix

Asterix is not mentioned though it's one of the most popular comics. I think it introduced a combination of humoristic approach and detailed drawing style... --128.214.20.122 (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Greek derivation of word "Comics" in the lead?

The word may have come from Greek once upon a time, but it came into the English language in the 16th Century (according to the Concise Oxford) and thus was a well established word long before it was applied to any kind of sequential art. Is it really appropriate to have the derivation of the word right in the lead, given that the word "comic" as applied to sequential art was not derived directly from the Greek? I mean, why don't we include the original Proto-Indo-European word while we're at it? It would make sense if someone, looking for a word for this new art form, went thumbing through their Greek lexicon and chose "comic" as the apropos word, but that's clearly nothing like the case. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The word "comic", meaning "funny", derives from the Greek word (via Latin), but the term "comics" derives from the English usage of the word, not directly from the Greek or Latin. Stating in the first sentence of the lede that "comics" is from the Greek, or via Latin, is simply misleading. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I basically agree. "Comics" as a term specifically denoting the medium originated in English, and actually later was borrowed back to Greek. Greek article states "κόμικς (αγγλ. comics)", as a borrowing from English. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)