last time i tried to copy and paste from microsoft word, the commas and quotes all became strange symbols... hope that doesn't happen this time...
---Compromising---
So, some people think Scott McCloud?fs definition is fine, and some people don?ft. The arguments for both sides have been heard, and still no consensus. Some people may be more comfortable with no consensus, and may prefer a situation in which an on going debate is possible. That is definitely one valid way of proceeding.
Another valid way, and the one I personally prefer, is compromise. As a side note, I recognize that the chance to debate, the chance to change the rules, the chance to reevaluate and add new things to definitions is important. I am not suggesting that we write anything in stone, now or ever. I am, however, suggesting that we get a rough draft prepared. The way I see it, there are 2 basic ways a compromise could be achieved. But first, why compromise?
The definition of comics in and of itself, though important, is not as important as the ability for us to come together as a group. If comics is to succeed in ?ggrowing up?h in the public eye, then I feel we, the people who give our lives to creating and reading comics of the ?gnew school?h (basically, anyone who has made the jump of accepting that comics can be more than they were, and are), need to present a unified face to the world. This does not mean that we all have to agree with each other, just that we have to agree about some things within certain parameters.
What should those parameters be? Well, if the parameter is really broad, like the basic definition of comics, it doesn?ft seem like we will ever be able to reach a consensus. So, the parameters need to be a little bit narrower, letting the big picture take its shape on its own. On to the 2 ways that I see us being able to compromise, and thus become a strong and unified group of creators.
One method is to provide an expanded definition of comics within which groups of definitions exist. This is what I was trying to propose last night, but maybe it didn?ft make all that much sense.
The world of comics can be big enough for us all, if we let it. The first step is for everyone, without exception, to accept that the things that they personally feel are not comics <i>do</i> have a place in the larger world of comics. Then, with these worlds sectioned off, everyone can feel comfortable in their own world.
(I understand that this is a sacrifice that might be difficult to make, but if we do not, it seems that there will never be a unified ?gNew Comic?h world. For those of us concerned with comics image and growth, especially growth, it seems that without a consensus that new comic will never have the support it needs)
Returning from the parenthesis world, on with a practical explination of how this first method of compromise might work:
Based on the statement I made before the parenthesis, one might be able to say, ?gI am a S-type comic artist. I create and enjoy reading comics of the S-type.?h This theoretical S-type could be sequential art comics, ruling out things like far side. Within the S-type, a place could exist for those who feel that Aztec calendars and what not are not comics, and a place for the opposition. Thus, ?gI am a S-A-type comic artist/reader/researcher.?h
Easy to remember words could be used to describe these separate camps, so the academic world and the general public would enjoy a greater understanding of the entire comics world and all of its subsections. Of course there will be overlapping and people who don?ft even care about the differences between the subcategories. Overlapping can be handled by stating at the outset that there is overlapping, and that it is ok. In a case of overlapping, the modern comic scholar could simply recognize and make note of that overlapping and no problems will occur. As for people who don?ft care, well, they don?ft really matter to the hard core ?gdefinitionists?h, do they?
Ok, after that rather lengthy description, here is what I see to be the second way we could resolve this debate and stay unified:
We could all agree to disagree. Groups could be formed, filled by people with common ideas about what comics should be. This is pretty much the same as the first alternative, except instead of saying ?gI am an S-type comic artist/reader,?h one would define comics by the S-type prototype, and use the word comics to refer to their way of thinking about comics. This would thus be a little more confusing because the same word, ?gcomics?h would be used differently in each group.
The task of comics researchers would be to organize the definitions of each group and chart out their similarities and differences. Of course each group could make its own ideology public for ease of research, and it would also be in the best interest of each group to do so in order to gain as much of the public/academic eye as possible. In fact, the groups who are the most successful at doing so might have the biggest say in what the public/academic world accepts as comics in the future (assuming that we are able to change the ideas in the public/academic world, which seems to already be happening, but very slooooooooowly)
Of course, in either method of compromise, new ideas are bound to crop up, and the door to discussion and reform should always be open.
If we, as creators, are to double as researchers in the task of bringing New Comics into the public/academic eye, then it is my feeling that we need to work better together. I want to stress again that this doesn?ft mean at all that we all have to agree, just that we have to be a little bit <I>more unified in deciding how to disagree.</I>
Of course, some might feel that disagreeing is part of the fun of living. I enjoy a good discussion too, but sometimes a good discussion can also mean sorting out how to synthesize opposing thoughts into a unified continuum.
That is what I personally feel is important for us to do at this time. If anyone else has other ways that they think a compromise can be reached, then I would love to hear them (I don?ft say that sarcastically or as a challenge, I would really love to hear them).
Thanks for listening to a rambling man...
vince
vince@gazorenzoku.com
