|
Post by hengest on Mar 24, 2022 17:14:05 GMT -5
Going to try it right here! Whatever I want. Stay tuned, I guess!
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Mar 24, 2022 17:30:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Mar 24, 2022 21:21:51 GMT -5
Well, here we are. Why call it a blog? It's a thread. But I'm going to try to treat it as a blog. Dates and all! March 24, 2022Comic books. Superhero comic books. I had several comic book obsessions as a kid. Most I won't mention here. But I particularly enjoyed the reprints I had of some 1950s-60s DC stories. Now I know these stories today are known for being silly. Many of them are silly, and had covers sillier than the contents. Even those of you who aren't into comic books have seen something like this: "My Life as an Ape" by Jimmy Olsen. Nice. But that's not what I want to talk about. These stories have (by the mid-50s) a grossly "overpowered" central character who lives in a sort of funhouse world. Crooks do all kinds of nonsense, people fall off skyscrapers every three seconds, ocean liners are constantly threatened by waterspouts. Magic, beyond insane fake science, and everything else abounds... ...in a world where the main human interest is still the bizarre love triangle between Clark, Lois, and Superman and Perry White needs someone to cover the ribbon-cutting at a local orphanage. It really can make you feel like fantasy is real, in a world of trivial nonsense (i.e. - the world it seems we all live in). Now, in the last day, I've really been enjoying the early Supergirl stories by Otto Binder and Jerry Siegel. The pacing is similar to what you'd expect from this time period in DC books. Sometimes there's enough plot on a page for a whole season of some sci-fi or superhero series, and sometimes half a page or more is spent on someone planning to ruin a meal on purpose, but failing to do so. The fantastical stuff, however, has a somewhat different flavor from the Superman books. Linda Lee (Supergirl) lives in an orphanage, and although she has and wears her Supergirl costume, she's under orders from Superman to keep her powers entirely secret: no one is supposed to know a Supergirl exists! She operates visible to no one. So, while Superman and Clark are both public identities, Linda has only one public identity: Linda. Unless Superman is around, her Supergirl activities are done behind the scenes. Who cares? Well, in the Superman books, we can see "inside" Superman's and Clark's thoughts, but we kind of observe him from the outside, like everyone else does. Clark does this (mostly in public), Superman does that (again, often in public). But with Linda and Supergirl, the Supergirl identity is mostly "inside" Linda. Plus, even more often than Clark does, Linda uses her powers in total secret, in her Linda identity. This contributes to a greater degree of emotional intimacy between the reader the character. Just as the reader's fantasies of omnipotence are largely confined to his or her inner life, so are Linda's powers. That works exceedingly well in combination with another feature of these books: Linda's often serious concern for the emotional welfare of those around her. People want to adopt her, but she's not supposed to be adopted--she has to get out of it, although they already love her. How can she do it without breaking their hearts? Or: someone is prematurely spoiling young children's belief in fairy tales. How will Linda salvage their innocence? I have not read every Superman story in existence, and I know there are stories where emotions and identity are explored in interesting ways. However, I have never seen anything quite like these early Supergirl stories. The features I have described above add up to a real intimacy with this character. On the surface, she's a clone of Superman: same powers, same origin (rocket ship and all). But these stories are not simply Superman stories re-skinned with a female protagonist. There's an emotional closeness to the character, although at the same time, the character sometimes indulges in fantastical things that are just fun: she travels to the distant past and rides a brontosaurus: "Gidyap, little doggy!" The structure of the secret identity trope contributes to the reader's identification with the character, who is both externally oriented (her concern for others, adults and children) and internally oriented (she wants to ride a dinosaur because it looks like fun). The result is a set of stories that, paraphrased, sound painfully silly--but when you actually read them, they fuse you with the character in an unusual way. This is much stronger in the Otto Binder stories so far. The Siegel stories are good, but not quite in the same way. I'm interested in learning more about Binder as a writer.
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 25, 2022 9:41:53 GMT -5
Superman was and is my favorite superhero, although IMO the movies have always suffered from a serious lack of imagination. The TV show was great for the time period it was done in (1950s) and I loved George Reeves portrayal of Superman, of course now they would put him in the gym. There were some things in the TV show that for me are canon for Superman. Splitting into two bodies is one and altering vibration to walk through walls is another. I also loved Christopher Reeve as Superman, he has the face for Superman, but he could have used another 30 pounds of muscle.
I saw some of the main Superman comics, growing up at home, we seldom had money to buy comics. But we had some distant cousins that we would stop to see on the way back from my one grandmothers and they had every type of Superman comic there was hundreds of them and all the Superman variants. I liked Krypto the Superdog and I loved Supergirl.
The comics being camp and silly I am fine with, but the movies I wish they would get some writers that could write Superman as the super intelligent person he is supposed to be, that is canon for me.
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Mar 25, 2022 14:18:56 GMT -5
hengest great post and start to your blog! Your opening salvo is very interesting. I find myself growing more and more interested in the older comics because today's comics have gone off the rail and just "aren't like they used to be". I'll just leave it at that. I see many of these old bundled reprints at the bookstores and I've been tempted to pick them up over the years but I haven't taken the plunge yet. This makes me want to do just that.
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Mar 25, 2022 14:31:53 GMT -5
Superman was and is my favorite superhero, although IMO the movies have always suffered from a serious lack of imagination. The TV show was great for the time period it was done in (1950s) and I loved George Reeves portrayal of Superman, of course now they would put him in the gym. There were some things in the TV show that for me are canon for Superman. Splitting into two bodies is one and altering vibration to walk through walls is another. I also loved Christopher Reeve as Superman, he has the face for Superman, but he could have used another 30 pounds of muscle.
I saw some of the main Superman comics, growing up at home, we seldom had money to buy comics. But we had some distant cousins that we would stop to see on the way back from my one grandmothers and they had every type of Superman comic there was hundreds of them and all the Superman variants. I liked Krypto the Superdog and I loved Supergirl.
The comics being camp and silly I am fine with, but the movies I wish they would get some writers that could write Superman as the super intelligent person he is supposed to be, that is canon for me.
The Perilous Dreamer I always felt like DC had the iconic characters with Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. Granted, I wasn't alive in their very early runs but I still think DC had that locked up for decades. I remember the various Super Friends cartoons that were aired on Saturday mornings. Sure, Spider Man and the Fantastic Four had shows at various times BUT I still remember many more DC shows. The MCU is a relatively new thing compared to the old guard.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Mar 25, 2022 17:24:46 GMT -5
Superman was and is my favorite superhero, although IMO the movies have always suffered from a serious lack of imagination. The TV show was great for the time period it was done in (1950s) and I loved George Reeves portrayal of Superman, of course now they would put him in the gym. There were some things in the TV show that for me are canon for Superman. Splitting into two bodies is one and altering vibration to walk through walls is another. I also loved Christopher Reeve as Superman, he has the face for Superman, but he could have used another 30 pounds of muscle.
I saw some of the main Superman comics, growing up at home, we seldom had money to buy comics. But we had some distant cousins that we would stop to see on the way back from my one grandmothers and they had every type of Superman comic there was hundreds of them and all the Superman variants. I liked Krypto the Superdog and I loved Supergirl.
The comics being camp and silly I am fine with, but the movies I wish they would get some writers that could write Superman as the super intelligent person he is supposed to be, that is canon for me.
I had other favorites when I was a kid (Green Lantern, among a couple others), but these days, I can see that the stories that have been enjoyable for me the longest are...the Superman and Superman Family stories from the 50s and 60s. Never seen much of the Reeves show, but I would like to. Frankly, I think Reeves looks fine. The notion that actors of either sex should look in those skin-tight suits like the drawn characters did 60-70 years ago has never sat well with me. The whole idea is that he passes for a regular guy. Although I kind of agree about Reeve, I see what you mean, face but not enough bulk. Although I haven't seen it in years, his Superman was the one film adaptation I responded well to. I'd like to see that again. Re: the movie adaptations, I was a kid when they did Superman IV and the Batman around 1990 and I think something is just wrong with my mind because I have never been able to enjoy Superhero movies that much across the decades. One that stood out for me was Spiderman II with Toby M in the early part of this century. I remember liking that, but I couldn't say much about why without watching it again. For me, the adaptation of these characters and stories just is very hard to accept on the screen, and I don't know why. I am pretty sure The Semi-Retired Gamer has seen and enjoyed more superhero movies than I have, and I am not knocking anyone's taste or the efforts of the actors or anyone else. I just can't do it, despite really wanting to sometimes. I saw a preview for Man of Steel years ago with a friend, and she and I were looking at each other after like "Whoa, could that be really good?" Later, we saw it, and I didn't know what I was looking at. I'm not too worried about it, though. I enjoy these old stories and that's enough for me!
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Mar 25, 2022 17:29:57 GMT -5
hengest great post and start to your blog! Your opening salvo is very interesting. I find myself growing more and more interested in the older comics because today's comics have gone off the rail and just "aren't like they used to be". I'll just leave it at that. I see many of these old bundled reprints at the bookstores and I've been tempted to pick them up over the years but I haven't taken the plunge yet. This makes me want to do just that. They can be pricey and I haven't bought any myself in at least fifteen years, just getting them from the library. But there are many and there is also a degree of choice: hardcovers (or sometimes paperbacks) in color, or paperbacks on newsprint with no color if you just want to absorb the story. I read some of the original Spiderman stories in B&W many years ago and definitely enjoyed them, although seeing these Supergirl stories in color makes me crave the color again. To me there's no comparison, although someone could argue the other way: in one of these stories, you get more plot on a page than you do in a whole issue or story arc in a modern comic. I guess that's just what I like. It's so much closer to actual fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Mar 25, 2022 17:42:40 GMT -5
hengest great post and start to your blog! Your opening salvo is very interesting. I find myself growing more and more interested in the older comics because today's comics have gone off the rail and just "aren't like they used to be". I'll just leave it at that. I see many of these old bundled reprints at the bookstores and I've been tempted to pick them up over the years but I haven't taken the plunge yet. This makes me want to do just that. They can be pricey and I haven't bought any myself in at least fifteen years, just getting them from the library. But there are many and there is also a degree of choice: hardcovers (or sometimes paperbacks) in color, or paperbacks on newsprint with no color if you just want to absorb the story. I read some of the original Spiderman stories in B&W many years ago and definitely enjoyed them, although seeing these Supergirl stories in color makes me crave the color again. To me there's no comparison, although someone could argue the other way: in one of these stories, you get more plot on a page than you do in a whole issue or story arc in a modern comic. I guess that's just what I like. It's so much closer to actual fantasy. YES! I forgot about the library. I must check there first. Green Lantern was always my favorite DC superhero. I had several at one time but they got "permanently borrowed" without my knowledge while I was serving in the Army. Agreed! There was a time in the 90's where every comic book had several alternate covers and practically every page looked like a splash page for a pose and very little coherent dialogue. The 90s and speculator market that erupted around it really turned me off to the modern scene.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Mar 25, 2022 17:43:36 GMT -5
The Semi-Retired Gamer Next week I should be able to pick up some of the 1940s stuff with Captain Marvel (much of it also by binder). I'll let you know what I think. Public library here has "DC's Greatest Imaginary Stories," the kind where the writers could really go nuts (as if the regular stories were ever "not nuts" in that era)...I'll let you know about that too, if you want.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Mar 25, 2022 17:46:24 GMT -5
They can be pricey and I haven't bought any myself in at least fifteen years, just getting them from the library. But there are many and there is also a degree of choice: hardcovers (or sometimes paperbacks) in color, or paperbacks on newsprint with no color if you just want to absorb the story. I read some of the original Spiderman stories in B&W many years ago and definitely enjoyed them, although seeing these Supergirl stories in color makes me crave the color again. To me there's no comparison, although someone could argue the other way: in one of these stories, you get more plot on a page than you do in a whole issue or story arc in a modern comic. I guess that's just what I like. It's so much closer to actual fantasy. YES! I forgot about the library. I must check there first. Green Lantern was always my favorite DC superhero. I had several at one time but they got "permanently borrowed" without my knowledge while I was serving in the Army. Agreed! There was a time in the 90's where every comic book had several alternate covers and practically every page looked like a splash page for a pose and very little coherent dialogue. The 90s and speculator market that erupted around it really turned me off to the modern scene. I was still going to a comic shop in that speculator era you mention. It was awful. I was a kid and I could tell it was awful. It seemed like that was worse with Marvel books, which I know are well-loved but I never read at the time. There were a lot of fads in the art then that I just didn't care for. In the old books, a splash page or even a large panel could really grab your attention. For a while, it was like splashes or half-splashes were all over the place just so the writer would have to write less. And the vocab...man, you could learn a lot of English from these 50s books!
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Mar 25, 2022 17:48:15 GMT -5
The Semi-Retired Gamer Next week I should be able to pick up some of the 1940s stuff with Captain Marvel (much of it also by binder). I'll let you know what I think. Public library here has "DC's Greatest Imaginary Stories," the kind where the writers could really go nuts (as if the regular stories were ever "not nuts" in that era)...I'll let you know about that too, if you want. Please do, hengest! After fantasy, supers got the most play in my old gaming group so I enjoy talking and hearing about it.
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Mar 25, 2022 17:50:40 GMT -5
YES! I forgot about the library. I must check there first. Green Lantern was always my favorite DC superhero. I had several at one time but they got "permanently borrowed" without my knowledge while I was serving in the Army. Agreed! There was a time in the 90's where every comic book had several alternate covers and practically every page looked like a splash page for a pose and very little coherent dialogue. The 90s and speculator market that erupted around it really turned me off to the modern scene. I was still going to a comic shop in that speculator era you mention. It was awful. I was a kid and I could tell it was awful. It seemed like that was worse with Marvel books, which I know are well-loved but I never read at the time. There were a lot of fads in the art then that I just didn't care for. In the old books, a splash page or even a large panel could really grab your attention. For a while, it was like splashes or half-splashes were all over the place just so the writer would have to write less. And the vocab...man, you could learn a lot of English from these 50s books! I remember and the Marvel books were terrible with that. They literally had one issue with something like 6 or 8 variant covers. There were so many X-Men books coming out that you had to spend around $30 or more per month to keep up. Uncanny X-Men, Astonishing X-Men, X-Force, Cable, Wolverine, and there were more.
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 25, 2022 21:31:37 GMT -5
But with Linda and Supergirl, the Supergirl identity is mostly "inside" Linda. Plus, even more often than Clark does, Linda uses her powers in total secret, in her Linda identity. This contributes to a greater degree of emotional intimacy between the reader the character. Just as the reader's fantasies of omnipotence are largely confined to his or her inner life, so are Linda's powers. That works exceedingly well in combination with another feature of these books: Linda's often serious concern for the emotional welfare of those around her. People want to adopt her, but she's not supposed to be adopted--she has to get out of it, although they already love her. How can she do it without breaking their hearts? Or: someone is prematurely spoiling young children's belief in fairy tales. How will Linda salvage their innocence? I have not read every Superman story in existence, and I know there are stories where emotions and identity are explored in interesting ways. However, I have never seen anything quite like these early Supergirl stories. The features I have described above add up to a real intimacy with this character. On the surface, she's a clone of Superman: same powers, same origin (rocket ship and all). But these stories are not simply Superman stories re-skinned with a female protagonist. There's an emotional closeness to the character, although at the same time, the character sometimes indulges in fantastical things that are just fun: she travels to the distant past and rides a brontosaurus: "Gidyap, little doggy!" What you are describing here, has only been captured in Marvel Comics in a few issues of the older Hulk comics. A few times that captured the real heart of the Hulk and how he responds to the weak and helpless and the true character that is present in him and decidedly is not present in Banner. The Hulk I love, Banner I do not like at all. I can't think of any other Marvel Comics I have read that have come close to this.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Mar 25, 2022 23:48:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Mar 26, 2022 13:34:13 GMT -5
The Semi-Retired Gamer Next week I should be able to pick up some of the 1940s stuff with Captain Marvel (much of it also by binder). I'll let you know what I think. Public library here has "DC's Greatest Imaginary Stories," the kind where the writers could really go nuts (as if the regular stories were ever "not nuts" in that era)...I'll let you know about that too, if you want. Please do, hengest ! After fantasy, supers got the most play in my old gaming group so I enjoy talking and hearing about it. The Semi-Retired Gamer, I've read most of this volume, and I don't strongly recommend it. The stories are amusingly representative of the time, but (to my taste), they are not the best around. So far on this round I'm most taken by the Binder tales in the first volume of the Supergirl Archives. I'll let you know what else strikes me as especially worthwhile in another post.
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Mar 26, 2022 14:06:09 GMT -5
Please do, hengest ! After fantasy, supers got the most play in my old gaming group so I enjoy talking and hearing about it. The Semi-Retired Gamer, I've read most of this volume, and I don't strongly recommend it. The stories are amusingly representative of the time, but (to my taste), they are not the best around. So far on this round I'm most taken by the Binder tales in the first volume of the Supergirl Archives. I'll let you know what else strikes me as especially worthwhile in another post. Excellent! Thanks for the update.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Apr 5, 2022 11:24:54 GMT -5
April 5, 2022Last time, I wrote a bit about comic books. When I was a kid, I saw a fair number of movies in the theaters -- more than I saw on home video, which was a thing by then. This seemed unremarkable to me, but...one of my cousins once asked whether I had seen some movie. I said yes, and he became angry and shouted "You say you've seen every movie!" I had in fact seen the movie, but I guess I gave him the impression of overselling my knowledge of cinema. I listened to a fair bit of music in high school and after. I also read a lot of books and comic books from age...well, preschool through my mid-20s I guess. So my point is that I have been exposed to a fair amount of media. I know people who cannot stand to read a piece of fiction (it makes no sense to them -- what is all this nonsense?) and I know people who can barely read a comic strip (they don't understand how the panels work together, don't know how to interpret the facial expressions, and so on). I also know someone who can't stand to watch a movie with subtitles (doesn't like having to combine media, to read and watch at the same time). For me, none of these things is a problem, I suppose because I got a lot of practice early in life. While a given instance of any one of these media could defeat me, the technique required to deal with all of them is very familiar to me. Second nature, as it is for many of us. But I've noticed through adulthood that I don't really like watching movies all that much. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed plenty of movies and I like using them as a social lubricant, or as an introduction to ideas, or any number of things. But I find that when I'm alone, I never look for a movie -- even if I've planned to. "Oh, I want to see Excalibur...now I have a chance? Never mind." Some years ago, I thought to explain it this way, when asked: "When I watch TV or a movie, I'm trapped. I have to move at its pace and I don't have any time to deal with it." It can also get kind of noisy for me, regardless of the volume -- the music, the actors' voices, the sound effects. It feels like too much stimulus and not enough information. Much more palatable for me is the medium of comics. Of course, I wasn't the first to come up with the idea in the previous paragraph. Will Eisner says it all in two panels. Image below from Will Eisner's "Graphic Storytelling and Visual Narrative," p. 71. Film: the information is blasted at you through your senses. Comics: you more actively create the experience in your head. Now, I don't think these characterizations of these media are absolutely so (and I doubt Eisner would have said so): when you watch a film, there is a degree of engagement, room for your own fantasy, and so on. And when you read comics, of course you are still taking in information through your senses of sight (and touch). But in general, there is a very big difference. And I find that reading text or comics works better for me. Does this mean anything special? Maybe not. But it is worth noting. Eisner explains the differences quite clearly, and I may have another post about that. Rarely is this sort of thing discussed in popular discourse. Sometimes the story, the characters, the fantasies, the connections are all too much for some of us. Sometimes I need to take a step back.
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Apr 6, 2022 11:09:19 GMT -5
April 5, 2022Last time, I wrote a bit about comic books. When I was a kid, I saw a fair number of movies in the theaters -- more than I saw on home video, which was a thing by then. This seemed unremarkable to me, but...one of my cousins once asked whether I had seen some movie. I said yes, and he became angry and shouted "You say you've seen every movie!" I had in fact seen the movie, but I guess I gave him the impression of overselling my knowledge of cinema. I listened to a fair bit of music in high school and after. I also read a lot of books and comic books from age...well, preschool through my mid-20s I guess. So my point is that I have been exposed to a fair amount of media. I know people who cannot stand to read a piece of fiction (it makes no sense to them -- what is all this nonsense?) and I know people who can barely read a comic strip (they don't understand how the panels work together, don't know how to interpret the facial expressions, and so on). I also know someone who can't stand to watch a movie with subtitles (doesn't like having to combine media, to read and watch at the same time). For me, none of these things is a problem, I suppose because I got a lot of practice early in life. While a given instance of any one of these media could defeat me, the technique required to deal with all of them is very familiar to me. Second nature, as it is for many of us. But I've noticed through adulthood that I don't really like watching movies all that much. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed plenty of movies and I like using them as a social lubricant, or as an introduction to ideas, or any number of things. But I find that when I'm alone, I never look for a movie -- even if I've planned to. "Oh, I want to see Excalibur...now I have a chance? Never mind." Some years ago, I thought to explain it this way, when asked: "When I watch TV or a movie, I'm trapped. I have to move at its pace and I don't have any time to deal with it." It can also get kind of noisy for me, regardless of the volume -- the music, the actors' voices, the sound effects. It feels like too much stimulus and not enough information. Much more palatable for me is the medium of comics. Of course, I wasn't the first to come up with the idea in the previous paragraph. Will Eisner says it all in two panels. Image below from Will Eisner's "Graphic Storytelling and Visual Narrative," p. 71. Film: the information is blasted at you through your senses. Comics: you more actively create the experience in your head. Now, I don't think these characterizations of these media are absolutely so (and I doubt Eisner would have said so): when you watch a film, there is a degree of engagement, room for your own fantasy, and so on. And when you read comics, of course you are still taking in information through your senses of sight (and touch). But in general, there is a very big difference. And I find that reading text or comics works better for me. Does this mean anything special? Maybe not. But it is worth noting. Eisner explains the differences quite clearly, and I may have another post about that. Rarely is this sort of thing discussed in popular discourse. Sometimes the story, the characters, the fantasies, the connections are all too much for some of us. Sometimes I need to take a step back. I love to watch movies and do so everything now and then on my own. However, I fully get the spectator vs participant thing. I find books and comic books very engaging and hours can pass without notice. Some really good movies can get close to this, Dune seemed like about a half hour to me. I can get the same way with my blog and this forum and with working on D&D stuff, I can go all day and forget to eat and here it is 8 PM.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Apr 6, 2022 11:29:35 GMT -5
The Perilous Dreamer I agree, some movies can get close to this, even for me. There is music, sound, the works, but there is still an imaginative engagement that goes even beyond that. I remember Conan and Excalibur this way. Of course my point was not to knock moving pictures as a medium, but just to observe the differences and admit that for me, moving pictures are often too much stimulation.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Apr 9, 2022 10:42:07 GMT -5
April 9, 2022I am not very interested in competition. But I can handle it if I get something cool for it, like getting to play with playing cards. European countries know several suits: the now super-classic Italian and Spanish suits (rarely used outside their home areas), the German suits, and the French suits, which are widely used in the English-speaking world. I suppose it makes sense that these are at different levels of abstraction. The images I have seen of the Italian / Spanish suits are pretty detailed and less pleasing to my eye. The French suits, ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣, are what I grew up with and what say the most to me. I can't even say what they mean, but somehow, they seem to mean something. I just like them. They seem to exist outside of time or something. But anyway, I was wondering: would it be possible to reskin cards again come up with an "American" set of suits? I guess someone could argue that the American habit of taking tons of good stuff from all kinds of sources means that the French suits are as American as anything, having been used in frontier towns, eastern cities, and on wacky steamboats, as well as in countless homes for centuries. I couldn't argue with that. They are American now, though not American in origin. Could one come up with a pleasing set of "American" suits, just for fun? They'd have to be pleasing, fairly abstract, and easily distinguished from each other. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Apr 9, 2022 12:48:12 GMT -5
April 9, 2022I am not very interested in competition. But I can handle it if I get something cool for it, like getting to play with playing cards. European countries know several suits: the now super-classic Italian and Spanish suits (rarely used outside their home areas), the German suits, and the French suits, which are widely used in the English-speaking world. I suppose it makes sense that these are at different levels of abstraction. The images I have seen of the Italian / Spanish suits are pretty detailed and less pleasing to my eye. The French suits, ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣, are what I grew up with and what say the most to me. I can't even say what they mean, but somehow, they seem to mean something. I just like them. They seem to exist outside of time or something. But anyway, I was wondering: would it be possible to reskin cards again come up with an "American" set of suits? I guess someone could argue that the American habit of taking tons of good stuff from all kinds of sources means that the French suits are as American as anything, having been used in frontier towns, eastern cities, and on wacky steamboats, as well as in countless homes for centuries. I couldn't argue with that. They are American now, though not American in origin. Could one come up with a pleasing set of "American" suits, just for fun? They'd have to be pleasing, fairly abstract, and easily distinguished from each other. Any thoughts? Only thing that comes to mind right now would be modern computer related symbols. Not sure how pleasing that would be.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Apr 9, 2022 13:13:44 GMT -5
The Perilous DreamerMaybe not all that delightful, no. Lynx Mississippi Corn Pie Okay, maybe those don't sound great, but I like the ideas. Will have to leave it up to a designer to figure out how they look...
|
|
|
Post by hengest on May 20, 2022 16:13:06 GMT -5
May 20, 2022Personal note: I almost forgot how to enjoy things until a comics blogger reminded me recently. In this thread on this very forum, I just posted links to Colin Smith's 2010 on the art by John Forte for the Legion of Super-Heroes stories in the 1960s. Go there and read the posts if you want to see what all he says. What's below is a purely personal response, no particular organization. I was laughing almost the whole time I spent reading those posts, laughing alone in the dark reading them on my phone (read them on at least a laptop, if you can). I'm going to try not to repeat what Smith says about these panels, but he has plenty of stuff to say, so if you read this post, don't think you shouldn't read his in-depth exploration of Forte's art! Look at this: Folks, where else but in comic books of a certain era could you get something like this? If you know of someplace, please tell me. This is so nuts. Just look at this. An asteroid carved to look like a head is smashing down from the sky into Colossal Boy as CB pushes his tiny companion out of the way. Look at the expression on that pockmarked asteroid-head. Look at the devilish horns on that (I assume) evil building in the background. Look at that door standing open. Are those flames inside? I haven't read the story. I assume so. They barely look different from the mountains in the background. Look at this nuttiness: sacrifice, size-changing (both directions), asteroid carved to look like human head, exposition that supports the bizarre events depicted, plus enough background to suggest that this is happening somewhere (near an evil building filled with flames, not too far from a mountain range). I'm not even going to mention the perspective, not my strong point and Smith says much better stuff about it. I mean, this isn't the greatest panel ever or the most packed with information. But it's one panel. Why am I saying all this? Because I find it very remarkable how much information is blasted into the reader upon acquaintance with this one panel. And yeah, we have movies now that depict all kinds of insane stuff. But there's so much sensory strain involved in taking in one of those movies, while a comic panel like the above does not really bombard the reader in the same way. And there's so much overhead involved in one of those movies. Now, I'm not familiar with all the recent comic book movies and I'm not knocking the genre at all. But it does bother me sometimes to think how much effort (much of it, surely, wasted) goes into getting any creative idea onto the screen. Just think of the credits, the computer animators, the endless people involved in the production. None of whom I am knocking! But with comic books in the old days...writer does script, illustrator draws it, someone inks it, color, print, on newsstands. Everyone's already working on something else. It just seems that 1) in this format, oddball creative ideas could be shared more efficiently and 2) as I have noted before on this very "blog," there are arguments to be made in favor of the kind of engagement that comics require. No one can sleep through part of a comic book. If you aren't awake enough to process what's on the page, it's not going on without your participation. (Again, Will Eisner on movies vs. comics, and he doesn't mean this as a condemnation of film, just as a description.) Why is this so important to me? One, I don't have a lot of energy and I find movies exhausting these days (I recognize many people can watch movies to relax). I'm more comfortable with the control I have when reading. I can read the same panel ten times if I want to, read the whole thing backwards, flip back, stop to laugh, and if I get distracted, the whole experience stops automatically. That's just me. But this was described by the late and apparently awesome Richard Thompson, creator of the comic strip Cul de Sac, the last strip I knew that really got me. "I've been reading this page for three weeks and I'm only half done!" If I could tell the late Mr. Thompson how much that line meant to me, I certainly would.
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on May 20, 2022 17:21:20 GMT -5
That is one of the great thing about good comics, you spend as much time as needed to get everything each panel has to offer. Movies you sometimes have to watch multiple times to get everything. That is why being about to pause movies is so popular.
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on May 20, 2022 19:08:27 GMT -5
That is one of the great thing about good comics, you spend as much time as needed to get everything each panel has to offer. Movies you sometimes have to watch multiple times to get everything. That is why being about to pause movies is so popular. Some of the commentaries are really cool and give meaningful or interesting insights into how the film came to be in its' final form. Other commentaries are more like a behind the scenes running joke among the commentators. I don't really care for those.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on May 23, 2022 22:11:44 GMT -5
Planning a short series on why classic comic books are still good reading material for children (but not only for children). Topics to be included: supported reading (I should have written "supportive reading") (post now below, here).- mental animation ("the gutter")
- tracking other minds
- arguing with the text
- psychology (not all cops and robbers)
- a child's world as seen by adults
These will be clearer once I make the separate posts.
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on May 24, 2022 16:33:26 GMT -5
Planning a short series on why classic comic books are still good reading material for children (but not only for children). Topics to be included: - supported reading
- mental animation ("the gutter")
- tracking other minds
- arguing with the text
- psychology (not all cops and robbers)
- a child's world as seen by adults
These will be clearer once I make the separate posts.
I'm looking forward to this. I remember one teacher in grade school that had a reading shelf in her room. We could all bring reading materials to put on the shelf. We were allowed to pick up something from the shelf if all of our work was complete and just read. A few of us stuck comic books on the shelf and she didn't notice until the next week. She made a point to tell us taht "comic books aren't really reading" and that it was no longer allowed. In my high school years, one of the English teacher's required two book reports on books of our choice except we would "really have to push for a Stephen King novel" because she didn't like them. If you don't like horror, I can respect your opinion. What I can't respect is just blowing it off as "bad storytelling" or "bad writing" just because you don't like it. I would think Stephen King and his character work would be ripe for study. You discover stuff like a character's mommy issues that developed 20 years ago, their little speech quirks, and maybe even the change in their pocket.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on May 24, 2022 17:25:06 GMT -5
I'm looking forward to this. I remember one teacher in grade school that had a reading shelf in her room. We could all bring reading materials to put on the shelf. We were allowed to pick up something from the shelf if all of our work was complete and just read. A few of us stuck comic books on the shelf and she didn't notice until the next week. She made a point to tell us taht "comic books aren't really reading" and that it was no longer allowed. In my high school years, one of the English teacher's required two book reports on books of our choice except we would "really have to push for a Stephen King novel" because she didn't like them. If you don't like horror, I can respect your opinion. What I can't respect is just blowing it off as "bad storytelling" or "bad writing" just because you don't like it. I would think Stephen King and his character work would be ripe for study. You discover stuff like a character's mommy issues that developed 20 years ago, their little speech quirks, and maybe even the change in their pocket. I'm looking forward to it, too -- maybe I don't have so much to say, but I do want to make the posts. I know that situation well. I think many people do. Re: comic books and King, I'd guess that the disdain for both in some quarters is from a mental state that could be described like this: - Reading means you are smart (smart = smart / special / especially good)
- I like to be smart
- To make sure I have my special place, I have to manufacture reasons to disdain things that are popular, even if I haven't read them
My mom was mildly worried about this when I was a kid and in my "high comic" phase. I have no particular plan to argue actively against these notions (not even sure how current they are, since comic books are now kind of a niche hobby), just to say why I think certain comics are actively good and worthwhile as literature (that is accessible to pretty young children who are still developing their taste for and understanding of stories, their vocabulary, and so on).
|
|
|
Post by hengest on May 24, 2022 21:11:23 GMT -5
May 24th, 2022"Supportive reading" I remember back in the day when endless discussions about reading occupied a larger section of public discourse. And to this day, it seems there is at least a residual sense in some circles that comic books specifically (much more than illustrated children's books) are somehow detrimental to literacy. To me this seems to be the opposite of true. The linguistic environment A simple example from my own recent reading below. (Panel from Superman #125, November 1958, "Clark Kent's College Days." Writer: Jerry Coleman. Artist: Al Plastino.) In this story, a professor suspects that Clark Kent is Superboy / Superman and tries to get proof of it in various circumstances. He has no malicious intent, simply a scientist's curiosity. Clark, of course, tries to avoid being found out. In the sequence from which this panel is taken, Clark, a cheerleader, jumps too high by accident. At super-speed, he grabs balloons and...we see this panel. The speech balloon at the left gives us some person's take on what has happened. As Clark intended, a non-suspicious person thinks that Clark simply grabbed too many balloons and was lifted into the air. I need to say that, quite apart from the various fantastic powers, regular reality is often severely bent in these stories: of course fourteen helium balloons are not going to lift any adult man, or woman, into the air even an inch. Although no super-power is in visible use here, there is a fantasy element (that anyone could believe this cover). The speech balloon at the left informs us that we are to take this possibility as real for the purposes of the story. Once we understand that the balloons could be thought to lift an adult into the air, Clark's thought bubble (placed almost like a third set of balloons) interprets this postulate within the situation: the professor knows that this is possible and must allow it as an explanation of Clark's being aloft. At the right of the panel, the professor is silent, even in his mind, only observing (note how the professor and Clark both use "telescopic vision" to observe each other here--Clark with his natural ability, the professor by using a pair of binoculars). Note that without the dialogue, this panel would be difficult to interpret. Do the motion lines suggest that Clark is going up or down? It doesn't really matter, we know that he is in the air and holding balloons. One assumes that, regardless of his upward or downward motion here, he "wiggles his way" back to the ground as if he had really been lifted by the balloons. The panel is not necessarily a snapshot, but describes visually more than one instant: Clark is in the air while holding balloons. Clark is covering up for two audiences here: the average viewer and the suspicious professor. The speech balloon tells us what the average viewer thinks, while Clark presents the professor's difficulty in assessing what has happened (super-powers or a simple cheerleading accident?). Note further how the speech and thought balloons lend a touch of extra interest to the affair. The story is basically a duel of wits between Clark and his professor. What matters is what each of them thinks, how Clark anticipates problems and how the professor interprets Clark's tricks. In this panel, however, the words are spoken and thought by a random person and Clark rather than by Clark and the professor. Although the professor's thoughts are integral to the plot, the writer leaves them unknown to us. We get world-necessary and plot-necessary information from the random person and Clark--but then we see the professor as he silently observes and we get to wonder, at least for an instant, what he is thinking. There is room here for the reader to do something creative as well. Maybe he thinks this, maybe he thinks that. So: rather than the drawing replacing the words, the words are necessary to interpret this portion of the story. Any reader knows this intuitively, including possible readers who have difficulty reading or cannot read at all. Even they will feel the necessity of getting that information out of the page (by slogging through it with interest or by asking someone to read it to read it to them). The words help you to understand the picture, while the picture is rarely necessary to understand the words.
Think of it this way: the script the writer produces is sufficient for the penciller to work from (of course, there may be notes for the artists), but the finished, illustrated story with the words removed would obviously be an exercise in frustration, difficult if not impossible to interpret. In contexts concerns with language acquisition, there is a lot of chatter about "real situations" as the "best" way to learn a language. What real situations are, and how they are the best, is rarely defined. But it may reasonably be observed, on the basis of the above, that such a comic-story is rather more like "using speech in everyday circumstances" than is reading a story with no or few illustration. After all, in conversation, you can often see your interlocutor's facial expressions as well as the immediate physical environment that you share: the speech and the environment, understood through your senses, both help you to understand what is being said and what is going on. No one advises children to go through life with their eyes closed for fear that they will reply only on their vision and not pay attention to language. A single panel from a 1958 story shows that such advice makes no more sense in the context of reading material than it does in life in general. To summarize: skillfully produced comic-book stories, rather than making reading seem redundant, encourage careful reading (and re-reading).
|
|