Page 33, Vol. I, Issue 2

Last time I mentioned that I would be telling you how to read comics with this column.

That sounds like I'll be talking down to you, doesn't it?

The problem is that while just about everything I say here will seem pretty obvious, it still has to be said. Most people, upon reading comics, read the words and pay just barely enough attention to the pictures to get the minimal information they need out of it.

So, obvious point number one: the definition of a comic (or sequential storytelling, if you ask Eisner or McCloud – the appropriateness of that term is something for another column) is a medium of static communication that utilizes a particular fusion of pictorial images and text. That definition has problems with it too, but it's sufficient for today's purposes.

This means that you're not reading a comic properly if you're not giving serious weight to the story telling being done in the pictures as well as the text. (A corollary to this is that you're not writing comics well if the reader doesn't need to examine the pictures to get the story's full message – your story may be better suited for a prose format). Comics are a visual medium. Reading the words ignores the biggest part of the medium.

Take this comic by Tim Buckley. It's an easy one to parse, visually. The humor lies in the character's outfit. The text isn't even particularly funny. This is a simple example. More complex comics, like work by Alex Ross; take the scene in Kingdom Come where Wonder Woman tries to convince Superman to come back to the world to help. There are a score of subtle visual clues enhancing the religious themes of the work. Spikes in Clark's pocket, his carpentry work, the beam across his shoulders, the wheat field ready to harvest – and all that's in only one frame. If you don't take the time to look carefully, and read just the words and enough visual info to keep up with the narrative you'll miss more than half of the comic.

Naturally, the reverse happens as well. There are those who like to look at the visual medium and ignore the text as well. These people aren't really reading comics either. They're appreciating a visual picture. Not that this is bad, necessarily. Some comic artists do an amazing job with their work, and the pictures are worth examining in their own right. It's just an activity that is other than reading a comic.

Now it's time to acknowledge again, problems that arise from this essential activity (as well as the definition I gave above). Well, one problem. I'm sure others will bring up more, but I'll address those as they come up. The problem I want to mention is that comics aren't always a fusion of images and text. There have been quite a few stories told entirely with images with no text added in. These comics are great starting places for training yourself to read a comic properly. They force you to read a comic by looking at the visuals.

I think the biggest reason why we behave this way is custom and training. While the modern western novel is a tradition that goes back at least 400 years, the modern sequential comic has few analogues that go back more than 120 years or so.

It's one thing to see a single picture and examine it. One can look at something like Poussin's "Rape of the Sabine Women" and work out what the story is, even if one is not familiar with the myth behind it. However, the presence of sequential works is much more rare. And most of those are series of paintings. Without text other than a title, it is much more inviting to examine the visual content.

But most of us are not trained in the appreciation of art. Thus, when we are invited to do it, most people have only a rudimentary skill for examining it. (Whereas the critique and examination of prose text is something, at least in America, that is given to school children from the time they can read till they finish high school (they do not always appreciate what they are supposed to be learning or take advantage of it, but the mere mandatory nature of the curriculum ensures that, on the whole, most people are better equipped to study text than images). Thus when it is not specifically enforced, most people skim the pictures, not understanding its importance.

The images of a comic can subvert the text, undermining the nature of the text itself. Or it can support the text. Often the visual element is used to tell a story in addition to the text. It is clearly an aspect that can no more be ignored than the visual element of a film. Study it and look at what is happening there. What visual clues has the artist given you? How does the use of color signify in that panel? How do the visuals interact with the text? There's an excellent run of David Mack's Kabuki, for example, that flawlessly integrates all of the text into the graphics itself – taking the form of text that the characters are reading, spiraling inward to show one character's failure to control her course and influence the world around her, shaped into iconographic images from a character's memory or past. What do the arrangement and composition of the items in the image convey? Does their location, or even presence in the picture enhance your understanding of the story and it's themes or the characters? What about the expressions of the characters? Is there an odd use of framing or proportion that enhances some point the artist is making? And let's not forget the use of text itself as a visual medium. The font, size, and other elements of text can be as significant as the words themselves. That comic, by Patrick Shaughnessy uses different font faces for each character. Much of the story and humor derives from the use of font and how well it fits. He's not much of an artist in terms of his ability to sketch (the main characters are, after all, a triangle and a rhombus) but he has a firm understanding of the principles of how to use his text.

These are questions, perhaps obvious when broached, that we seldom ask ourselves. Yet, especially in the best of comics, they are undeniably a vital part of the medium, and thus the message.

Discuss this column in our forums.

SaintEhlers is the overworked, underpaid, and excessively verbose associate editor of the Time Waster's Guide. He's gamed for 23 years or more, and is trying to convert his 6 year old daughter to the same. He's trying to write several novels, so he's grouchy much of the time. His writing has appeared in the Leading Edge and several online magazines.

Written by SaintEhlers on August 22nd, 2005