PDA

View Full Version : TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS #11: sssshhhh


Alex Groff
Jul 23, 2005, 05:16 am
<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/te_logo.gif" align=left width=115 height=100 border=0 alt="Typographical Errors">by Alex Groff

Now, we've talked about how much you can fit into a single issue: how you can stretch the size of an issue, play with the length of a series, and basically how you can fit a novel into a picture book. The great creators have all done it, which is what makes them great. But then, I tripped over Coffman and McCubbin's XXX LiveNudeGirls and saw something that blew my mind.... Okay, that didn't come out the way I meant it.

XXX LiveNudeGirls is a collection of slice of life stories— devoid of nudity, you sick, sick degenerates— about female identity and sexuality. Everything society shuns, from alcoholism to one night stands, from lesbianism to drug abuse, is thrown into these stories that still manage to make these people seem, you know, like real people. Coffman and McCubbin have us look at the normally ignored or marginalized side of America, of society in general, and reminds us that they're really not all that different than the rest of us. Some of the stories are a bit thin (Despair and Sick coming to mind), but overall this is a great book: snapshots of life.

Part of what makes this book so good is its use of space. A blank page here. A page with two small panels an a bit of text there. A book that is not as concerned about filling the space as it is about opening up the space and allowing us to fill the rest of it. Oddly enough, I read this book slower than most other comics. Granted, you can't exactly fly through an Alan Moore comic, but there's something about Coffman's stories, about McCubbin's spacing, that makes me stop and linger over a page long after I've finished reading.

You don't see this often. We're efficiency-obsessed, this side of the Atlantic. Space must be filled. Silence must be filled. Whenever I turn the tv off, someone else turns it back on again, almost immediately. Sometimes I go outside for a cigarette, just to get away from anything resembling stimulus: to take a moment to feel my breath, and look at the smog-filled black sky (we don't have stars here, but I think I like it that way), and listen to the crickets. Sometimes the night is lit up by the planes landing at BWI, and I wonder who's coming home, who's going somewhere they've never been before: those kinds of things. Its a moment of reflection.

You can do this in real life. You can do this in a book. Films and comics, though, entertainment: they don't like silence, or space. The issue of Alpha Flight with a twelve-page snowstorm enraged fans, while Ellis' prolonged comic silences— especially on his pop comics— left a number of readers flat. But there are comics that can do this, and do it well, if you'll listen.

Now, silent comics have had their moments of infamy, most notably the 'Nuff Said idea that failed spectacularly. However, I would argue that any idea forced upon two or three dozen creators— often in the middle of a story arc— is a bad idea. And the truth is, the fact that some of these creators told strong stories without words is proof of how, even in comics focused on action, silence and reflection can work. Readers can look at Bruce Jones' The Incredible Hulk for a short but poignant story that was one of the high points of his run.

Really, though, silence is not designed for action stories, which is probably why it's not done often. The finest example I can think of is a short story by Dave McKean about a man who wished he could fly, from pictures that [tick]. In this story, a falconer releases his pet and prepares to jump, while his wife waits for him to return. There are some vague ambiguities, but the heart of the story— this man's palpable belief that he will grow wings and soar— carry this story without a word spoken. Its proof again that Dave McKean needs to write more comics, and that there is an entire field of stories that we aren't seeing often enough.

Perhaps the most recent example of silent comics I can think of is Meathaus: Love Songs. Meathaus is an anthology that has just continued to grow for years. I mean, it started as a 22 page anthology, while the seventh volumn, Love Songs, was around 180 pages. James Jean Fables, Batgirl), Jim Mahfood (Grrl Scouts, Brandon Graham (Escalator, Nate Powell (Tiny Giants), David Crosland (Puffed and a plethora of other creators contributed to this massive edition. Their task? They were to take a love song, and draw a comic to its words.

The comic itself is silent: it is telling the story of the lyrics.

Not all of the comics followed this model, but those that did offered surprising, entertaining glimpses into their words. Mahfood used They Might Be Giant's She's An Angel and told the story of angels, shriners, male insecurity and the pearly gates in four pages. Crosland's Native American story was visually moving, even though I didn't read the lyrics because I didn't know the song. The art stood on its own, and told a story that I didn't need words to follow. The way you can look at someone's face and tell what they're thinking: that's what silent comics can be. As 'Nuff Said showed, this idea can be overused, and inappropriate in many situations, but in the right story... there's nothing quite like it.

Top Shelf has, in the distant future, a book called Pinokio coming out, telling the non-Disney story of a sad, heartbroken old man and the puppet that could not be anything more than his wooden shell. I've heard that this story is going to be massive, and silent: allowing the moments to tell us things that words cannot express. I think of the Waffle Houses of North Carolina that I love to visit: of the man who sits in the corner and watches out the window while the rest of the restaurant talks about Andre the Giant's diet and how wrestling is staged— or is it? There's nothing that man can say that would do justice to the look on his face as he watches a young man ride off on a motorcycle, back onto Route 95 and away from Lumberton. The word "longing" just doesn't do that old man justice, and Pinokio really has the potential to remind us just how much we say without opening our mouths.

Sometimes, silence tells a story better than words. Sometimes space is what we need to fill out the details better left unsaid. And sometimes— not often, but sometimes— a great comic is one that leaves us pages and pages to fill ourselves.

<center><hr width=75%></center>
Alex groff realizes that there's a certain irony to wasting so many words on the topic of silence, but he wrote this column anyway.

<center><hr width=75%></center>
The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the writer, and are not reflective of Comixfan or its other staff in general. In fact, certain staff members are not adverse to spending good money to have him silenced.

Dylan McKay
Jul 23, 2005, 05:51 am
And not a Depeche Mode reference in sight...

Germania9
Jul 24, 2005, 10:56 am
devoid of nudity, you sick, sick degenerates

Sir, I take offense that you consider people who admire nude women (or men) as sick degenarates. Does looking at Michaelangelo's David or Botticelli's Venus make us sick degenerates? Are all the people who viewed nude art since the dawn of time sick degenerates? Are the Great Masters of Art sick degenerates?

No wonder our civilisation is going to degenerate :rolleyes:

Anand Khatri
Jul 24, 2005, 04:00 pm
Sir, I take offense that you consider people who admire nude women (or men) as sick degenarates. Does looking at Michaelangelo's David or Botticelli's Venus make us sick degenerates? Are all the people who viewed nude art since the dawn of time sick degenerates? Are the Great Masters of Art sick degenerates?

No wonder our civilisation is going to degenerate :rolleyes:

I think he meant that more as a joke. He wasn't really accusing anybody of being a degenerate.

Great Column Alex. :D

Ovid
Jul 25, 2005, 09:24 am
I think he meant that more as a joke. He wasn't really accusing anybody of being a degenerate.

Great Column Alex. :DI thought Germania9 was joking.

Favourite nude: Velazquez's 'Rokeby Venus' (http://www.thismoment.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/blog/rokeby.jpg)

Germania9
Jul 25, 2005, 10:34 am
You bring that up and I raise you this:

Eugene Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People (http://www.artcopy-munich.com/bildo/8022.jpg)

Who needs spandex when you can just kick French aristocracy ass without much to hold the top!! And a big gun!! :mwahaha:

Alex Groff
Jul 25, 2005, 02:34 pm
Sir, I take offense that you consider people who admire nude women (or men) as sick degenarates. Does looking at Michaelangelo's David or Botticelli's Venus make us sick degenerates? Are all the people who viewed nude art since the dawn of time sick degenerates? Are the Great Masters of Art sick degenerates?

No wonder our civilisation is going to degenerate :rolleyes:Good sir, that line was meant in jest. (The phrase itself came from Frank Cho's Liberty Meadows, a humor comic.) Why, there's nothing I like as much as a beautiful nude that shows off woman's strength and beauty. Look at this Magritte (http://www.mcs.csuhayward.edu/~malek/Magrit8.html) for example. Oh, wait, wrong one. Hold on. No, this nude (http://www.kavanaughgallery.com/resources/H_A910277.jpg) by Hessam. Crap again. Uhm....

(I'm kidding, of course. As someone who regularly takes abuse for promoting French film and nudity on television, I got a kick out of your accusation. I refer you to one of e. e. cummings great poems, and hopefully we can put this childish matter behind us.

"mr youse needn't be so spry
concernin questions arty

each has his tastes but as for i
i likes a certain party

gimme the he-man's solid bliss
for youse ideas i'll match youse

a pretty girl who naked is
is worth a million statues")

For some reason, this painting (http://www.artchive.com/artchive/C/courbet/courbet_woman_with_parrot.jpg.html) amuses me, but I can't fully explain it.

Germania9
Jul 26, 2005, 02:20 am
Why, thank you, kind sir, for reminding me that your line is just mere humor to put me off.

Actually, I am quite serious with what I said about that one line, but since, you're just joking, I just have to go along anyway.

Really, I'm quite concerned about (mostly American male) comic creators & illustrators' attitudes towards the nude. Why is it ever considered offensive right now in the 21st century USA? Also, why do some comics illustrators won't allow full nudity or at least topless in art commish? What are they afraid of? And why the attitude of "See nudity=T3H P3RVERT!!!" in America?

I'm sure it's more than just "We're Puritans" and I suspect there are money & power politics involved in this censorship.

Alex Groff
Jul 26, 2005, 04:16 am
Really, I'm quite concerned about (mostly American male) comic creators & illustrators' attitudes towards the nude. Why is it ever considered offensive right now in the 21st century USA? Also, why do some comics illustrators won't allow full nudity or at least topless in art commish? What are they afraid of? And why the attitude of "See nudity=T3H P3RVERT!!!" in America?Ah, well, how that we've derailed the thread, let's continue, shall we? This is a complicated thing, and it's three in the morning, so my explanation may be a bit jumpy. Its multifaceted, as most things are.

First off, I agree with you that repressed sexuality is a bad thing. I still haven't figured out why Janet Jackson's tit was such a big deal. Did it have a mouth and sing backup? That would be interesting. I remember watching Truffeau and being amazed that, when there was a shower scene, it was devoid of any sexual tension. It was just a woman showering. It was then and there that I learned to love the French.

(That's not true-- I loved the French long before, back when I first saw Madeleine and ate croissants-- but that film, along with my discovery of the French symbolists and Le nouveau roman, solidified my love of French culture.)

However, there's the other side that has to be considered. Whenever sexuality is repressed, the result is a certain level of sexual deviancy. Its been well documented in psychology and sociology is starting to catch up. What I object to in comics is the way that the art becomes lurid in a way that is no longer beautiful like Rembrandt but lurid. I take Avatar and Top Cow as my main two examples. You want great examples of sexuality in comics? Read Alternative Comics' True Porn anthologies, or Laurenn McCubbin and Michelle Tea's Rent Girl, the work of Milo Manara, etc. Hell, my favorite writer/artist, Jeffrey Brown, has written three books about sex, but it's not what anyone expects. NBM does a lot of pornograhy, and while its not for everyone, it is FAR more tasteful than the cover art of Greg Land.

There has to be a balance between nudity which promotes female beauty and nudity which objectifies the female. The problem, as far as I can tell, is that America glamorizes women's form to the point of objectification, something that Andrew Lewis Conn (P) and Mary Gordon ("Good Boys, Dead Girls") have commented on repeatedly. I believe Anne Carson also wrote something on the topic of Puritanism's effect on modern American sexuality, but I couldn't tell you what essay or even what book it was from.

The Puritan spirit is at the heart of it, sadly, because the Puritan spirit is a philosophy that most Americans-- even many non-religious Americans-- have embraced. Why is America, for example, so individualistic, industrious and anti-social welfare? A lot of it goes back to the Calvinist belief that wealth was evidence of God's favor (rewards for hard work, faith, etc) and poverty a sign of God's displeasure (punishment for laziness, etc). Social Darwinism was widely accepted in America because it supported this Puritan thesis, and while the idea has been debunked, it is still widely accepted here.

Another example of Puritanism: why are the arts so often looked down upon in America? Because they are not utilitarian, a Puritan ideal. They have no social value, and so all the radical art movements before Pollack sunk in the Atlantic. While Europe was in love with surrealism, vorticism, futurism, suprematism, cubism, dadaism, Russian formalism, neoimpressionism and the like, America was publishing Horatio Alger's novels by the bucketful. Alger's genre is actually social realism, a style that Stalin promoted because it emphasized the importance of hard work, dedication and unquestioning obedience. And it was widely read and championed in America's middle and lower classes even while Sinclair Lewis and Upton Sinclair showed how inaccurate that vision was.

Radical art didn't hit America until the 1950's with Jackson Pollack, and even then it was an uphill battle against utilitarianism. (Footnote: you may mention the Modernists, but I would argue that the Modernists left the country to escape the stifling atmosphere of America. Do note that Joyce's "Ulysses" was banned for over ten years because of its strong sexual content.)

So we're back to sex. My point. Puritanism is stifling the American spirit and its so much more than just a religion: it has become, in some ways, the unstated philosophy of America. However, wanton and gross sexuality is not the way to answer the problem: bukkake is not going to convince the majority of people that nudity is beautiful. Its an ideological battle where both sides increase firepower. The religious right attacks with bouts of censorship that belay good judgment; the licentious left makes triple penetration films with scenes dedicated to the degregation of women that further challenge good taste. (Both of these are, in my opinion, equally disturbing and equally removed from Rembrandt or the very idea of beauty.)

The key is to tear down the glamor/objectification of beauty which is deeply entrenched in America. To treat nudity like something normal. To reestablish the connection between sex and intimacy. To get away from both hedonism and religious dogma. To treat each other like equals. That'd be something to see, I think.

Now that I've written all this, I'm suddenly wondering if I actually answered your question. Ah well, it's a bit late now.

Germania9
Jul 26, 2005, 08:47 am
Now that I've written all this, I'm suddenly wondering if I actually answered your question. Ah well, it's a bit late now.

Sir, you already did. Thanks.

So let's get back to topic, shall we? Where were we? Ah yes, the power of silence in comics....