Well.
This week was about how making comics is a collaborative process, and that mainstream comics, especially superhero comics, are rarely the work of a single person. There's a writer, artist, editor, etc... associated with every comic that hits the stand.
The process includes many voices, from the writer sitting at their keyboard, to publishers wanting to push circulation, to editors trying to meet deadlines, to artists who seem to reference Maxim photo-spreads all too often.
The comics we were assigned to read included several incarnations of the Marvel "nobody's favorite" candidate, Carol Danvers, aka: Ms. Marvel, aka: Nova, aka: Ms. Marvel, aka: Captain Marvel. I don't dislike Carol Danvers, but I also don't think about the character any more than I think about The Rhino or Arcade or Angle Man or something.
I didn't read the comics.
I was curious about the instructor's take on the production side of comics and how it would affect the narrative, and I thought the take was interesting, but... not what I expected. I had expected discussion of how artists can put their own spin on a script, how editors act as mediators working from their own opinions and company dictates, how design of characters can be managed and scrutinized at a very high corporate level, and that intention of writers can be changed by the time a comic is actually produced. And the fact that artists continually include shots of Wonder Woman's barely-covered butt from a low angle in all-too many Justice League group scenes.
Instead, we got this sort of weird story telling session about Mort Weisinger, former (and famously dictatorial) Superman editor, and how his personal shortcomings most certainly affected the Superman comics of the Silver Age. And while it was instructive, it was a bit like Blanch chose to deal in backstage comic-geek gossip rather than approach the topic with citable, observable issues in the production process.
Honestly, I didn't hear anything about Mort Weisinger I hadn't heard before, and while I have no doubt the guy was awful to work for, it all feels like disgruntled employee complaints, and I'm not sure it really sold what Blanch was trying to teach.
The Q&A was fine, but, again, I tried something different and just read the transcript rather than watching the video (it took a 1/3rd of the time). And I glanced at the discussion board but didn't participate.
Yes, I was kind of busy, but mostly I sort of needed a break after the last two weeks, and I wasn't really ready to wade through the discussion boards, to sit through the interviews, etc... and I wanted to see what a bare minimum effort looked like, and it was about an hour and a half to get through the materials. I am unsure if I would have gotten more out of the course this week if I'd been more fully engaged, but I think i would have. That's the value of full participation, and this week I didn't get that. But, I still passed the quiz with 100% of the questions answered correctly (all six of them).
Again, the discussion boards are hard. There are people really camped out in there. One of our dear readers once asked me why I don't self-identify as a liberal. There are many reasons, but it's partially because I don't relate to the true believers that seem to take an inclination I might understand, and then leap straight into zealotry. As in life, on the boards I see the rabbit holes one can go down, and all too often, reading one's way through the discussion board feels like that scene in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade where he has to spell out "Jehovah" or he'll fall into the hole. Pretty much responding or engaging with anyone on the discussion board and even considering challenging some of the statements I read there feels not unlike forgetting that in the Latin alphabet, Jehovah begins with an "I".
Were the boards anything like a small class size, I think you COULD have some interesting discussions. That just isn't going to happen here. Whoever has the most freetime is running this particular asylum.
Anyway, week four begins this evening.
Film. Comics. Sci-Fi. Superheroes. Pulp. Noir. History. Superman. 20th Century Archaeology.
2 comments:
Sounds interesting. Glad to know that you're a liberal. You should pin a "L" to your clothes in real life to self identify as well.
So I finished the third week, as you can see a week later than I should have. And I agree with you.
The lecture on Mort Weisinger, whom I knew nothing about beforehand, seemed to go on forever. It felt as though some of the points were just reiterated in a different manner. And it was only one example. Where is the rule of 3's here?
Mort Weisinger was an example of how one person can affect the direction of a comic book or comic book hero. And yet wasn't the point of the week to point out that typically it is a collaboration between many people (what 6-8? maybe a chief editor as well?). Although I suppose this is actually much more difficult to analyze as one has to presume the creators intentions before noting which aspects were influenced by which creator: writer, artist, editor, etc. Hmmmm...a difficult topic to discuss without industry professionals to talk to.
I find the discussion boards to be difficult to deal with. I have found I do not read past the first page anymore. The actually remind me of the quizzes. The 6 question true/false quizzes could be answered by anyone who knows what the topic of the class is about. There are certain "expected" perspectives that you, the student, are supposed to take away from the class. But, especially at a college grade level, this type of class should not be about "this is what you should learn and think," but about "these are issues and ideas that you ought to think about." This is what the discussion boards feel like to me; the people who post project one attitude, one perspective, and are unwavering. They do not seem interested in discussing ideas and perspectives.
Post a Comment