Comic Book Resources

If I like it, it's good. If I don't, it's not. But even so, you can hit all 7 of those points and still make an awful comic. Telling a story that's interesting for the issue you're reading (whether it moves an arc forward or not) and writing decent dialogue would be kinda nice.

^Yup, there's only one standard I need; does it entertain me? Especially 5,6 and 7 seem very contrived. Something like Nextwave or World War Hulk wouldn't meet most points but still entertains me very much. I'm not trying to say everything should be mindless fun, something can be entertaining by making you think or creeping you out or whatver has your fancy, but I don't feel the need to validate what I read like this.

Hmm... On second thought, entertaining isn't really encompassing what I meant. I think engaging might be a better term.

8. Enlarged female anatomy.

1,2,3 and 7 should suffice if we're talking about standards. 4, 5, and 6 are too poorly defined and not applicable in all cases. A work may be excellent because it makes a single point very well and even without depending on something specifically comic-y.

After skimmng through that CBR thread, I can see why you posted the topic here. The discussion got derailed quickly over there, didn't it?

Anyway, I think Alex's list is a noble starting point to start the conversation about what makes a good comic, objectively speaking. I've been thinking and writing about a similar topic on my blog, at message boards, and on Sequart.org for a few weeks. I was recently criticized by a reader, in fact, for NOT mentioning my personal feelings about a comic book in a review, (I just described parts of it, criticized parts of it, and evaluated it overall, which I thought was a pretty non-controversial way to write about a comic).

I don't think my feelings or the question of "how much I liked or disliked it" is as interesting as trying to evaluate the qualty of a comic from an objective position. I think it is important (and interesting) to evaluate a work against a set of criteria, and see how it stacks up, but, then again, as I said in a Sequart column, I don't think a work of art (comic books included) has any obligation to "be" anything.

So any attempt to come up with an absolute list of "standards" is an attempt to slap your expectations onto someone else's work. In a way, any single "demand" of a comic is as silly as saying, "to be a good comic, it must have at least one fight scene." (Which was surely an in-house criteria used by mainstream publishers for years, but it's not a criteria that necessarily helped make good comics. It just helped make comics with fight scenes in every issue.)

Yet, even though I believe the idea of placing expectations on what a work of art should be is severly flawed, I'd rather base an aesthetic judgment on some set of criteria rather than just say, "I liked it" or "I didn't like it." If you say that, then you might as well not say anything, because the automatic reply is, "well, that's just your opinion." And that doesn't lead to much interesting discussion.

All of my earlier comment is just a long-winded way of saying that I don't believe that you can come up with Seven Objective Standards, but I'm going to list them anyway, based on what Alex came up with:

To be good, a comic (and by comic, I mean the finished form of the work, which could be a single issue, but it could also be a tpb) should have:

1. Art helps to tell the story (and does not detract from it or cause unwanted confusion)
2. Art which amplifies and accentuates the themes through visual symbolism
2. Stories which resolve in some way
3. Main characters who have more than one facet to their personality
5. Something to say about one or more of the Essential Human Ideas (aka themes)
6. Narrative consistency (in character, plot, setting, and theme--jumps from one setting to another, for example, should be explained or alluded to)
7. Something new to say (about the medium, the genre, the characters, or the world)

To me, it's #7 that divides the good comics from the average ones.

Hey Tim-

Interesting points!

There has been much debate over the years at CBR dealing with trying to objectively critique a book, versus just saying "I like it so it's good." If you feel like braving the forums, check out the Top 100 thread on the Comm board.

As for this:

"what a bunch of boohoo.

That reminds me, very loosely, of the nazis who tried to classify criminals by facial features."

What everyone else said. Seriously. Trying to develop a ruleset for art is inherently bullshit.

I hate it when people discourage you from trying to figure stuff out.

I think one of my favourite writers, Dave Marsh, said it best (admittedly, about a different subject): "We're men, not dogs, and when we find a mystery our job is to solve it, not roll in it."

Plus: coming up with a set of organizing principles is very different from finding a 'ruleset'. You can get all kinds of fascinating things emerging from a short set of simple principles.

My 7:

1. Each edition of your comic that is sold seperately must be entertaining and satisfying to read on its own, a worthwhile product in and of itself.
2. Art should show both style and craft, but never one to the exclusion of the other.
3. Fantastical does not mean illogical. Just because Superman can fly does not mean that he can flip on the news just when they're discussing the thing he wants to hear about.
4. Each panel border should contain, in the mind of the reader, both physical and narrative movement.
5. Pages should be designed so as to demand their own pace and flow. The artist should control the reader's experience of space and time.
6. If you are working in a collaborative universe you should respect the work of your fellow collaborators, past, present and future. You can build onto the parts of the narrative you like without feeling the need to tear down the parts you don't.
7. Comix are not the ideal medium for dialogue driven stories. Express as much of your story as you can through action, movement and non-verbal communication.

What an individual person enjoys, and what constitutes a good piece of literature or art are not the same thing. Lots of people enjoy porn, but that doesn't mean porn is art or should win awards. Something doesn't need to be amazing to be enjoyable, in fact, often the more highly intellectual and highbrow a piece becomes, the more people will find it too challenging.

Comics are traditionally light entertainment, yes, but they have potential for more. Visual Narrative (or Graphic novels or sequential art or comics or whatever you like to call it) is just another medium, like printed word or film, it's not a genre. There's no reason comics can't embrace many different styles and audiences, from pulpy light entertainment right up to ground breaking high literature.

The purpose of criticism is to praise those who write or draw work of high quality rather than pandering to what is popular or will sell well. People who try new things, put in astounding amounts of effort, create art or literature that inspires and stimulates others creatively, intellectually or morally. Therefore, by rating something entirely on your feelings without critical judgement, you may be doing a disservice to those who try to broaden the industry to make it appeal to more people than just the established fanbase.
Comics should be good.

If a large part of a medium is pulp does that make the whole medium pulp? I don't think so Myx, that's a bit shortsighted in my opinion, and rules out most artforms in existence.

Sure, comics started out as light entertainment but even those early comics can surely have an aesthetic value. They may even be viewed as art when put into the larger perspective of history. Do you think all paintings from the 17th or 18th century were considered art back then? They were commisioned portraits most of the time, skillfully made, but artistic expression was often far less important than customer satisfaction. Placed within the history of painting, a lot of those still became art.

I'm not even going to start on modern comics, any medium can become art when it's treated seriously and/or passionately enough by it's creators.

To get back on the subject, my only problem with the seven points was that there are lots of comics on which not even half can be applied but which are still good comics. I don't think such a list of fixed criteria can really be made, I do think comics deserve serious criticism though.

My comic stories must meet one of the following four criteria. They must be...

1. ...a senses-shattering saga.

2. ...a tale that can finally be told.

3. ...a shocking origin.

4. ...in the mighty Marvel manner.

I really don't like moderating blog comments, but yeah, this was just outright trolling, so it doesn't deserve any consideration, really.

After skimming through that CBR thread, I can see why you posted the topic here. The discussion got derailed quickly over there, didn’t it?

Tim, RITA'S XXXV: Seven Standards is an off-topic thread. That's its job.

Alex started a thread dedicated to the discussion of these standards this morning.

My only problem with the seven points was that there are lots of comics on which not even half can be applied but which are still good comics.

Enlighten us.

I have decided that I'm utterly opposed to the notion that a single issue of a comic has to be entertaining and satisfying on its own.

I know the mechanics of distribution (and the fact that they are most often sold as single 24 pages issues) has lead to that expectation, but I think it's an arbitrary bias that we base on far too many years of self-contained issues.

To me, such an expectation is as unfair to the medium as it would be to expect every Chapter of a novel to be entertaining and satisfying on its own (and we don't require such a thing from individual chapters of a novel--we know it's part of a larger whole and base our expectation on that.)

Of course, $3.00 is a lot to pay regularly for a bunch of individually unsatisfying pages, so I recognize why Matt Bird might list such a requirement as #1 on his list. But are we talking about Comics Worth Buying in Monthly Installments or are we talking Comics that Are Good (and will have lasting resonance)?

"There has been much debate over the years at CBR dealing with trying to objectively critique a book, versus just saying “I like it so it’s good.”

Having been a much-maligned part of that debate back in the day, I've gotta say that I think you're still missing the point of the argument, from the other point of view. It's not 'objective standards' versus 'I like it so it's good', it's 'objective standards' versus 'subjective standards' versus 'I like it so it's good.'

Some people, like myself, prefer 'subjective standards'- which is not the complete absence of standards, but merely the recognition that different people may have different standards, and that not all of the standards always apply to the same degree. It's a lot different to just saying, 'well, I like it, so it's good and I don't have to explain why.'

I just think the idea of setting an arbitrary amount of standards and enforcing them in relation to every comic is a bit silly, even if it is obviously well-intentioned. As a way to discuss an artform we love, it's great, but as a way to seriously and objectively evaluate comics, not so much.

Just to pick some random examples of exceptions to the standards that popped into my head while I was reading the list-
1. Fletcher Hanks. I'm not sure that his comics really display "an evident level of craft," but in their own way, they're good comics.
3. Mike Allred. Allred could easily write a comic full of contrived, one-note characters- and I'm not saying he often does, just that he could- but the other things he does well would still make it a great comic.
4. Brian Michael Bendis. Bendis could have a whole great comic of talking heads, and it might not demonstrate any great sense of design- and again, I'm not saying such a sense is beyond him, because he obviously has a great sense of design from his time as an artist, just that it isn't always an essential part of what he does.
And of course, as soon as any of the other standards are out, 7 is too, so that one doesn't need explanation.

Jonathan Hamilton: HA!

Rohan: Totally agree with everything you said here, basically. But I saw the list as seven critical standards that CAN BE applied, not those that HAVE to be applied to every comic.

Obvio

And on that level I think it's a really solid list. There are points that don't apply to Art Speigelman's non (anti?) narrative stuff in Raw, or that guy who was doin' comics as pure text. (What's his name?)

I don't see this as trying to develop an absolute rule-set for art. (And, yeah, that is bullshit. Every work of art needs to be evaluated on it's unique merits - based mostly on author intent and place in history, but other stuff too.) But they're all worthwhile things to think about, even if they don't all serve as worthwhile standards for every work of comics art ever.

I'd agree with that, Mark. As a list of standards that CAN be applied, it's great.

It's just that when I think of standards, I think of things that anyone who follows them tries to live up to, constantly, so that- as well as the use of the word 'objectively' in Alex's comment- led me to think of the list as something that all comics should strive for. But yeah, your take on the standards is cool, and I probably should have looked at it that way.

Apodaca, some examples of what I meant. Rohan beat me to the punch and already mentioned some but I'll chip in with a couple more:

Nextwave for instance 'lacks' meaningful arcs and thematic depth, but makes up for it in humour and the way it uses the inherent sillyness of the genre while still following it's rules (like the first Scream movie did with slashers). And stuff explodes a lot.

Lewis Trondheim's Mister O is a collection of one page gags about a character who tries to cross a canyon but fails miserably every time. That's the entire premise and it's so skillfully executed that it needs nothing more. I could expand about it but pointing to an example will explain it better: http://www.nbmpub.com/humor/trondheim/mistero/pre1.html

Joe Matt's Spent hasn't even got a plot. It's brutally honest and offers rich dialogue besides well drawn characters though.

These are all still good comics in my opinion without meeting all criteria in the list.

By the way, Brian, I didn't mean to post that last paragraph of my post again in a separate post and I don't think I did. Could something have gone wrong while editing the comments (You can edit this last part out to if you want to)?

Oops! Yeah, sorry - I was doing some trimming of that mxy guy, and I must have done that by mistake. It be gone now!

As Alex has said, these are not strict guidelines meant to judge whether a book is "good" or "bad." They are rather starting points for discussion and reference points for objectified critiquing. Comics can be good without hitting every standard. These are simply the standards they COULD hit.

These standards are just points of discussion.

That's all.

I'm not trying to categorize art or make disparate genres all conform to strict guidelines, and I'm not saying a book is only GOOD when it "follows my standards!".... I'm just introducing some common concepts that we can use when discussing comic art.

The point of the list was to agree on a few standards for purpose of discussion, not to rend garments over "forcing art into separate boxes" or whatever.

People are awfully sensitive when it comes to this stuff... I'm not sure why. Many of the examples mentioned (Nextwave, Allred, a lot of Bendis) all excel at every standard, as far as I'm concerned... but rather than look at the list and say "hmmm... this book I like does all of these things well... what an interesting concept!", people shout "yeah... well what about THIS!?!?" as if throwing out random examples blows the entire idea of critiquing comics right out of the water.

For a blog called Comics Should be Good, many folks seem really terrified of actually possibly figuring out what might make "good comics" good.

"Lewis Trondheim’s Mister O is a collection of one page gags about a character who tries to cross a canyon but fails miserably every time. That’s the entire premise and it’s so skillfully executed that it needs nothing more."

MISTER O (and MISTER I) are both great examples of books that hit every standard out of the park.

1. art that has a high and crazy evident level of craft.
2. one page stories that move in meaningful arcs, very linear
3. characterizations that are straightforward, and direct, working with the point of the stories perfectly
4. a sense of design that amplifies the themes of the content
5. thematic depth, so the comic works on many levels (themes of futility and Sysiphian struggle in this case)
6. BRILLIANT use of the medium itself to communicate
7. Cohesion of the above

Good example.

That's cool, Alex, I'm sure everybody's up for the discussion. It probably came across more that way over on the forums, too, it's just that out of context here it kind of sounded like a manifesto or something. I have no problem with critiquing comics, but I'm not a fan of overly narrow critiques. Which yours is apparently not, after all.

So, are there books you like that you don't think meet the seven standards? Examples?

J to the AAP:

Thanks for your response. I haven't read Mister O, so I can't really comment on that one.

I don't think what you said about Spent is actually in contradiction to Alex's list. Though he talks about "stories that move in meaningful arcs", I'm pretty sure he's using a broad definition of the term arc. One that would consider how a cycle is actually two arcs, per se.

I disagree with you on Nextwave. It was fun at times, but had major lacking points, and petered out at the end. It was an exercise in old-school simple fun, and felt a little too much like exercise.

But that's just my take.