Comic Book Resources

Amen!

I think I’m going to attach that quote as a signature on comic forums, since it’s an excellent response to the too-common idea that ” fun ” in comics means intellectually sterile Silver Age pastiches. Well played, Mr. Slott.

I couldn’t disagree more. Comics shouldn’t be any one thing. Of course they can be fun, but they can also be terrifying, heart-breaking or profound. Just because they are almost never any of these things does not mean they cannot be. You wouldn’t say that all movies should be fun, or that all novels should be fun. I didn’t finish reading the Road or the Plague and walk away disappointed because I didn’t have any fun or because they didn’t make me happier. I walked away uplifted because they were so damn GOOD. Comics should be good, full stop.

Ya, all too often people in the comics community forget that fun is in the eye of the beholder. Final Crisis was fun for me. It wasn’t a lighthearted romp like Nextwave, which was also fun for me. But a different kind of fun. If you don’t enjoy something don’t read it, but don’t sit there e-griping about how comics should be more fun. You’re in the minority now. There are comics out there you do like, so enjoy those and hope things swing back so that more things fit your tastes. But don’t demean the tastes of others.

@nathan: I don’t think you get it. That’s exactly his point. Anything you enjoy is a type of fun. If you love being creeped out then a horror movie is fun. Same thing with a horror comic. That’s what Dan Slott is saying.

Dalarsco: I get it just fine. To me (and most dictionaries, I’d wager) “fun” denotes mirth, humor, amusement and connotes a lack of seriousness. I enjoyed Schindler’s List (mostly) but wouldn’t describe it as a fun movie. Similarly, An Inconvenient Truth was in no way fun to watch, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t enjoy it or that it wasn’t a good documentary, If Slott had said that comics should be enjoyable (which is essentially the same as saying they should be good), then I could get behind that.

Speaking of talking gorillas, Agents of Atlas #1 goes on sale this Wednesday!

” I couldn’t disagree more. Comics shouldn’t be any one thing. Of course they can be fun, but they can also be terrifying, heart-breaking or profound. Just because they are almost never any of these things does not mean they cannot be. You wouldn’t say that all movies should be fun, or that all novels should be fun. I didn’t finish reading the Road or the Plague and walk away disappointed because I didn’t have any fun or because they didn’t make me happier. I walked away uplifted because they were so damn GOOD. Comics should be good, full stop. ”

Fun can simply be enjoyable, regardless of emotional content. You can enjoy a horror movie if it scares you enough to trigger a bowel movement, a dramatic movie if it’s sad enough to make you cry, or an artsy independent movie if you’re interested in analyzing the various filmic elements. What matters is that it provokes an emotional response.

@ Nathan: Dude. You’re splitting hairs. You knew what he meant. He couldn’t have made it any more clear.

I also like the amendments, as if all comics fans on the internet really DID have working fun meters, there wouldn’t be near as much pissing and moaning.

@Nathan: Sure, according to the dictionary. But this isn’t about the dictionary definition of fun. Slott’s point is that when people talk about wanting “fun” comics they really mean they want comics they enjoy. He’s saying in a round-about way that people need to respect that other people enjoy different things.

Comics are not always fun, but they should always try to be.

I get what you’re saying, Nathan. But I think Dan Slott is actually saying the same thing.

I have a marvelously good time watching and reading dramatic, tragic stuff. I love many HBO TV shows that have all the violence, sex, darkness, and personal tragedy you could stomach. I have a good time watching them. They’re entertaining to me. In this sense, they’re “fun” to me.

Now, when some Internet fellow says everything should be optimistic and light-hearted in order to be enjoyable and entertaining, I couldn’t disagree more.

Yay, Dan Slott! Despite Nathan trying to re-define Slott’s definition above (oh, come on, man!) I wholeheartedly agree with with Slott’s sentiments. Since we’re doing definitions, got this from dictionary.com: Fun: n.

1. A source of enjoyment, amusement, or pleasure.
2. Enjoyment; amusement: have fun at the beach.
3. Playful, often noisy, activity.

intr.v. funned, fun·ning, funs Informal
To behave playfully; joke.
adj. Informal
Enjoyable; amusing: “You’re a real fun guy” (Margaret Truman).

[Possibly from fon, to make a fool of, from Middle English fonnen, to fool, possibly from fonne, fool.]

I see nothing here that says Fun = Fluff

I say bring on more fun comics… and TV, too. Loving the new Brave and the Bold because it’s FUN. So there.

Some interesting debate on just what exactly the meaning of ‘fun’ is. I get entirely that by ‘fun’ Slott is signifying that comics should be enjoyable and give entertainment, and not just on a basic level but in a sense that encompasses even dark and upsetting things, or profound exploration of the human psyche or whatever else you want. The problem is that ‘fun’ seems like the wrong term to use when describing the experience one has on reading Maus, or Fax from Sarajevo, or indeed from watching Schindler’s List. I don’t think Nathan is to any great extent trying to redefine what Slott is saying. To those that doubt this, please look at the lead-in question to Slott’s comment and consider how ‘fun’ is being used there. He then shifts just this meaning of light or enjoyable entertainment to a wider sense of any form of sensory or artistic enjoyment. I just think that Slott probably isn’t presenting his definitive statement on the state of the art form here – that if he means ‘fun’ in a wider sense than its usual referent, it’s a misleading and ineffective term to use in the way that comics should be ‘good’ is not.

Call me crazy, but I think Slott is saying that we should HAVE FUN while reading comics. Arguably, that’s different than the comic itself being fun.
Not that I’m sure I agree either way. The aim of art is not always entertainment. Entertainment should be fun to experience. Art can unsettle, provoke, and do various other things. It would be odd to say that you had fun while being provoked by art.

Sage: I have no idea what Slott meant to say, only what he actually said. I trust that he chose his words deliberately — he is, after all, a professional writer.

Mike: You’re not looking very closely, then. You’re also selectively quoting from the dictionary. Here’s the very first definition on Dictionary.com, which for obvious reasons you failed to include:

1. something that provides mirth or amusement

All I’m saying is that I disagree that all comics should provide mirth or amusement. Safe Area Gorazde was not fun, nor should it have been. It was, however, very good.

What exactly is the big deal? All Slott is doing is stating the extreme obvious. Essentially, “an entertainment medium should produce entertaining things.” O rly? Should also food be tasty? What about novels, ought they be well-written?

His statement basically just builds on the tongue-in-cheek title of this blog. There’s nothing particularly profound about it.

Y’know, I’m basically with Nathan here, ‘and disagree with Bill. Calling a comic (in this example) “Fun” carries some fairly specific conotations, including “generally escapist in nature” and “not freaking depressing.”

If you’re calling Chris Ware’s stuff “fun,” you’re stretching the definition beyond recognisability and usefulness. (Except for the stuff that’s fun.)

Nathan,

You’re still splitting hairs. The first definition on merriam-webster is, “what provides amusement or enjoyment.” For reference, amusement is “a means of amusing or entertaining” and enjoyment is, “something that gives keen satisfaction.” I think it’s fair to say that any sort of entertainment should provide either amusement or satisfaction. Even if it gets to one of those two goals by being challenging or thought-provoking. Otherwise, why am I seeking it out?

Nathan, I think few people who like to use the term “fun” castigate those who like “Maus” or “Schindler’s List”. The Fascists of Fun usually reserve their loathing for people who like gritty superhero stories or (sometimes) Vertigo-y stuff like what Garth Ennis and Warren Ellis write. Stuff that is dark but (IMO) has elements of fun and entertainment, even though it’s darker fun.

The absurd assumption from the Fascists of Fun is that people who claim to enjoy gritty and Vertigo-y are lying, they don’t actually enjoy it (“How the hell can someone enjoy this stuff?!?”), the Fascists of Fun assume that all the people who claim to like gritty just do so to appear cool and mature or something. Because anyone who ever enjoyed a Mark Millar story is a neurotic that lives in self-loathing for liking superheroes, so they got to have gritty, debased superheroes. Or some sort of pervert.

They can’t accept that some people just think gritty and Vertigo-y can be FUN and enjoyable, and that there is nothing wrong in thinking darker heroes can be cool.

Based on the definitions cited above Ware’s work is fun. It provides enjoyment, or satisfaction. It may also be depressing as hell but that doesn’t stop one from enjoying it. In fact, Slott makes a strikingly similar point about Ennis’s Punisher comics and sadism.

Of course, given a definition of fun that’s that broad, it’s questionable what isn’t included. Surely, someone out there derives some enjoyment from every comic published. Would assume he’s trying to get comic readers to be more accepting of the word fun.

“Tee-hee,” Bill? I think you’re having a little bit too much fun with this article. I’m gonna have to stop reading your posts.

“

Based on the definitions cited above Ware’s work is fun. It provides enjoyment, or satisfaction. It may also be depressing as hell but that doesn’t stop one from enjoying it. In fact, Slott makes a strikingly similar point about Ennis’s Punisher comics and sadism.

Of course, given a definition of fun that’s that broad, it’s questionable what isn’t included. Surely, someone out there derives some enjoyment from every comic published. Would assume he’s trying to get comic readers to be more accepting of the word fun.

Two questions:

(A) But does it provide keen satisfaction.

And (B) what does that even mean? FAR be it from me to spread rumors, but I think a certain M.W. might justa been on the pipe when he wrote that one. If I (as an occasionally professional writer) want to say that something provides satisfaction, then I’m gonna go with “satisfying” over “fun.”

“This insect repellant works to my satisfaction! Therefore it’s fu

I think Slott’s point is that “fun” and “mature” or “fun” and “meaningful” or “fun” and “that guy got run over by a combine” are not exclusive or opposites. (Here, I agree..)

That’s no reason to broaden the definition of a perfectly good adjective so it’s so all-encompassing as to be useless.

@Nathan: Yes, he did choose his words carefully. He is using fun in an unusual way with the express purpose of exposing how the Fascists of Fun (Thanks, Rene, love the term!) need to reexamine their use of the word. Yes, there are exceptions in certain “arthouse” comics. But even dark stories are 99.9% of the time meant to be entertainment. It might not be fun in a conventional sense of the word, but it is fun in the sense that it is something you enjoy reading as a leisure activity. Rene summed it up perfectly. The Fascists of Fun divide comics neatly into two piles. The “art” comics that are allowed to be thought provoking and dark, and everything else that has to be light hearted escapism and nothing else. And that enforcement is wrong.

Fun comics don’t sell.

Thanks, Dalarsco.

We can make an exception of Chris Ware or “Maus” or stuff like that. But the writers more often attacked as unfun are guys like Garth Ennis, Warren Ellis, Mark Millar, and Brian Michael Bendis. All four of them write pop culture stuff, they’re not Chris Ware. Their fans derive keen satisfaction, amusement, and entertainment from their work. I’m a little less sure about “mirth”, but I’d say that mirth is somewhere in there too, since dark humor is still humor.

In other words, they’re fun.

And what about the X-Men? They’re so angsty, right? And angsty is unfun. But Chris Claremont was creating a soap opera, and people who enjoy soap operas think they’re fun, they derive keen satisfaction and amusement from following the lives of a large, colorful cast of characters with complicated relationships. People write fan fiction galore of the X-Men. People usually write fan fiction about stuff they think is fun. Few people write Chris Ware fan fiction or Maus fan fiction. Few people want to be a holocaust survivor in Schindler’s List, but many people would want to be Cable or Wolverine, even though they’re dark and angsty.

So yeah, the X-Men are fun by many people’s definition.

I think it’s pretty bizarre this definition of fun as meaning, essentially, the Silver Age.

It isn’t even the Silver Age. It’s this magical rose colored glasses Silver Age where there were never stories with darker themes. The early FF stuff had some great darker stories, usually surrounding The Thing. That run is rightly remembered as the crown jewel of the Silver Age.

Having recently read some of those older, darker FF stories, i can attest, shockingly, they were “fun”

OMG!

Fun comics don’t sell.

Without fun comics, we wouldn’t have comics.

And without New Fun Comics, we REALLY wouldn’t have comics.

Oooh, Reed digs deep into the past. More Fun Comics can be found in the Golden Age.

I think I’m gonna wade in on the “yeah, so?” side…

Slott’s point seems to be “You should enjoy the comics you read, whether they be paper awesomeness like Guardians of the Galaxy or whehter they be things like Punisher.”

Well, yeah…you should enjoy the comics you read.

I think he makes the term “fun” far too broad to have any real meaning other than the obvious.

I’d say that his point is incredibly obvious but I never heard one person say a good thing about Countdown and yet sales were pretty solid, so maybe it’s a point that had to be made.

I think people miss a lot of the point. When people talk about wanting comics to be more fun it is obviously in reference to an excess of extremely dark toned stories in mainstream superhero books as well as horror movie levels of gore and character death. Not to mention all the big bloated Serious Business crossover events that just never end or constant monkeying with the characters status in some over the top dark circumstance. Crisis on Infinite Earths, DKR, and Watchmen basically happen every day now in both universes. Also, is it so wrong to think that maybe a comicbook with a bunch of DC heroes in it is something I’d like to be able to hand to a younger person and not have to be concerned about stuff like peoples eyeballs and brainmatter coming out of the back of their head or someone getting raped?

I think there’s middle ground to be had. It’s not this choice between something really watered down or something that is all extreme and there have been times when mainstream superhero comics at their best have hit that middleground and were able to bring lots of folks to the party creating a new generation of readers coming in as kids as well as entertaining those who stuck around after their childhoods were over.

This has been a hard conversation to have in comics circles because anyone who brings it up is immediately demonized as just wanting the Silver Age back. Not that there’s anything really all that terrible about the Silver Age to begin with but I don’t think easing off the darkness and gore, letting mainstream superhero comics be on a more general audience keel so that reader both 8 and 48 could get a kick out of em is the same thing as wanting the comics to be exactly like they were in the 50′s and 60′s.

and I will say it. Brave and the Bold was FUN. (though the thing with book dragged on too long)

[...] DAN SLOTT ON THE ‘F’ WORD IN COMICS [...]