A friend of mine recently argued that comic books are stupid: that no matter how intelligent the plotline laid on top of the pictures, the pictures are an inherent distraction from the text, and the text merely an attempt to compensate for the infantilism of the form.
Now, I knew this idea would
really piss off a lot of people I know, so I emailed one of them, my
Wonder Woman co-blogger
Syd, who responded, in part:
The problem with most comics has nothing to do with how "intelligent" they are - it has to do with the fact that they can generally be categorized as action/adventure, science fiction, fantasy, and horror, which are genres that often require a certain suspension of disbelief and are pretty much looked down upon even in non-graphic form.
However, if you are willing to accept comics as they are, I know of many that are as intelligent if not moreso than almost any book-without-pictures, but you have to be aware that they can be picked apart pretty easily. Have you ever really examined any novels - their word choice, how well the plot works, how much logical sense it makes, what the overall message is, how believable the characters are, etc.? The fact is that any book can be called stupid, because very few writers are really geniuses and almost none of them take everything into account. I love Shakespeare's plays, but if you sit down and look at what the basic plots are and how the characters are developed, you might have to admit to yourself that a lot of it is pretty stupid. That's why you should probably try to avoid arguments like this.
On the other hand, I totally agree with [so-and-so's] idea that the more pictures something has, the stupider it is. I was at an art gallery the other day, and there were pictures everywhere! They hardly had any words at all! I can only imagine the kind of moron who finds that entertaining. Then later I saw this movie called "Citizen Kane." If you can believe it, there were about 30 pictures every second! It was one of the stupidest things I have ever seen.
(Not to imply that my original friend couldn't develop an argumentatively sound reply on the matter, which he could; however, Syd's answer is funny, and I'm going to leave off this discussion at its point of maximal humor value, much as one slaughters livestock in the animal's infancy, before the dropoff in the ratio of grain feed converted to meat).
*Unless it were an actual hate-comic
, which I would kind of relish for its novelty and the sheer effort put into its pretty little hate-production.