Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site hammer.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!hammer!hutch
From: hutch@hammer.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison)
Newsgroups: net.comics
Subject: Re: Tim Maroney on X-Factor
Message-ID: <1699@hammer.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Dec-85 02:06:58 EST
Article-I.D.: hammer.1699
Posted: Tue Dec 10 02:06:58 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Dec-85 05:11:54 EST
References: <1614@decwrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: hutch@hammer.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison)
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 37
Summary: 

In article <1614@decwrl.UUCP> wall@drzeus.DEC (David F. Wall) writes:

>Your P.S. was kind of tacky, Tim.  Waving the lady's academic achievements in
>our face, particularly in a discussion about a comic book, is kind of silly. 
>Sure, she knows things we don't -- about classics.  You didn't tell us whether
>or not she's a long time comics reader, or which of Claremont's stuff you're
>using in the comparison.  You're not going to start comparing Dickens and Joyce
>and Shakespeare to Layton or Claremont or anyone else in the industry of
>comics, are you?  None of them had the editorial millstone of Jim Shooter
>around their necks, none of them had to produce a story every five weeks, and
>none of them had to work within constraints set down by the last people to
>write about their characters.

It isn't a good idea to generalize, Dave.  Dickens did indeed have to produce
a story every five weeks.  In fact, he was writing a story a week, at the most
high-pressure periods in his life, and the editors were constantly after him
to create more of the same old stuff.  He had constant problems with literary
thieves publishing rip-offs of his stories, his editors were constantly
badgering him to produce more, and he had no rights to his stories once they
were sold.  Dickens was the comic books of his time.

Shakespeare was, likewise, constantly pressured to do more of the same old
stuff.  His stories were hackneyed even for the time, and were often stolen
whole-cloth from other writers.  Sure, he had a genius for putting the words
together, but a LOT of his work is elegant dirty puns.  He was POPULAR, he
was not considered "high classical" writing.

Yes, we CAN compare the "classics" with comics.  But they aren't the same
media.  Shakespeare wrote plays and sonnets.  Dickens wrote prose stories
in an incredible flowery overblown style.  Claremont writes intricate,
socially aware (to the point of excess) character studies which are a form
of modern fairy tale, collaborating with graphic illustrators.  Believe it,
if technology had been there at Dickens' time to do as many illustrations
in a single printing, they would have had comics, or something very like
them.

Hutch