One of the problems many critics — especially online critics — face in writing comics lies in attempting to describe or discuss the artwork. In fact, one of the constant complaints from a variety of factions that we don’t talk about the art enough, focusing instead on a book’s plot or dialogue.
That’s not what this week’s column is about though (sorry, I’m saving that topic for a future discussion). What I’d like to talk about today instead is a related matter and, for some, a method of bypassing the issue entirely: the question of whether or not to include art of the comic we’re reviewing in our critique.
The question may seem like a obvious or even minor issue depending upon where you stand. But it nevertheless seems to be an issue that divides a lot of people. A number of online pundits regard the inclusion of sample panels as an absolute necessity.
The implication, I suppose, is that a critic, no matter how good, is ultimately incapable of translating an artist’s unique visual style into prose. That’s a little insulting, and yet to an extent it’s also true. It can be exceedingly difficult to talk about someone’s skill with a pencil and brush, especially if you don’t have a familiarity with the sort of terms and language that, say, an art or film critic might. What’s more, including artwork from the comic in question can aid your review, giving a valuable reference point for your audience.
Yet there are a number of online critics and bloggers who offer little if any art in their reviews, myself included. Is this a lapse of judgement on our part? Or do we just lack the funds to purchase a decent scanner?
Interested in hearing what other people had to say on the subject, I emailed a group of notable online critics and posed the question to them. Here’s a sampling of what they had to say:
I realize that not all critics do this, but come on…it makes it look
FAR more professional. Even if it is just a cover. I know other people
have more problems with copyright and so on, but I think a small cover
is fair use.
I don’t think providing samples of interior art is necessary for a good comic review, but it always helps. I know if I read a review of something that sounds interesting, I try to track down art samples on my own, because art can either help or hinder a purchase for me. In my own reviews, I try to include scans of interior art, often because there’s something I want to discuss and it’s helpful to have the image for eveyone to refer to. I do think it’s possible to write intelligently and descriptively of the art in the book without actually showing it. Look at text-only reviews of art forms like movies, paintings, photography, etc. It’s possible to review those well without seeing a sample of the visual medium the piece was done in.
As for why more people don’t include art samples:
- It takes time to scan and edit the images for posting
- Not everyone has a scanner
- Depending on the publisher, interior art may be readily available on the book’s webpage and it’s easier to link to that
- Many (most?) online reviewers are reviewing weekly releases from Marvel or DC and there’s almost an assumption that people have already read the book or are at least familiar with the artwork via online interviews or previews.
I don’t want to tell critics that they have to have a scanner and a copy of Photoshop in order to share their opinions if they have valuable things to say. A lot of it depends on what we’re talking about, too. If you’re referring to the general weekly “what I bought from DC and Marvel”-type writeups, then the audience already knows what those books look like, or where to see the art if they need to. The subject is too ephemeral to put much work into the review. Get it done and move on; the audience already has.
Of course, I’m saying this as someone who only posts art samples in the sense of “I’ll link to preview pages if I can find them” (which I think are just as valid as included images). And until you asked the question, no one had ever mentioned the point to me. Now that I’m thinking about the gamut of critical outlets, I don’t think I’ve ever seen art posted in a print graphic novel review, either, except in the Comics Journal. Their policy of posting mostly single panels I find more annoying than enlightening, since I consider the page a more useful unit.
While I’m firmly on the side of “you must talk about the art and writing as well as the plot”, the fact is, different books lend themselves to different kinds of responses. Telling a critic that they must post pictures strikes me as similar to telling a writer that they must include a joke in an issue. It may be a good idea, but dictates like that are pointlessly restrictive. Those who need the guidance won’t listen, and those who’ll consider it are generally good enough at what they’re doing that they don’t need it.
I don’t think page samples or specific illustrations are absolutely necessary for an online review to be useful. They’re a nice bonus, if the reviewer is so inclined, and some critics make excellent use of them. (I do think it’s absolutely necessary to post them if you’re trying to market a comic or graphic novel, but that’s not the same thing as responding to it from a critical standpoint.)
For me personally, it comes down to a few factors. I’m too cheap to pay for image hosting, since reviewing comics is essentially a hobby for me. I’m also kind of lazy when it comes to scanning. (I do use cover scans and the occasional image over at Comic World News, if I think it helps make my point, but that’s on somebody else’s hosting dime.)
Another deterrent for me is that I tend to find that the most effective pages are the result of an accumulation of preceding images. There may be a page that I think is just spot-on – hilariously funny or shocking or moving. But it earned that by virtue of all of the pages that preceded it. And lastly, I always try and link to the publisher’s information about the comic, and if the publisher is smart, they’ll have posted previews on their own.
No one complains that Chuck Klosterman books don’t come with Van Halen CD’s, or Jonathan Gold books don’t come with food samples. Free samples aren’t necessary for why I’m reading a review, for what I’m looking for out of the experience, no. But I think to some extent your answer to this question depends if you think the function of a review is to sell books for other people’s economic benefit …? I might include art samples if I were in the Selling Comics business, but that’s the last business I ever want to ever be in ever EVER.
However, all that having been said: I’ve seen people do it well, do it in a smart way, and I’ve seen people do it in a dumb way where they over-rely on the art sample. Same as anything. What kind of critic is going to answer a “Should” question with anything but an overly-wordy “Maybe”?
It’s hard to write about art without resorting to comparisons, which doesn’t necessarily serve the interests of either the creator in question or the reader of your review. Including an art sample keeps the reader from getting lost. It potentially allows her to determine if you’re full of shit. It might even help establish the language you use to talk about art by giving readers a frame of reference.
On the other hand, I don’t think a reviewer should entrust the art to speak for itself. I frequently rail against reviews that discuss art in a perfunctory manner (or worse yet, fail to discuss it at all). For some, posting an art sample might be a crutch. I think I’ve mentioned this before, but some online critics seem to have a real phobia about criticizing art, as if they’re unqualified to do so or something. Plus I think the pendulum has swung too far towards writing among mainstream fans. It’s far worse than the pro-art period of the early 90s.
But that’s getting away from the issue at hand. I do have one last concern: there are a number of bloggers who post reviews with such frequency that I’m not sure that it’s reasonable to demand they include illustrations. I’m specifically thinking about Jog and the Savage Critics. If their schedule is anything like mine, the choice might come down to either taking the time to scan some pictures or maintaining their prolificacy. As a fan of these blogs, I know I’d prefer the latter.
I usually discuss the art in reviews, but I don’t reproduce panels because I try to keep my blog very simple: No ads, no flash, and minimal images.
People seem to like that; it loads fast and won’t crash your computer. Also, images often break the review into small sections of text, which I
don’t like. And they make the page really long.I think it is quite possible to discuss art without actually showing it; NPR
does that all the time. But I also assume my readers have already seen at least a sample from the book, and I always link to the publisher’s site,
which usually includes a preview. So if you haven’t already seen it, the art is just a click away.In fact, judging from the comments, many of the people who read my reviews have already read the book. Reviews can serve two purposes, after all: they can give someone an idea of whether or not they would like a particular book, or they can start a conversation about a book everyone has read. I find that many manga reviews fall into the latter category, and for them, the images are redundant.
I think if you’re writing short capsule reviews it’s not important to post art samples, but for longer or more in-depth reviews I think one should include at least a cover scan so potential readers can identify the comic in the store. I prefer scans of interior panels as well, but that’s a personal preference. Comics are a visual medium (newsflash!) and I like to see what people are talking about when they bitch about the crappy art – or great art, of course. Plus: out-of-context comic book panels are comedy gold.
There’s one really simple reason people often don’t post art samples in online reviews: it’s a hassle. It’s not as simple as typing in a sentence or two of prose–you have to scan it, edit it, and upload it (and, actually, you have to have somewhere to host it). I also don’t think it’s really necessary. If you’re reviewing a record, you don’t need to include a song from it; if you’re reviewing a movie, you don’t need to include a clip; if you’re reviewing a restaurant, you don’t need to include a snack.
That said, I never mind seeing a few panels in a review, and something like half the people who’ve looked at “Reading Comics” in front of me have said “oh, good, you’ve got pictures in there!” I’ve noticed, though, that panels reviewers reproduce tend to be less visually representative stuff than punch lines or plot points–it mostly makes sense to me to include art samples to illustrate something you’re saying about the cartooning itself.
Anyone who has read the reviews on my blog knows I regularly post art samples, and my reason for it is twofold: I like to see art examples when I read reviews, and I often feel that my descriptions of the art would be inadequate; I’m not good enough at painting a mental picture of the art in the readers’ mind, so I would rather show the art and then comment on it. I don’t think giving samples is always necessary, but it certainly helps. I know of some critics that are so verbally adept that they can describe the art in a way which makes me picture it in my mind, but they are few and far between. I’m thinking of Jog in particular here, although I should note that while he doesn’t post any pictures in his reviews, he often links to pages where art samples can be seen. And really, even the best descriptions make me want to see the art for myself anyway, so while it’s not strictly necessary, it’s a nice “feature” of any review.
As for the reason why most critics don’t include art, I think it’s not especially easy to do so. You have to have a scanner or electronic version of the comic, and scanning pages is a time-consuming process. Plus, picking out a specific image to comment on is often tricky, especially if you’re trying to point out a certain feature or tendency in the artist. I know I’ll sometimes write a general statement about the way an artist depicts facial expressions or something, and then have difficulty choosing a panel that illustrates my point (that’s probably my failing though). And then there are the copyright issues. Most works have a blurb on the copyright page that says “no portion of this publication may be reproduced, except for purposes of review”. So while it’s safe and legal to post some artwork, how much is too much? I know I’ve sometimes worried that I’m scanning and posting too much, so I try to limit the samples to particular panels or post them out of order. Of course, that could lead to discussions of how much one should “give away” in a review, which is a discussion for another day…
As for myself, I tend to align on the “you don’t need art” side of the fence. Technical limitations aside, a good critique, whether online or off, needs to stand on its own. Not that I’m against using art — posting art samples can be helpful, but it can also be a crutch to excuse lazy writing. Your samples need to be supplimental, not essential, or you run the risk of having your words regarded as trivial. Those who do use art need to use it judiciously, as folks like Brady and Jakala do. Even then, it may not be enough persuade the reader to the critic’s arguements. Only a well-written and reasoned review or critique can do that.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
With all things, critiques vary in length, seriousness, and depth.
Short or pellet reviews are often just that, very short. It’s absurd to expect much more than a reaction to the story.
Once reviews increase in complexity the bar for what we do and should expect goes up.
Reviews of other things often can’t sample the things they review, (food, movies, paintings in galleries) but they do when it’s possible and appropriate. We expect that an in depth review of a galleries new installations and displays to include pictures of things such as the art, the artists, important people who work in the gallery. You’ll get that from any culture or art magazine. A review of a novel, poem, short story or any other written art often includes excerpts to illustrate to the reader what they’re talking about. Concerning movies, reviewers may not (and it’s not practical at this time in any sense to assume they should) include clips from the movie, (unless the review is on television) but they’ll describe certain scenes or themes in the movie in as literal a manner as possible, again to describe a point. (Examples of this are talking about the camera work, actually describing the use of angles and movement to illustrate an opinion about the direction of the film.)
So I think it’s a matter of whether or not one should include examples or samples from the work being reviewed to illustrate points in the review.
A cover to a comic in a review, unless talked about specifically and discussed is not a part of the review itself. It’s like the cover picture on a magazine, it often has little or nothing to do with what’s actually being written about.
Any intelligent review of comic books, then, one that attempts to be in depth, instead of a quick, mostly thumbs up or down sort of thing, will describe EVENTS in the book, why not include actual ART when it’s appropriate for illustrating a certain perspective on how the ART is used to tell the story.
I agree with most the above comments concerning DC/Marvel monthlies–that most people know what it looks like inside, or have read it, but anything that’s supposed be explaining to a new reader whether or not they should look into a new or different comic book doesn’t do anyone justice if it thoroughly covers the story’s plot, but fails to show us the way the plot is conveyed.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
“A number of online pundits — I believe Warren Ellis was one of them — regard the inclusion of sample panels as an absolute necessity.”
I have no recollection of saying this. If someone can provide a quote, then great, I’m senile.
Seriously, if you can prove I’m senile and show me the quote, that’d be great, as it’ll help me get all kinds of useful medications from the National Health Service.
– W
August 12th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Also, images often break the review into small sections of text, which I don’t like.
That’s exactly why I do like sample panels/pages. Lengthy reviews, no matter how well written, can be daunting, especially if the author isn’t fond of paragraph breaks. Sample art forces those breaks, thus creating “breathing room” within the piece, a reprieve from the monotony of dense text.
Short/pellet/capsule reviews, of course, don’t suffer from imposing paragraphs, so images aren’t perhaps wholly necessary, especially if the “reviews” are merely snappy remarks. That said, if a reviewer wants to point out how awesome or awful a particular scene is, a panel/page never hurts.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I like to include interior artwork with my reviews. One reason is that it’s nice to show a reference to give the reader an idea of what you’re talking about. My main reason, though, is that given my background in newspaper journalism, my mind is geared toward avoid too much “grey space,” namely, pure text. I think including images to break up the text is just more attractive.
Matt makes a good point about how scanning art can be time-consuming, but I’ve found that 19 times out of 20, I can find scans of interior art elsewhere online. Relying on already existing scans limits one’s ability to choose artwork that drives home a point, and sometimes, the preview scans provided by publishers don’t always reflect the final product (due to changes in coloring or lettering).
August 12th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Prem — you make some good points. Certainly, including a page from say “Poison River” could help when talking about the sort of jump cuts Gilbert Hernandez uses in his comics.
I wonder what someone like Robert Hughes, who writes about art for a living, would have to say on the matter?
Warren — I could have sworn that you voiced an opinion on this matter at some point recently, either in an interview or on The Engine. Having spent the better part of an hour tyring to locate said evidence, however, I have to conceed that I either had you confused with someone else, or dreamed the entire thing. I have since taken that phrase out of the review and offer my sincerest apologies. Mea culpa.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Where are the pictures???
August 13th, 2007 at 2:17 am
It’s quite posible to write comics reviews without pictures, and many reviewers do so well.
But we are in an unusually fortunate position among commentators on the visual arts in that we can provide meaningful examples of the work under review. A painting or sculpture is diminished by reproduction: a comic book is designed for it. Movie clips cannot be included in a newspaper or magazine, and even those on TV film review programmes are clips chosen by the studio, not by the reviewer, so may not illustrate the argument the reviewer would make, if left to his or her choice. But we can scan the panel sequences that best make our point. It would be a pity not to use this advantage.
Example: I wanted to contrast the way in which Andi Watson drew his own backgrounds in “Glister” with the way in which Josh Howard drew them to Watson’s script in “Clubbing”. I don’t think that I could have written anything that woud have been more effective than posting relevant panels from each. But then again, I don’t have that much faith in my ability to write descriptive prose.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I include art as often as possible, usually a specific sample of art I use to to discuss some formal or stylistic element of the comic that I wish to focus on.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
I’m a visual guy, so I need reviews with sample art (if I’m unfamiliar with the artist) to be enticed to remember the book the next time I’m at the shop.
It’s really hard for me to read a well-written book with bad art, it’s like having a hack film director.
I like my movie reviews with pics and my music reviews with clips as well. I want to hear and see the product for myself before I drop some cash.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Hey Chris,
You posed a great question whose answer I heard dissected during a panel about the comix blogosphere at last year’s SPX. For me, it’s one that has a very simple answer. Ideally, the words and image in a blog or a review posting re-enforce each other… kinda like the words and pictures in a comic book.
When I see comic blogs without images, I assume:
1. No images can be found (that’s a hard one for me to swallow).
2. The poster doesn’t have the technical expertise to post images (if my pal Eddie Campbell can learn how to do it, ANYBODY CAN!).
3. The poster believes his or her words and opinions are so important, that including an image of a book, character or creator would be distracting to the reader (coming from the print world that’s just plain wrong).
4. Laziness (see below).
It’s very wrong for me to assume everybody who reads my blogs, for example, knows who J.H. Williams III — much less Grant Morrison — is and what makes him and his art so special. However, including a cover or panel from Batman #667, particularly for newbies, along with links, may help them get up to speed. That is, if you want your writing to be read by a larger audience beyond fanboys/girls, or you’re trying to convince folks like Benjamin that what book we’re describing is worth their time and money to read.
When it comes to comics, for me, words alone just don’t cut it.
Thanks for allowing me to vent on this…
W
August 14th, 2007 at 3:24 am
My basic criticism is that I don’t like most of the critics you picked, the exception being Dave Campbell. Also I consider Heidi to more of a news reporter.
Posting samples of art while not strictly necessary is most helpful for illustrating a critic’s analysis and argument. If they say that the art has a poor sense of anatomy or perspective or has poor panel transitions, well actually showing evidence is a huge help. Further scanners and editing programs like Photoshop elements aren’t that expensive.
If Chris Sims can do it and the Mikester at Progressive Ruin can do it, then others can quit being lazy and do it too. I think Ms. Carlson’s defense of not using art is particularly poor.
August 16th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Back in olden days (mid-90s) I wrote reviews that I simulposted to rec.arts.comics.* (text only) and to my web site (which allowed embedded images {gasp}). So I did my best to make the text stand on its own, describing what I dis/liked the art as well as I could without showing an example. But the “complete” version quickly became the one on the web site, which included the series logo or book cover (for product identification purposes), and sample images from the book to better illustrate what I was talking about. (BTW, the former is an example of trademark fair-use, the latter an example of copyright fair-use.) In those days including images actually was a challenge, since I didn’t have access to a color scanner at first, and certainly no Google image search at my disposal. I did it regardless.
On TV, Ebert-substitute and Roeper show you clips from the movies they’re reviewing because A) they can, and B) it helps illustrate their points. Both Roeper and Ebert write prose-only reviews that are helpful as well. But I admit that I prefer the TV show, because it’s closer to the experience of the medium they’re reviewing.
So I’d argue that you can do comics reviews without examples, and some people do them quite well. But all else being equal (i.e. intelligent, well-written commentary), I think a review with samples is better than one without.