Writing About Comics

This semester we've been talking and writing a lot about talking and writing about comics, so by now, I feel like this question should be easier to answer: How do you write about comics? We've talked enough about the difference between comics and other media that I feel like I should have a good ready answer for that, but I haven't.

For instance, here's a page of Marvel's new comic book adaptation of Pride and Prejudice:

Pride and Prejudice: (Click to enlarge.)

And then (part of) the same passage in Austen's novel:

Mr. Bingley was good-looking and gentlemanlike; he had a pleasant countenance, and easy, unaffected manners. His sisters were fine women, with an air of decided fashion. His brother-in-law, Mr. Hurst, merely looked the gentleman; but his friend Mr. Darcy soon drew the attention of the room by his fine, tall person, handsome features, noble mien, and the report which was in general circulation within five minutes after his entrance, of his having ten thousand a year. The gentlemen pronounced him to be a fine figure of a man, the ladies declared he was much handsomer than Mr. Bingley, and he was looked at with great admiration for about half the evening, till his manners gave a disgust which turned the tide of his popularity; for he was discovered to be proud; to be above his company, and above being pleased; and not all his large estate in Derbyshire could then save him from having a most forbidding, disagreeable countenance, and being unworthy to be compared with his friend.

In the novel, all attention must be paid to the text, but in the comic book, the art adds a whole new level to which attention must be paid. (I've said "attention must be paid" twice in one sentence. I feel like Willie Loman's wife.) But how much attention? What should the focus be? Should it be analyzed more like art or film? Is the size/layout of panels more compositional or temporal? McCloud seems to suggest the latter, but all art courses would suggest the former.

I wish I had good answers for these questions, but it occurred to me today that while I can analyze comic books, thanks to this course, and have a lot more to say about them, trying to write about them in a less academic setting poses an interesting problem. For instance, there's no issue calling the writing of a comic poor if it is indeed poor, but there seems to be more trepidation about tearing down the art, trying to excuse sub-par artwork by focusing on the story, which seems detrimental to the medium, because isn't the art a lot of the point?

Liefeld Drew This.For instance, I find Rob Liefeld's artwork kind of underwhelming, but how much do I let that influence my take on the comic? Do I excuse this, saying that I believe the story to be most important? Or, what if, in the case of the Doctor Mid-Nite written by Matt Wagner and painted by John K Snyder III, I find the writing only moderately strong, but the artwork amazing?

I guess what I'm thinking of here is mainly comic book criticism, stemming from a review written earlier (by me) on a comic book. While I was writing it, I was trying to feel out these questions and ultimately chose not to mention the art, for the sake of brevity and discussion of the writing. Having done that, though, I wonder how much of the comic I'm neglecting, denying who reads the article any sort of insight into the book's artistic merit.

The method in which we talk or write about comics, therefore, has struck me as an interesting topic, especially since comics are the one medium that is essentially every other medium combined into one.

Note: I'm very, very sorry--I wrote the original version of this post last night, but when I clicked "Submit," Firefox crashed instead. I have attempted to recreate it--And apologize that it no longer meets the blog checkpoint.

Secondary Note: I have no idea why the images aren't working and am unsure how to fix this.