Home Columns Kibbles 'n' Bits Kibbles 'n' Bits — 11/2/10

Kibbles 'n' Bits — 11/2/10


§ It’s WEBCOMICS WEEK at Whitechapel, Warren Ellis’s message board, in which sometimes folks post links to their webcomics. Dear god, there are a lot of webcomics, and we have not time to read them all, but we did learn that Tom Scioli has a webcomic called AMERICAN BARBARIAN which we somehow missed before, which is horrible for us.

§ Speaking of Ellis, here’s an older list of 10 of his lesser-known comics which are well worth seeking out.

§ There used to be way more underdressed men in comics, and now they wear clothes. How sad.

§ David Brothers parses the words of Misty Knight and Luke Cage and finds one acceptable and one wanting.

§ With the success of The Walking Dead, it’s definitely time to look back on Robert Kirkman’s creator-owned manifesto.

§ Sean T. Collins has moved his blog to its own URL! Welcome seantcollins.com.

§ I think I forgot to link to Frank Santoro’s essay on the 9-panel grid.:

Adapting to changing layouts can be as tiresome as a fixed grid that goes on for pages and pages. A 6-panel grid that is “fixed” for the entirety of the story may be boring but it has the natural rhythm of two squares in tension (see this post for “two squares in tension” riff) . The nine-panel grid’s checkerboard look can be suffocating because it allows for more text and details. There are more panels but also the panels are tall – which accommodate word balloons at the top very well (see Ditko scans below). Yet in Watchmen, Gibbons does a great job of keeping it interesting. He balances the details with wider views but always manages to stay “on the grid”. There are lots of double page spreads with 9 panel grids on each side – but there are also lots of spreads with pages that have wide full tier cinemascope panels.

§ I know it’s pretty much been decided that Noah Berlatsky is a troll, and I shouldn’t fall for his attention bait, but this was still pretty funny:

As someone who appreciates your voice despite disagreeing with at least half your opinions, who delights in the fact that you’re the kind of guy who would try to skewer Watterson for nostalgia despite my love for Calvin and Hobbes, who thinks there probably is an important discussion to be had about the portrayal of women in Gilbert Hernandez comics, I feel compelled to say that lines like this:

“I haven’t actually read Poison River, but other pages Charles reproduces, and the bits I’ve seen of Hernandez’s other work (I believe I read Heartbreak Soup once upon a time)”

make you sound like a goddamn fool.

  1. All right, I shouldn’t take the bait, but what the hell.

    First of all, the quote about me you reprint is by Jason Michelitch, who is a smart guy and a funny writer, and deserves to get credit for his work, even if it’s just a comment.

    Second of all, HU has over the past month moved towards becoming something between a group blog and an online magazine. We’ve added columnists and features. This past month Derik Badman translated an extensive work of criticism by the important French cartoonist Fabrice Neaud. Andrei Molotiu reprinted a long article about comics in a gallery context. Jones (one of the Jones Boys) had a pretty great essay about visual aliens. And I’ve been working on a long series about Moto Hagio which is probably the most extensive discussion of her work in English on the interwebs.

    As you probably are aware, you’ve linked to none of these. Instead, you choose to wait until there are fisticuffs, and then blame me for being a troll.

    You’re of course welcome to link to whatever you want. But if you can’t find substantial content on HU, I suspect it’s because you aren’t looking for it. And I further submit that you’re not looking for it because you’re not in the business of looking for it. You’re in the business of chasing ambulances.

    Which again, is your prerogative, and if you can make a living at it more power to you. Thanks for the link, Heidi. Take care.

  2. Noah, to be frank, your nonsense is the face of H.U., for better or for worse. I know you will return with a long list of contributors and commenters who get a lot out of H.U., your nonsense notwithstanding, but a guy who made his bones with pieces like “In the Shadow of No Talent” reaps what he sows. It’d be one thing if you’d moved away from the reflexive iconoclasm, but that kind of bomb-throwing is still very much a part of your repertoire and that of H.U. generally, and when you couple it with soft-target statements of the “I haven’t read the comic, but…” variety, you’re gonna get bombs lobbed back at you. It’s really not that hard to figure out.

Exit mobile version