not the case in dash shaw’s panels. since the action is made explicit through the written word, the drawings become free to take on their own meaning. now that the words “tell” what the action is, the drawing is freed of those responsibilities. it can exist on its own.

It’s a different mode of textual use than what I’m talking about, though. Bechdel’s is still part of the narration by a character (herself). Shaw’s uses in the images, stands, in a way, outside any narration by a character/narrator. (Though I guess in another sense it is part of the author’s narration.)

I understand where the showing and the character empathy work in, but that’s not always the goal of any narrative. You use different tactics in different contexts. (That’s what my original post is about, too: options.)

I do agree it’s a matter of aesthetic preferences. I’m not against the conventional empathetic, etc, etc type of narrative, but I don’t want it to be the only option, the only considered option (which I know you are not saying). I’ve got more to say on the weight of word versus images in comics (for another day/post).

I’m not clear why anything I’ve mentioned necessarily leads to “self-reflective, ironic” work. Text couldn’t be used in this way without causing irony?

Comics are, in many ways, subsidiaries of verbal texts, most narrative is. I don’t think we have to choose between comics as verbal texts and comics as visual texts. They can be both, thankfully.

Kirby could draw some breathtaking views, but I still find it very difficult to actually read his comics. It would almost have been better if he weren’t using stories at all, just making images all thrown together.

Ultimately, though, I think this is a case of aesthetic preferences, and relative weight we give to words versus images in comics. I can easily imagine–and imagine liking–a Tristram Shandy-esque constantly self-reflective, ironic comic, in which words could be put to good use to convey those upper levels of self-reflection and irony. Wake me up when something like this actually appears. In the meantime, my own preference is for comics as a visual artform, not a subsidiary of verbal texts, so I’ll just keep on reading Kirby (to whose work I seem to be addicted these days). Now there’s a guy who was able to render a breathtaking view with no problem.

I think this use of text is a tough sell for a lot of people. It goes against the idea of the art doing all the visual work, or being representational and sufficient for visual aspects of the story. As much as people talk about words and images working together in comics, most uses of words fail into a very narrow range (sound (effects, speech, narration) or writing (written narration, signs, letters)).

I’ve pondered it, but I have trouble with thinking about using text labels in my own comics. I can’t seem to make that mental leap between “effective shorthand” and “just cheating”