Depending on what generation you grew up in, the word "nerd" (or "dork") is either a slander or a quirky compliment. Somewhere between Baby Boomers and Millennials we became lost in translation as to exactly what "nerdom" means and how you obtain it. When did the term "Nerd" become cool? And if someone refers to themselves as a nerd how can you be sure they're not lying about the stack of comics and manga under their bed?
Q: Does a 'nerd' have to have comics and where glasses? Or could they just be truly devoted to acquiring an education and good grades? Perhaps you could explore varying degrees of "nerdom"through your writing or perhaps you could explore multiple definitions. – melpetrinack8 years ago
In the GenX day we used nerd as an insult and most of us went through a nerdy phase. But now it is kind of a compliment and I have noticed that the teenagers of today don't seem to be going through the ugly duckling phase. Lucky!! Also even if someone does look nerdy it is more like geek chic. – Munjeera8 years ago
Most nerd culture has become mainstream these days, and I think in general people don't tend to be made fun of anymore for things like watching anime or Game of Thrones or playing Pokemon or Dungeons and Dragons. As a group, the millennial generation seems to have realized that some of these things that have been labelled as "nerdy" are actually lot of fun for the average person. – darapoizner8 years ago
In addition to darapoizner's point that a lot of things that were considered 'nerdy' are really fun, I think the word 'nerd' has come to be viewed as less of an insult, and more as a recognition of knowledge. Nerds get really involved in the things they like, so they end up amassing tons of information about that specific interest. Now when someone refers to someone else, or increasingly commonly themself, as a nerd, it's a way of telling you that they're an expert, but it sounds less self-aggrandizing than straight out calling themselves an expert. – chrischan8 years ago
Watterson's strategic use of nomenclature when it came to naming his famous comic (and its two central characters) is well known, as its evocation of two historically significant philosophers guides the reader to look beyond the comic's perceived childishness to discover deep-seated philosophical themes. However, might there be a special reasoning as to why he chose these two specific thinkers? Does the character of Calvin in any way represent post-Lutheran Christian reformational dogmatism? Does Hobbes illustrate the necessity of Social Contract theory to maintain civilized order in light of mankind's inherently brutish nature? In what ways might these philosophical outlooks be reflected in the young boy's imaginative adventures with his stuffed tiger?
This is a great topic and you have raised so many excellent points here to discuss for a true CH fan. I would look forward to reading this article. – Munjeera8 years ago
This would be cool to read. I once wrote an exegesis of Green Eggs and Ham for a hoot. This would be fun too. – LisaDee8 years ago
My daughter just told me that Calvin once told Hobbes he was trying to trick Santa by writing a letter claiming to be Calvin's nicer brother, Melville. Hmm... – Tigey8 years ago
Superhero comics are inherently archetypal, so what conclusions can we draw from superhero references in Hip Hop? MF DOOM styles himself as a supervillain, borrowing his persona from the Fantastic Four's Archnemesis, Viktor Von Doom. He creates narratives for DOOM by splicing together soundbites from classic children's shows, especially superhero cartoons. Several members of the Wu-Tang Clan borrow from superheros instead. Ghostface Killah (who has long associated himself with Iron Man/Tony Stark) recently released "36 Seasons" a hip-hopera about a vigilante anti-hero who battles crooked cops in New York. Wu-Tang member Inspectah Deck teamed up with 7L & Esoteric to form the supergroup CZARFACE, performing music about a hero of the same name. CZARFACE uses narrative sequences reminiscent of DOOM, but with original material instead of repurposed voice-overs. All three groups discuss similar topics, so why would DOOM choose to embody a villain and Ghostface and CZARFACE embody the hero (especially when the latter two also discuss themselves in terms of being villains as well?
I'm fairly new to the world of comic books, and I'm really curious in the effect of distinguishing between graphic novels and comics. I have heard the suggestion that graphic novel is a gentrifying term that prioritizes one type of expression over another. Art Spiegelman, for one, dislikes the term graphic novel.
I'm wondering what people more knowledgeable than I am on this topic think about this suggestion.
Normally "graphic novels" nowadays are a series of comic books all in one that come out after the first part of a series has finished. So, Deadpool 1-9 would all be together in one huge comic book (hints, also, why they are 30-40$). Rather than buying the separate issues 1-9 for 3$ or so. I don't know if that is a millennial thing that changed it and made it like this. But, I mostly would buy it for that reason. A graphic novel could also be a longer version of a comic book as well, more novel formation rather also. But, I'm not sure what other people think about the topic. I know that comic books more so have issues that come out weekly or monthly. But the art style I assume is also different and etc., which can be explored upon as well. – scole8 years ago
I think graphic novel as a term also refers to the length as well as the binding of the book itself. Comic books have a kind of lighter and more fragile binding, and are more cheaply made which is how the cost can be as low as it is to sell them. Graphic novels are longer and are usually bound with a paperback or hard back cover in some cases. I think the Westernization of graphic novels is in some part of the influence of manga translations over to the Western world. Just my opinion though. – Nayr12308 years ago
A graphic novel may well have a beginning, middle, and end, just as most novels do. It is likely to have narrative completion. Comic books are more likely to have an open ended narrative when you take them as a whole. That is, they do not necessarily constitute a completed whole. It's not just a matter of which is longer (graphic novel versus a comic book or a series of comic books) or that X number of comic books might go together to make a novel. A series of comic books (about a given superhero, for example) could conceivably go on forever. The series may well end not because the hero's story is "finished," but because the artist died, the publisher dropped the series, or the public tired of that hero. – JWHorton8 years ago
The way I understand it graphic novels are comic narratives that reveal everything from the characters to the message of the story, while comic books use episodic segments to get their point across. – RadosianStar8 years ago
Could one of Marvel's most beloved heroes really have been a Nazi all along? Is this just bad writing, a thinly disguised action of antisemitism, or a calculated business move to pull attention away from DC's Rebirth? What does this mean for the future of both Captain America and Marvel itself? With so many people outraged, is it a move they can truly recover from?
This is a fantastic topic! I think it would be really important to cover all that Captain America has done so far as well, and consider how his actions could have benefited the organization he now 'works for'. I can't wait to read this! – LilyaRider8 years ago
Great topic! When covering this hot topic, don't forget to mention the circumstances within the comic itself, in addition to the business end of things, as well as the history of comic books introducing major storylines only for temporary effect [remember the death of (insert character here)]. Good luck taking on this topic! – Dominique Kollie8 years ago
While there are an ever-increasing amount of female readers/fans in the world of comics and superheroes, there also seems to be a never-ending supply of chauvinist fans who respond to titles such as Ms. Marvel or Batgirl with hostility, often using such charming phrases as "what is this feminist bullshit?" to describe their feelings. In a medium already hyper masculinized what does this behaviour suggest about comics fandom and its audience? Maybe also mention attitude toward female cosplayers, creators, and characters.
With the release of DC Rebirth, it is worth pondering if comic books have become too focused on "shattering the status quo." DC held off decades before finally relaunching their universe with the New 52, but it seems that these relaunches are about to become more common. The question is: do we need, or even want, them? Resetting continuity after just a few years prevents strong world-building and characterization to happen. It also makes it difficult to hold a strong emotional attachment to comic book characters if we know that they will soon be "reset" every so often. While there was certainly backlash to the New 52, will comic book companies simply press the restart button every time they tell a story that some people dislike? And how will this affect comic book storytelling?
It would be nice to talk about the fact that DC is playing catch up with Marvel. – Andrestrada8 years ago
I think another thing to consider is whether or not "shock value" is a factor in the constant relaunching. For instance, one of the new "canons" within this rebirth is having 3 Jokers (as if one wasn't enough). Also, as Andrestrada mentioned above with playing catch up with Marvel, within the same week of DC's rebirth Marvel announced that Captain America was really Hydra all along and caused nothing but outrage from both DC and Marvel fans. – Mela8 years ago
Also note that this is NOT a new or recent phenomenon. DC has been doing things like this, to my understanding, as far back as the silver age. New versions of the Green Latern, the Flash most notably made their debut in the silver age, along with the Justice League. Then there were Crisis on Infinite Earths and so on. For Captain America, I know that Stan Lee had retconned all of the Cap stories post WWII until he brought him back in the 60s by saying her had been frozen all of this time. In the highly noted Brubaker run of Cap, there would be even more retcons, stating that the 50s Cap and Bucky were in fact other people, and that he never became Nomad; that was another guy, who became a small part of his story. And even THAT was retconned recently (I believe by Nick Spencer) who made reference to Steve Rogers being Nomad. So, really the nottion that would have to be put across is the idea of "selective continuity"-- that both writers and fans pick and choose what they want to be part of the mythos. If there was a small event or something that happened 30 years ago that nobody remembers but say the writer, it is up to him whether he wants to use it or not. – Baenacci8 years ago
The implications of the Watchmen being brought into line with the rest of the DC Universe are staggering. The possibility that the entire New 52, and perhaps beyond, are a creation of Dr. Manhattan allows for the retelling of origin stories that could alter the arcs of long time favorites. This could give DC a chance to clean up their often problematic continuity problems. I am reminded of the Star Trek reboot that kept the integrity of the characters intact while allowing for a totally new history to be created.
– Inverkeithing8 years ago
Stemming from this, I think an interesting question is why is continuity so important to the world of comic books. Why aren't there just a series of individual, stand alone series? Why does everything have to neatly mesh? Rebirth was, according Geoff Johns, a way to regain the love and history that was lost during the New 52, and was a measure to reconnect to fans. But why do comic book fans (myself included) care so much about the personal and past histories of superheroes? Continuity, at times, seems to take precedence over the characters themselves. – grabergc8 years ago
To be honest, considering DC Rebirth a relaunch is not completely fair, it still stems off of the New 52 and most of the New 52 is still cannon. What it does is connected the New 52 with the old continuity. Putting things right that seemed to be out of continuity. Granted, some things are retconned, but many aspects of New 52 is still there, as well as bringing back the what was good about the old continuity. As a final note, these "relaunches" from the Big 2 are not all entirely bad, as they allow a new wave of readers to come in with a starting point that is an issue #1, instead of issue #546. – Elijah8 years ago
Punisher. Deadpool. Vs. Batman, Spiderman and so many others. Growing up, I read about superheroes like Captain America who fought with their fists. Of course, a cool superpower like throwing fireballs, e.g. Human Torch is even better. But then there is a rise of characters that use guns. Should comic heroes use guns? To me it doesn't seem to fit. What makes someone who shoots a gun special? But they are undeniably popular. What does that say about our view of superhero comic characters?
Given today's battle for gun rights this topic is very timely and fits in well with the discourse in the media. – Munjeera8 years ago
I'm not terribly familiar, but it seems that comic heroes that use guns usually have a military background or some other specialized training with arms. That might feed into peoples belief that having guns can keep them safe, because if you give a comic character a gun, all of a sudden they've got superpowers of a kind. – chrischan8 years ago
It also seems that superheroes that use guns are the anti-hero and not the hero like Captain America. Deadpool is considered a hero / anti-hero for the most part, as well as, Punisher at times and etc., so maybe that is something to think about also when writing this! – scole8 years ago
