|
Post by impulse on Oct 20, 2021 10:09:13 GMT -5
Who are you to say how seriously people should take them? Comics are as legitimate a storytelling medium as any other and can be used to tell any kind of story. Are we not supposed to take Maus seriously? Interesting point; it is clear numerous writers and artists were creating serious content intended to resonate with readers in some relatable, realistic manner, despite the superhero or format trappings. The medium was never meant to be a catch-all of content to be considered the same way across the board. That Spider-Ham existed at the same time as The Savage Sword of Conan did not mean their creative / perception lines were blurred under the banner of comic books, etc. Which is why trying to read derision or contempt into the use of a generic term for them based on how the format originated ("the funnies" pages into the funny books when you compile a bunch into a single volume with multiple pages) makes about as much sense as getting mad at someone calling any tissue a Kleenex, a copying machine a Xerox machine, a large metal trash bin a dumpster, etc. Is it hard to stay awake for this discussion? Better pour some hot coffee out of your Thermos. I mean, out of your insulated round metal liquid container with a spout. Hot day? Ok, have a frozen sweetened tube of water on a stick. I mean a Popsicle. Etymology and the weird and inconsistent way plain language evolves can be an interesting topic on its own, but getting mad about it seems a waste of energy to me.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Oct 20, 2021 10:28:08 GMT -5
My parents still call them funnybooks. I never have, but have never, ever taken offense to it. I have always called them comics or comic books.
In my home, the comics section in the newspaper was referred to as "the funny paper" or "the funnies", which is not entirely accurate, either.
For all of these terms, their history dates back to the very earliest examples of comics themselves, and the fact that they were essentially reprints of "the funnies". I liken it to how we, in America, refer to facial tissues as "Kleenex" regardless of the manufacturer.
I LOVE comics, and have my entire (53 year) life. I've been reading them since I was 4, and collecting them since I was 9. I have never given a second thought as to what to call them. I find myself in a moment of self-loathing when I use the pretentious term of "graphic novel" when referring to TPB collections of comics. I believe it is an actual art-form, capable of great heights, but it's also a disposable form of popular entertainment. Either way, I could never get offended by what people call them. I really don't care. I mostly feel sorry for people who are derisive of them because they can't connect with them.
My particular sweet spot for comics is Marvel and DC Bronze age stuff. I have to be honest with myself and admit I am hooked on reading disposable pop entertainment intended for a 12-16 year old audience. How can I take offense if someone calls it a "funnybook"?
It reminds me of when I was a kid and boys took great offense to their "action figures" being called "dolls". It doesn't change what they are. Or what they are TO ME.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,740
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 20, 2021 10:33:48 GMT -5
Doesn't comic mean "funny" anyway? That "funny book" is considered insulting but "comic" or "comic book" is not really doesn't make much sense. Both names exist because of how the medium began. I prefer Eisner's label of "Sequential Art," but that doesn't quite roll off the tongue as casually.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Oct 20, 2021 10:35:45 GMT -5
I think it's because it's usually used in a demeaning way -- "Quit wastin' yer time with them funnybooks!" - that it might be irksome to some.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Oct 20, 2021 10:55:12 GMT -5
One of my most important sources for my work is Michael Barrier's book on Dell comics of the '40s and '50s. Barrier is a serious historian of the medium, yet had no qualms about titling his magnum opus "Funnybooks." If the term is good enough for him, it's good enough for me.
Cei-U! I summon the non-pejorative terminology!
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 20, 2021 10:56:50 GMT -5
In my home, the comics section in the newspaper was referred to as "the funny paper" or "the funnies", which is not entirely accurate, either. Speaking of funny papers...
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 20, 2021 10:57:42 GMT -5
One of my most important sources for my work is Michael Barrier's book on Dell comics of the '40s and '50s. Barrier is a serious historian of the medium, yet had no qualms about titling his magnum opus "Funnybooks." If the term is good enough for him, it's good enough for me. Cei-U! I summon the non-pejorative terminology! Reclaiming the word funnybooks, one nerd at a time.
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Oct 20, 2021 11:10:20 GMT -5
99% of the time, I use the term "comic books" when I refer to my hobby in conversation with someone else, as that has been a traditional term for bound sequential art/stories. However, I sometimes use the term "funnybooks" in jest, in reference to how people of my parents' generation often referred to them (my parents were born in the 1930's). I've never taken offense to the term, as I find it socially interchangeable as a term that non-collectors and infrequent readers often use to refer to said bound printed matter.
For example, sometimes I will call my son (who is an avid gold/silver age collector) and I'll say something like: "Didya buy ya some dang ol' funnybooks today?" Usually, I'll use a fake old codger voice somewhat akin to Grandpa Simpson or Gabby Hayes when I do this. It's done purely in jest, I know it , my son knows it, and we both have a little lighthearted chuckle before he tells me of his latest finds.
This is a hobby, and it should be fun, not stressful. I am not easily offended by much of anything. I find the term "funnybooks" no more offensive than if someone were to refer to my vinyl album collection as "a bunch of records", or my DVD/Blu-Ray collections as "videos" or "movies" or even "videotapes".
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Oct 20, 2021 11:54:44 GMT -5
Ahhhh, why not refer to 'em as what they eventually become: toilet paper or bird cage lining or fire starters.
It shouldn't matter how anyone refers to my or their hobbies. All that really matters is you enjoy them. I really don't care what others think or call my comic book reading habit. I grew up hearing my mother degrade and put me and my comics down as juvenile, dumb, stupid and worthless. I never let that stop me from continuing to buy or read comics.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Oct 20, 2021 12:06:38 GMT -5
I just figured I saw funny books being used because all ya'll are old And as the third-fourth (I think) youngest poster here I can say that ;-)
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Oct 20, 2021 12:09:15 GMT -5
I just figured I saw funny books being used because all ya'll are old And as the third-fourth (I think) youngest poster here I can say that ;-)
Well, you do look young in your avatar...
|
|
|
Post by The Cheat on Oct 20, 2021 13:00:14 GMT -5
The cover of Amazing Spider-Man #1 isnt that good: If not for the logo, this looks more like an issue of the Fantastic Four (with them cornering him), and showing the hero in peril on the cover of the very first issue isnt a very good look (and yeah, I know the use of the FF was likely to attract customers). The very first time I saw that cover I thought Spidey had gotten himself stuck in the revolving doors at the front of the Baxter Building. What a clutz. Have never been able to shake that initial impression.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 20, 2021 13:16:42 GMT -5
The cover of Amazing Spider-Man #1 isnt that good: If not for the logo, this looks more like an issue of the Fantastic Four (with them cornering him), and showing the hero in peril on the cover of the very first issue isnt a very good look (and yeah, I know the use of the FF was likely to attract customers). The very first time I saw that cover I thought Spidey had gotten himself stuck in the revolving doors at the front of the Baxter Building. What a clutz. Have never been able to shake that initial impression. Thanks. I'm never going to be able to unsee that now.
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Oct 20, 2021 14:09:41 GMT -5
The cover of Amazing Spider-Man #1 isnt that good: If not for the logo, this looks more like an issue of the Fantastic Four (with them cornering him), and showing the hero in peril on the cover of the very first issue isnt a very good look (and yeah, I know the use of the FF was likely to attract customers). The very first time I saw that cover I thought Spidey had gotten himself stuck in the revolving doors at the front of the Baxter Building. What a clutz. Have never been able to shake that initial impression. I see what you mean. I also just noticed how much The Thing looks like the "U Mad Bro?" troll.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Oct 20, 2021 15:48:24 GMT -5
The very first time I saw that cover I thought Spidey had gotten himself stuck in the revolving doors at the front of the Baxter Building. What a clutz. Have never been able to shake that initial impression. Ha, ha! The thought of a mortified Spidey stuck to the glass, going around and around, is hilarious. Now I have a new, and greater, appreciation for that cover.
|
|