Skip to main content

Octopus Pie Issue 1 (5 Points)

 This comic grew on me. At first, it felt very edgy for edgy's sake. Crude jokes and nasty language was used left and right, and it felt like it was just trying to appeal to a younger audience's shock factor appeal. However, as I learned more about the characters and read more of the comic, the story felt like it was evening out. The jokes felt less crude because it became more about the story rather than about trying to appeal to some certain audience from the get-go. I also was not sure how to feel about the art style at first, but that grew on me as well as I kept reading. The shaped are very simple and really reflect the characters, and the designs of the characters are simple but appealing. The diversity in cast and body types is refreshing after having spent the semester reading comics where there is not much of that. I would say the biggest off-putting this about this comic is how it feels like it does not try to take a stance. It shows the ridiculous in things like veganism and smoking weed, but then it also shows characters that are both this and appealing. It becomes confusing to me on the stance of the creator on these things. It seems to me like it is a wishy-washy approach that wants to hate on these things because that stance follows the crowd, but immediately disproves this stance because, hey! the people that are/ do these things aren't actually that bad. Overall, I think the comic is enjoyable after the first couple chapters.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The History of Comics: The Loss of Ownership (3 Points)

 One trend that I felt was interesting, albeit upsetting, was that with the incentive of making money by creating comics, the lines of ownership of the artist's creation seem to blur. Of course, other factors lead to the uncertainty of giving credit where credit is due, such as having multiple people working towards one comic. However, I feel that when comics became more mainstream, companies valued the income that comics made over the treatment of the artist that created them. In particular, on pages 109 and 110 of The Comic Book History of Comics that Marvel allowed for the continuation of Stan Lee as the sole credit of their comics for quite some time, leaving artists like Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby unhappy with their lack of recognition. Marvel (and Stan Lee) made profit off of Stan Lee's rise to fame, practically letting people believe he was a genius for creating such works by himself. In actuality, talented artists were drawing and plotting the comics while Stan sometime...
Post a Comment
Read more

My Favorite Thing is Monsters (6 Points)

For the week that we read these, we were asked to discuss whether the comics we read should be considered literary or not. My first reaction was to break down what made something 'literary'. I was inclined to say that as long as something had words and was telling a story with some amount of depth, then that was what I considered literary. However, I realized while talking with team members about this question that I had a new consideration of literary comics. I like to think of comics the same way I think about art, and that is that anything can be art. I do not think that we have to tie down the constraints of what is and is not literary because that can put writers who just want to create into a bubble. Whether I used my old definition or my new definition, I think My Favorite Thing is Monsters is definitely a literary comic. It masterfully uses its media to tell a fantastic and relatable story. Everything about the comic felt real and was very engaging, the art felt in sync...
Post a Comment
Read more

Eisner Novel: A Contract with God (3 Points)

 This graphic novel was a tough read for me since it brought up some pretty touchy subjects. I think that Eisner dives into some sensitive subject because it was unique from the comparably 'safe' comics that others were producing. In the first part, it deals with a man who has been told all his life that God will favor him, but God betrays his trust when he takes away the life of his adopted daughter. Initially, I thought this story might have been a criticism of God and how people use him, but it seemed to make it more about making a victim of childhood lies into a bad guy and killing him off. I felt that this story was more about the unfairness surrounding the 'truths' he was told in his childhood. He was told all of his childhood life that because he did good things and helped people, God would help him and be there for him. Yet, when he needs God, his daughter dies, and understandably, he gets upset. It is upsetting that the comic makes such a bad thing out of going...
Post a Comment
Read more