/co/, I wrote a thing about how to talk about comics. Since

Your list of creators is nice but haphazard. It sounds like you wrote them down as you remembered them instead of organizing them by say, genre or era.

>>93050746
Probably too focused on the graphic novel thing. I get it because the term bugs me too but it's not like someone who needs a primer on what a panel is will care about that.

>>93050746
>The characters remain UNAWARE of my scrutiny.
Wow, Captain Atom is a fucking casual who doesn't even read the comic he's holding in his hands.

>>93050900
It also leans a bit too modern. Eisner is probably the most glaring omission

>>93051034
maybe he just hasn't gotten to the end

>>93050900
that is intentional, I didn't want to color opinions even by genre or time period.

>>93051192
that is something I noticed as I was finishing, and I went back and added O'Neil and Kirby, but I wasn't trying to be comprehensive and was basically just listing creators I had on my shelf with a high good:shit output ratio. not having Eisner on my shelf is one of my great shames, though

>>93050746
Nice little blogpost. I gave you a like.

File: hubba bubba show me the dubba.jpg (100KB, 477x640px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 477x640px

>>93051685
thanks friend

File: 33892d12d4a6682cc6eedc830ca396ed.jpg (1MB, 1390x987px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1390x987px

>>93050746
I don't think your section on paneling gives enough weight to its importance. You expand a lot on coloring but paneling is just as important, if not more so.

>>93051848
I'd probably do a whole post only about paneling rather than try and go in-depth with it in a "comics for idiots" thing.

also what's that from

>>93051956
It's just an experimental paneling piece by Steranko. He wanted to make it so it could be read in any direction

>>93052048
neat