Robbi and I are often left wondering what we are. In terms of genre definition, that is. In spite of popular misconception, we’re not making books for children (most of the time, at least) in spite of the fact that all of our books have pictures and words. We’re not exactly literature (which seldom contains pictures), in spite of hoping that our work is thought of as literary, and we’re not purely art (which seldom contains words), in spite of hoping that people will consider our work “artistic.” One thing we’re fairly sure of is that we’re not making comics, which according to celebrated comic arts theorist Scott McCloud, is defined as “juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence, intended to convey information and/or to produce an aesthetic response in the viewer.” Or, perhaps by that definition, we are making comics.
Nevertheless, we woke this morning to find our work reviewed on ComixTalk, a website that “provides news and in-depth feature articles on comics in the digital age.”
The author of the post (a smart, perceptive guy with keen insights and fantastic taste) is quick to agree that none of our work “can be described unambiguously as comics.” But, I suppose, our relentless combination of pictures and words is enough to justify our inclusion in a forum where comics are discussed. We are honored to be included.
It’s an interesting read if you have the time and inclination. Robbi and I understand ourselves just a bit more than we did yesterday.
