Tintin & Asterix - Trivia

I think even as I try to sound serious about comics, I shouldn’t desist from posting a bit of interesting observations. Even though in one of my earlier posts, I had said that Tintin and Asterix are as different as chalk and cheese in the sense that they don’t fall into the same genre in comics, I cannot help notice a lot of similarity between the main stars of both the comics. Maybe it’s because they are from the same backyard, or maybe it’s accidental, or maybe certain things inspire certain other things. But as the Boy Reporter appeared almost 30 years before the Gaul, I guess the onus is on the latter to vindicate his name that I am about to sully a bit.

Tintin & Asterix

All right, protagonists first! No comments on the funny nature of names. That happens with every single comic book hero. But couldn’t help notice the lack of height! Well yeah, Tintin is a boy (though he often gives the impression that he is at least a 20 year old). So he has to be short! But being the first kid on the block, he owes no one no explanation. But what about Asterix? Why does he have to be a midget? So that he’ll look cute? Or is it that before he debuted in the comic book he was part of a stock character team along with Obelix as shortso and fatso?

Haddock & Obelix

Both the protagonists got companions who are not as brilliant as them and are there mostly for comic relief! One drinks like a fish and one eats like a pig!

Snowy & Dogmatix

The dogs! The only difference here is that the latter belong to the sidekick. There is a huge mystery here. How did Dogmatix end up on Obelix’s lap instead of on Asterix’s lap, as is usually the case? I mean it’s the hero, who always has a dog, isn’t it? I mean the hero does all the adventuring, doesn’t he? I mean the hero deserves the dog, doesn’t he? So was it rather deliberate?

Calculus & Getafix

When you are in fix, get a fix! That’s what the Druid is for. Lack of technology meant that he had to fool around with potions and mistletoes. But his earlier Belgian counterpart, a certain Professor Calculus has the 20^th century at his disposal and dabbles in modern day inventions. Not as potent as the magic potion, nevertheless his inventions can take you all the way to the moon. Bottom line is, both are inventors in the their own right.

Castafiore & Cacofonix

Now it’s a mere question of gender! The ladyhood and 20^th century snobbery might have saved Madam Castafiore a lot of blushes, but for the poor old Cacofonix, it was tough life indeed. But then you can’t expect a bunch of bashing barbarians to have an ear for music, can you?

Apart from the main stars I can only think of one other character similarity off hand, but this one is even more striking.

Abdulla and Pepe

Aha! Both of them are spoiled brats and irritate the hell out of the readers themselves that you want to enter into the comic book just to spank the hell out them. But that’s beside the point. The point is that both of them are there for diplomatic reasons and their protection is top priority. Besides both look similar. Coincidence?

But well, even though one can point out all these similarities proudly like Thomson and Thompson, I am not going to argue that the creators of Asterix liberally helped themselves to the characters from Tintin except perhaps in the case of Pepe and to a certain extent in the case of Cacofonix. It was perhaps merely a question of creating a wide array of characters and besides in Asterix some of the stories revolve entirely around these characters, which is not the case with Tintin.

But then at the end of the day it is quite interesting to note these little similarities that add a lot of colour and breadth to the two great comic book series ever written!

Phantom & Batman

Phantom Vs Batman! Now if both the vigilantes were to lock cowls, who would win?

Oh, yes, it’s a silly question indeed. It would be the Dark Knight all the way! The Grey Ghost (or should we say, the Purple Ghost?) would be voted out by comic book lovers all across the world. Even critics, who usually bail out the underdogs, would swear by the Dark Knight. Indeed, an unfortunate state of affairs for the grand daddy of Masked Vigilantes and ‘underpants-over-the-pants’ crime fighters.

Reminds one of the Superman Vs Captain Marvel sales war way back in the 40s where the public chose the ‘Inspired’ over the Original forcing National (now DC) to sue Fawcett over intellectual property rights violation.

Just like it was plain and acknowledged that Captain Marvel was a verbatim copy of Superman, (so were all the subsequent super heroes) so was Batman a reinterpretation of The Phantom, though never really acknowledged.

Yes that is indeed a serious allegation, no doubt. But let me see if I can convince the jury. Here are the three key points of discussion.

1) Raison d'être – What made Christopher Standish (later Christopher Walker) to become the Phantom and what made Bruce Wayne to become the Batman were the gruesome killings of their parents. Coincidence?

2) Fear – Now this is the most telling aspect of the Phantom that was appropriated into the Batman character. One of the underlying Ideas in both the comics is the play on Fear and Superstitions. The very look of the Phantom is to induce fear among the criminals, an Idea that was liberally borrowed by Kane while creating the Batman. But neither Kane’s artwork nor the writers’ story telling ever managed to create that feeling on the pages of Batman comic. The only time I’ve seen this motif effectively captured was when Chris Nolan came out with the movie, Batman Begins.

3) The Territory – Even though the Phantom operates in the city occasionally on account of his numerous visits to meet Diana Palmer, his ladylove, Phantom’s territory is usually the Jungle. And so is Batman’s! Practically it may not be, for Gotham is a city with a Mayor and all that bureaucracy. But metaphorically even the Batman operates in the jungle. Unlike in Superman or Spiderman, the city plays a far more important role in Batman Comics. You don’t speak about Metropolis or (oops, I can’t even remember where Peter Parker lives!) in the same breath as you would speak of Gotham! Gotham plays far too critical a role in Batman comics. Just like the Phantom who cannot exist without the Jungle, so can’t Batman without the City! Just like the Phantom who needs the cover of the jungle to operate, so does the Batman, the City. In Batman, the city is a metaphor! A metaphor for the jungle where all the dangerous species take refuge. And when the night falls, the city behaves no differently from a Jungle. From the alleys, isolated buildings and dark corners, criminals crawl out for the kill. But don’t worry, Batman to the rescue!

Now before the jury retire to the chamber to make up their minds, here are a few minor points to chew upon:

4) The Mask – The Phantom may not be the first in popular fiction to wear a mask, but he certainly was the first to in comics (even though there was a fella by the name of the Clock who was masquerading around the same time). True, Batman’s mask is more of a Cowl, but just like in the case of the Phantom, the whole get up is part of the character (thanks to Bill Finger who convinced Bob Kane that a Domino mask wouldn’t just do the trick!) Yes, this is rather debatable on account of the fact that a character based on a Bat has to resemble a bat at least aesthetically and I am sure that the die-hard fans of Batman won’t just give up easily on this topic. So let’s leave it there and move on to …

5) The pupil – This was purely Lee Falk’s genius. Inspired by the Greek busts that were devoid of pupils, Falk employed the same idea on the Phantom with great result. The result, masks without pupils become a superhero standard!

6) Skin-tight costume – Yet another superhero standard, thanks to the Phantom.

7) Colours – Indeed, the Phantom wears a Purple costume where as Batman is dressed in Grey. But then the original colour of the Phantom’s costume as mentioned in the comics was Grey!

8) Underpants-Over-The-Pants – To the best of my knowledge, it wasn’t Superman who introduced this standout feature of the superhero culture. It was the Phantom!

9) The Cave – This doesn’t need much explaining, does it? Both the characters use a cave as their bases.

10) Wealth – Both the characters are rich beyond one can imagine.

11) Generations – Looks like Batman will soon incorporate this aspect of the Phantom (even though to generate reader interest). Dick Grayson is touted to don the cape and in a few decades time one can expect to see Dicky retiring or giving up the cape to err, what is the name of the incumbent Robin?

I rest my case. But originality seldom sells, does it? As we all know it’s all about bottling the product! And that is what made Batman the figure that he is today and the Phantom more of a one-dimensional stock character. Again one’s attention is brought towards three decisive factors:

1) Aesthetics - There is no denying the fact that the Batman has much more appeal than the Phantom. A Masked Vigilante in a purple suit! And to say nothing of the striped overwear! Come on, gimme a break! The ideal colour could have been a deeper shade of grey as Falk had initially mentioned in the early comic strips or even black! Such a character has not even a snowball’s chance in hell against the Crusader decked up in shades of grey, with his face covered in a stunning dark mask (with bat like ears) and shrouded in a cape. Ah the cape!

2) Art – There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the artwork in the Phantom. As a matter of fact, Sy Barry’s more than 3 decades long artwork is immaculate, consistent and flawless to say the least. But as opposed to the artwork in Batman, the artwork in the Phantom lacked the edge. It’s seldom inspirational. You don’t find yourself lost in a particular panel or the use of shadows and colours. No, you can’t defend by saying that the Phantom is not much into staying awake in the night to allow shadows to play across the face. It’s about understanding the possibilities of a character. This can easily be understood if one compares Superman and Batman comics of the 60s and 70s. While Batman comics looked exciting in terms of artwork, Superman comics looked dispirited. This was because the same artists who worked on Batman comics found making Superman look respectable a bit difficult and ended up presenting a beefy hunk instead. So unlike Batman who could often take the comic book to the level of a graphic novel luring older audiences ensuring longevity, Phantom could never grow beyond the definition of a comic strip character. Nevertheless its heart warming to note that the newer artists are doing some commendable job on Phantom. Well, better late than never!

3) Villains – A hero is only as good as a villain. So one can imagine what villains like the Joker, the Two-Faces, The Penguin, The Riddler and The Catwoman (the list is endless) among others can do to Batman’s resume. One aspect that made the Phantom, the poor man’s Batman!

But even if all these aspects had been favourable, the Phantom still wouldn’t have made the cut. Because the single most important factor that can decide a character’s popularity is exposure. And that brings us to the Medium.

The Medium – This was perhaps the single most important factor that shunned the Phantom’s emergence as an internationally relevant superhero. Phantom made his appearance in comic strips instead of in a comic book. The trouble with comic strips is the fact that it doesn’t really lend itself to feature length stories, as it would take at least a few months to finish a story. And reading an adventure story, 3 panels a day doesn’t really work unless you are a die-hard fan of that particular strip. Even though the Phantom stories did get collected and were presented in the form of a comic Book, well unless the medium gets carte blanche command over a character they can’t really do much, can they? On the other hand Batman had the perfect launch pad in the form of Detective Comics. Finish the story in one go and just hope that there is some mischief brewing in Gotham so that Batty can put it right! Besides Batman often got reprieves in the form of highly successful TV Serials and Movies.

Bill Watterson & Kieran Meehan

 Watterson and Meehan are the two names that come to my mind when I think of comic strips. Though there are so many successful strips and artists, to me none perform at the highest level as Watterson did and Meehan does. There is no need to wax eloquent about Watterson. I mean, what can you say about Calvin and Hobbes that has not been already stated? Well it's funny, it's witty, it's thought provoking, it's addictive, it's blah-de-blah! So i will talk about Meehan instead.

 Meehan is not Watterson. His claim to fame - A lawyer, a doctor and a cop (now called Pros & Cons) may take some more time before it might draw comparisons with Calvin. But to me Meehan is Watterson!

 (1) While Watterson created a boy who thinks, talks and acts like a grown up, ever dwelling on life and fate, Meehan created a bunch of grown ups who think, talk and act like children.

 Sample this: 

 & (2), Both Calvin and LDC are rather formulaic. 

 Well, the formulaic bit is true for almost all the strips. There is a set of stock characters, who operate in a particular environment and who deal with certain recurring situations.  But more often than not, most of these strips suffer from lack of consistency in humour. So maybe i should have said: (2) Both Calvin and LDC are overly formulaic. 

 While other strips tend to be wary of recreating similar situations, both Calvin and LDC seem over-enthusiatic about it. As a matter of fact both the strips thrive on being highly formulaic. Yet we love it. Look forward eagerly to the next strip. That leaves us with the most obvious question to ponder about: is being formulaic the key to producing the most funniest of strips? 

Perhaps. But i think the success of these two strips stem from three different factors. Three factors that can be considered so unique to these two strips. 1) The Simplicity 2) The Artwork & 3) The Smile!

 1) The Simplicity

While strip artists tend to think clever with the result that it becomes rather contrived,  both Watterson and Meehan think simple (sometimes outrageously so!) in that they look at real life situations and try to appropriate them into their respective worlds and thus create a contrast resulting in a sense of ludicrousity but more often than not, clever!

2) The Artwork

For most of the artists, artwork is to a large extent representaional. The artwork is there cause the medium demands it; to turn a joke into a comic strip. This is where Watterson and Meehan again scores over the rest of the pack. Instead of confining the artwork to communicate emotions, Watterson and Meehan take emotions beyond their generic form resulting in more subtle expressions. 

Spare a glance on the poise of most of the LDC characters. It requires incredible artistic skills to synchronise the emotions and body language so well especially when you portray them as having kiddish personalities.

To understand the brilliant artwork that Watterson is bestowed with, all you need to do is look at this one strip.

But having said that if you strip both the strips off its artwork, then you are left with a few lines that won’t even make any sense. A few of them would, i am sure, those that are cleverly written like the LDC example above. But look at the other examples contained in this article, especially the one involving the cadet. Most of the LDC strips are in that vein.  So if it's not the words that generate humour as is in the case of the first example,  then where does the humour come from?

It stems from the smile that never takes leave of the characters. 

3) The Smile

As far as I am concerned, this is the trump. Both Calvin and the characters of LDC always have a smile on their face - a wide optimistic, self-indulgent smile. In the case of LDC you can add the words, ethereal and kiddish! And without those smiles, the humour in most of the strips would just be lost.

 For most of you Meehan maynot be quite as familiar as Watterson is. So for all those uninitiated, here is the link to Meehan’s website - http://www.meehancartoons.com/comic_view.html

(all the strips presented in this article have been used for illustrational purpose only)

Green Manor: Assassins & Gentlemen

                       Assassins &                   The Inconveneince Of 

                       Gentlemen                                                  Being Dead

Goodness gracious, what a title! Assassins And Gentlemen. That’s the name of the first volume of the comic graphic novel series, GREEN MANOR. If there is a title that can beat this then it had to be the title that is given to the second volume of the series, The Inconvenience Of Being Dead. If that doesn’t get to you, just look at the artwork on the second volume. 

Assassins And Gentlemen is a comic graphic novel (as opposed to comics and graphic novels in that comic graphic novels stride both the worlds) written by Fabien Vehlmann and illustrated by Denis Brodart. The volume contains six stories dealing with murder and crime that are set in Victorian England. Stories range from the club members discussing how to commit the perfect murder to actually going about and committing them.

The stories range from how to commit the perfect murder to solving mysteries to Jack the Ripper himself!!! But apart from the second story titled post scriptum, none of the rest leaves you spellbound. but overall the treatment and stories are rather impressive and even insightful. Though they are all enjoyable there is an element of flippancy about the stories. But that said, they are gripping and make you want more. 

The artwork is in line with pattern followed by comic graphic novels and is finely coloured a la the neo noir style that is being aggressively used to illustrate stories dealing with crime fiction these days.

Published by Cinebook, in India the book is priced at Rs 195. All things considered, the price is a bit too steep for the book. But just so as to get into the mind of a murderer, just so as to experience that dark side of Victorian England and just so as to get that sense of eeriness, it’s not a bad idea to spend 200 bucks on it.

As for me, I loved the volume, Assassins And Gentlemen so much so that I am going to pick up the second volume, The Inconvenience Of Being Dead. Sounds very promising, especially the name! goosebumps...

Asterix & Tintin

When we talk about comic books the most commonly heard comment is that there are comic books and there are Asterix & Tintin. No other comic is as popular as these two. No other comic book series is as cult as these. They are like the US and the USSR of the cold war era, of the bi-polar world. And all the talk about comic books start and end with A&T. they are the alpha and omega of comic books.

(I wonder how Superman is taking all these. he is supposed to be the super daddy of all comic strips for the simple reason that he revolutionised the industry. but alas his creators ensured that his cult status will be ruined by the horrible terrible derisible stories that they wrote for him. just like in the case of Elvis Presley.)

Well as I was saying or rather as I was about to say, it’s very common to hear people tag Asterix and Tintin together. Of course not very surprisingly! They are arguably the greatest of all the comic book characters ever created. They are both 'cult'er than cult. They both come in same format called 'album'. And more importantly their creators did not run away the heady success of the characters and did not do the proverbial act of 'to kill the goose that lays golden eggs'.

But to say Asterix and Tintin in the same breath just like one would say superman and Spiderman or Phantom and mandrake may often lead one to categorize them both under one header. But unlike Superman and Spiderman who fall under superhero comics, Asterix & Tintin inhabit two different worlds all together. So how would one describe these characters?

ASTERIX

Lets begin with Asterix. Simply put Asterix is comics!!! Well that’s a rather patronising sort of a statement, isn’t it? But then there is no other way to describe Asterix. Well it that still sounds like a cheap shot lets see if we are on the same page as far as the basics are right.

What is a comic Book? The definition of comic books has changed drastically from the original sense in which it was initially applied. Starting off as Funnies, Comics carried the same sense. There has to be something comical about it. But when Dick Tracy came in it was not called illustrated crime story or anything of that sort. There are two reasons for this. Once Dick Tracy began to appear on the pages where newspapers usually printed comic strips. And second of course is the style of illustration. Unlike say, Crime Doesn’t Pay comics, the style was caricature than realistic. Thus the term comics came to imply a large body of illustrated stories appearing in novel length features or 4 panel strips or even a single panel. But when one sits down to understand the various genres that form comics, a little bit of clinical dissection is necessary.

Lets see. I will make it simple. Now Asterix is a typical example of comics; just comics. It’s a quintessential comic book and cannot be described as anything else. If you stretch it you can go as far as quasi adventure comics. But not all of them are adventures (Caesar’s Gift, Asterix Vs Obelix).

So why is it just comics? Well, its comical, its unrealistic, and more importantly it's untranslatable to other media. Though it has been adapted to the big screen, it operates on a different level altogether unlike superhero comics made into movies. It's not quite the same. You feel that something is missing. And it’s not so much to do with the distinct artwork of Asterix comics even though that should have been a major deterrent. The problem lies with the story. Asterix stories cannot exist outside the world of comic books. (Cartoons are just an extension) and that is why Asterix cannot be called as anything but a comic. And it is in this regard that Tintin varies from Asterix.

TINTIN

So what is Tintin? How would you define Tintin? How is Tintin different? Tintin is different on a lot of counts. Where as Asterix can be defined as only "comics", Tintin is adventure comics, Tintin is crime comics, Tintin is detective comics, Tintin is mystery comics, Tintin is fun comics. Thus Tintin can be defined and has to be defined as "juvenile fiction illustrated and narrated in the style of comic books". Yes that is the only way to describe Tintin.

Tintin As A Novel:
Any of the Tintin stories can be translated into a novel. (This can’t be done in the case of Asterix). And that is possible because there is a very strong and tight story in every Tintin adventure. Tintin is Hardy Boys as a comic book. (not the cheap shit they pass off as graphic novel.) Conversely take a hardy boys adventure. It can easily be converted into a comic book. (Not all of them. but there are certain sure shot ones) now if the graphic novel format of Hardy Boys is not a success, that’s because the creators just don’t understand the world of comics. Each idea needs a particular medium to be executed well.

Tintin As A Movie:
Some of the early Tintin comics may not really hit off well with moviegoers. Tintin in America had all the characteristics of a comic book. So does Black Island and more importantly Tintin in Congo. But these comics are best not made into movies. But televised serials for kids wont are a bad idea.

But later Tintin stories would make for brilliant movies. The only deterrent in the case of Tintin would be the artwork as they are comically drawn.

But if Herge had intended to create Tintin as a novel, then he would now have been said in the same breath along with another cult icon of the same period who was featured in juvenile adventure novels: Biggles!

Decoding Comic Book Icons

A lot have been talked and said about different comic book characters like when they were created, who they were created, how successful they were, who synicated them and what not. i guess any number of sites like toonopedia and wikipedia and other fan sites will give you all such details. And it is that last of my intentions to do that here. what i want to do here is starting with the next few set of blogs understand the world each character lives in. understand the never tackled issues of subtle similarities and what could have impelled the creators to create that particular character. along with all these why these characters fail and sometimes succeed when they try foray into a different medium.

First Up: Asterix & Tintin

Graphic Novel

Ah, now there is a term that is heard more often than not in the comic book industry. The ambiguity it presents has ensured that there is no definite definition agreed upon yet for the term.
The term is widely used so much so that you’ll find compilations or trades of American comics like superman and other (underpants –over – the –pants) heroes under the section Graphic Novels. Thus a collection of five superman adventures becomes a graphic novel. And these days one can find even European comics like Lucky Luke and Spirou in the graphic novel section. Why, the spirou and fantasio albums themselves refer to themselves as graphic novel!
That leaves us with one mystery? Where have all the comic books gone?
To me the term graphic novel is like a new logo that a company adopts to market it better. As asterix and tintin are cult, there is no apparent need to encapsulate them under the much more adult sounding term graphic novel. The term comics would do!
But if ultimately you are going to be reading the same thing whether one calls them a graphic novel or a comic, why this sudden rechristening?
When Will Eisner came up with the graphic novel, A contract with god, he called it a graphic novel to distinguish it from comics as his work did not display any of the characteristics attributed to comics. The content was mature, the narrative was mature and the target audience was mature.
But the name caught on. What followed was a spate of comic books referring to themselves as graphic novels not without reason.
Comic books are like chocolate. They are addictive. Once you taste them, you’ll never let go of them. And there are so many different flavors and types available that one lifetime is not quite enough.
At some point the publishers understood that comics books are being taken for granted and that it had percolated to the subconscious of the mass. And that is bad for business. It must stay in the consciousness of the mass. Also to admit that one is reading a comic book was not a very pleasant experience for a grown up.
The result was the much more literal and direct and more importantly adult sounding term “Graphic Novel”.

Now all this is really fine if you are merely rechristening a genre. But then what happens to the real Graphic Novel? What happens to Watchmen and the ilk?
Comic books as a medium is still struggling hard to connect with the adults. Once one leaves behind his teenage years, a majority grows out of comic books even though a minority still cling on to the old habit. One of the reasons is the pre supposition that comic books are meant for children. But more importantly as the comics are aimed at the younger generation, an adult would fail to identify with it.
But on the other hand an adult would identify with the issues portrayed in an original graphic novel. It would be like reading a novel narrated using pictures as well.
Thus a Graphic novel is essentially a novel graphically told! Now isn’t that the simplest definition? Thus Persepolis, Watchmen, The Quitter etc are truly graphic novels in every sense of the word. (But the way the term is misused you can soon expect another name for these kind of format).
Superman, Archie etc whether published in the form of anthologies are in no way graphic novels. But that doesn’t mean these can’t be turned into graphic novel format. The only trouble then would be that these characters wouldn’t be the superman and the Archie that we know of. A graphic novel must contain adult stuff. That doesn’t mean sex! It simply means that the subject should be more adult; the rendition should be more adult.
Don’t fool yourself; there is a really thick line between comic books and graphic novels.
One of the comic books that sort of straddled the fence was Sin City. Sin City is a murky take on the early crime comics with certain elements that might make them more appealing to adults than to kids. 
Apart from original stuff there are also other media invasions that end up ender the graphic novel section. The most widely seen here are Biggles and Agatha Christie. They can be best described as Illustrated Novels. Sounds a bit daft. But then that’s the truth.
So next time your friends ask what you are reading say proudly “a Comic Book!” (after all graphic novels are simply put adult comics!)
They are culture, they are a philosophy, they are art, and they are above all very funny!