Not quite
I attended a brief lecture about inking and storytelling by Klaus Janson while attending Savannah College of Art and Design. He was great then and I'm jealous now.

Your "picture-free" comic relies on graphic elements that are key to comics storytelling. In this demonstration, your word balloon IS your character, only represented in a much more abstract form than you would normally find in mainstream comics. In spite of yourself, you have produced very effective drawings.

Posted by leeboone on 2007-01-11 10:21:45
That's exactly what I was going to say. Well, actually, what I was going to say was "dude, the balloons and panels are images", but it's the same sentiment.

Mind you, I wasn't going to mention that I'm also jealous. And quite glad, too, that Marvel is taking comics as an artform seriously enough to bring in two masters to train its editors. I also think it's quite funny that Klaus Janson also happens to be one of your freelancers. (But isn't Walt Simonson DC exclusive?)

Posted by Fetsur on 2007-01-11 13:32:41
Both Sides Depend on Definitions
As leeboone and Fetsur point out, your version does still rely on some graphic elements to convey the story. That's not to say you still couldn't remove ALL of the art and still get your story across -- a lot of the old EC books would likely hold up like that, and probably more than a few early Stan Lee stories. But I think, in your example, it only works because of the word balloons and their treatment.

But conversly, a comic with the word balloons removed does not NECESSARILY tell a story by itself. If was drawn by a Kirby or an Eisner, sure. But some stories that are more abstract or use a discordance between the text and imagry may simply look like a series of unrelated pictures. Something not unlike a museum or an art gallery. What about the couple of pages from Understanding Comics where McCloud talks about "The Treachery of Images"? It's one image repeated over two or three pages -- without the text, it would more closely resemble a Warhol painting than a comic book story.

So it seems to me that either way that one wants to argue the point requires a specific set of definitions and criteria. Essentially we're back to chapter one of Understanding Comics: what would we define as "comics" so that the result benefits either/neither/both sides of the arguement? How would one define "removing" the art or the text? How would you determine whether the individual elements successfully conveyed a story independantly?

Fascinating concept, really. I wish more people were interested in these types of discussions.

Posted by SKleefeld on 2007-01-11 16:03:36
Janson and Simonson? Wow, it doesn't get much better than that.

Posted by ButchMapa on 2007-01-11 18:08:50
the panel that explodes
A shame that we don't see Mr Janson and Simonson more

Posted by notapotatoe on 2007-01-12 00:45:09
My take on that "comic"
Okay, okay, the abstract argument works, but it still doesn't fit what I think is the standard definition of sequential art: Juxtaposed static PICTORIAL and other images in deliberate sequence.
Scott McCloud posited that, and I think it is the most reliable definition (though I don't agree with the outing of one panel cartooning), and while you have words there, it's nothing but disjointed dialogue and little else. You have very sparsely written prose with no context and in an odd format for prose.
I'm not being a jerk, but I say that this isn't a comic, except in the most avant garde and experimental sense. Congrats, Tom B. You're a pioneer in the mold of an early Spiegelman and Moebius.

Posted by y3rg1e on 2007-01-12 13:11:47
"tenants of comic book storytelling"

Tenets.

Posted by CylverSaber on 2007-01-12 16:27:09
im not so good...
Editor School sounds really cool but i know even im no good at drawing im glad pros are there at marvel. well keep up the fantastic work guys...


Posted by alexma on 2007-01-12 20:50:29
I think that you do have a comic, but it is not because of the reasons you stated. I would suggest that there is an implied image (or subject) in your strip in that what makes it easily recognizable as a page from a comic book is the word balloons, that are presumably pointing towards a subject. In other words it is the visual signifier of the arrow at the end of the balloon that allows it to be understood as sequential art. It may not be obviously sequential, but for people who are already 'trained' in the reading of comics it would offer no confusion. If the word balloons were removed, but the words left in then it would only constitute a comic if surrounding material suggested it.

Also, if memory serves, there was a John Byrne page of Spider Man(or not, I dont remember, maybe it was Thor) where a fight occurred during a snow storm. Byrne being the brilliant and committed illustrator that never missed a deadline left the page almost completely blank. Except for the word balloons, of course. (some sarcasm, also of course)

Posted by musicalcolin on 2007-01-12 23:05:12
my bad, sorry

Posted by musicalcolin on 2007-01-12 23:06:35