La subtilité a-t-elle sa place dans les comicbooks? Partie II
Nous traitions récemment de la subtilité dans le domaine du comicbook, et nous semblions plaider pour un traitement qui soit moins cliché. Entre-temps, nous sommes tombés sur cette analyse de Chris Sims et il fait plaidoyer en faveur d’une approche moins subtile (www.alliancecomics.com) :
“The entire medium was pretty much launched when there was a guy with super-powers that made him a super-man whose name was “Superman,” and that’s about the level we’ve been working with ever since. Even Watchmen, the book that’s been held up as the high point of maturity for the genre for the past 35 years, is only slightly less subtle than a brick to the head. It’s more like a brick to the head that’s been wrapped in a pillow, I guess. […]
But that doesn’t mean that it’s bad. There are a lot of great comics, some of the best comics, that have completely dispensed with subtlety in favor of going straight for their point. My favorite comics creator in history — a pretty inarguable contender for the greatest of all time — is Jack Kirby, a guy who created villains named “Baron Von Evilstein” and “Annihilus,” and that’s just scratching the surface of how unvarnished he made his metaphors. His greatest comics, the saga in which he created some of his most emotionally affecting stories, was built around a group of good guys fighting a bad guy who represented the dark side of human nature, whose name was Darkseid.” (Chris Sims, «Ask Chris #176: SUBTLETY!!!!!», December 27, 2013 http://comicsalliance.com.)
Plus loin, Sims considère que la subtilité est un outil dans le coffre de l’auteur et non une nécessité absolue.