This week's issue Take 3

[WizzKid97]

Also, some of the art seemed a bit 'flat', not having the depth of more accomplished artists, and two pages in particular continue to disappoint. Especially the lettering, which is far too prominent and leaves the artwork fighting for space.

We get that you don't like Jamie Smart and you dislike the way he lays-out his work; now can we just talk about this week's issue without having to keep bringing Jamie up? This is the third time the 'This Week's Issue' thread has been uploaded and that is a great shame. This thread is for discussing the latest Beano (which I personally thought was excellent almost throughout), not for ranting on about Jamie's lettering.

[Kid Robson]

Also, some of the art seemed a bit 'flat', not having the depth of more accomplished artists, and two pages in particular continue to disappoint. Especially the lettering, which is far too prominent and leaves the artwork fighting for space.

We get that you don't like Jamie Smart and you dislike the way he lays-out his work; now can we just talk about this week's issue without having to keep bringing Jamie up? This is the third time the 'This Week's Issue' thread has been uploaded and that is a great shame. This thread is for discussing the latest Beano (which I personally thought was excellent almost throughout), not for ranting on about Jamie's lettering.

Actually, I was talking about this week's issue - and in direct response to an enquiry asking what I thought of it. And I'd hardly call my mild and measured observations a 'rant'. It's significant that your own comments on this week's issue are only in parentheses in a rant against me. Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

[AndyB]

Enough. I think there is ample evidence that Jamie is a very accomplished artist. You don't have to like him, but he is a clever artist and writer, and it is not appropriate to continually call into question his professionalism as an artist.

Right in front of me is Roger's bed day from the Beano dated 21/9/13. Loads of care in composition, depth of field and perspective (including deliberate exaggeration, which is Jamie's hallmark, in both art and writing) - what I will give you is that his Roger work is nothing on his Bunny vs Monkey work.

There is a good case for having all artists' work lettered by BeanoMark and his colleagues for consistency, of course, although this would affect the layouts used by those who currently do their own lettering.

[Ginger]

I don't think there's such thing as bad artwork - it's like the old saying goes, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Personally I love the new Beano artistry taking place currently and think whilst Ball Boy is drawn differently to before, it's still well-drawn and suits the wild storylines. ...

The artwork nowadays is just different, and some people do not like things being different to the way they liked them. Older readers can probably relate to the artistry of David Sutherland and Nigel Parkinson far more than they can to Alexander Matthews or Jamie Smart - but the younger readers (which The Beano is aimed at) can relate to this new modern artwork because its from their time....

I think people just need to remember that the artwork is for the current young generation, not for the previous one.

I'm going to blow your theories out of the water, now, Wizzkid:- Funnily enough, I, as an older reader, really don't like Nigel Parkinson's art , and my kid (target age range) doesn't like Jamie's Roger (prefers the old one). (Having said that, he likes Jamie's art on Bunny vs Monkey in The Phoenix)

Also, while I think Alexander Matthew's art is a bit scrappy, as I said, I prefer it to the previous incarnation; (and the scripts are just brilliant) But my kid isn't keen on the new one, he finds it too wordy and he can't be bothered to read it.

And artwork doesn't have to be 'from your time' to enjoy it, I'm sorry but that's nonsense. I love lots of cartoon art from before my time, as well as many modern styles, I also dislike lots of cartoon art from before my time, as well as many modern styles.

It's just a matter of taste, really, and there's not much point arguing about it, perhaps. But having said that, your comment that there's no such thing as bad artwork depresses me. Because I think it exemplifies what I said earlier about any shoddy rubbish getting into print these days. Would you be happy with a strip just drawn with stickmen? Because that's the eventual outcome of this way of thinking.

There's no right and wrong, no black and white, about what makes good art or bad art, and of course it's all subjective, but I think part of the editor's job is to find artists with a genuine visual appeal, whatever the style.

By the way I don't agree with Kid about Jamie Smart's art,again this blows your theory out of the water but I, an older reader, quite like it, I certainly think it's perfectly presentable and professional, and actually very clever the way he's pared down his style to such an extent and yet still achieves a very professional look. I do agree with Kid about the lettering, though, it's just way too big.

[WizzKid97]

I can't be bothered with this any more. This forum isn't the same as it was previously, it feels like everyone's out to get you now - maybe I'll just follow in suit of many others and just leave. Honestly, I can't be bothered to stay on a forum where you get criticised for whatever you think, meaning you have to really think about how you've worded things before you hit 'Submit'.

This forum died ages ago. I stuck around because I thought it may get better, but now I've had enough and don't feel at all welcome to even share my opinions on here as they always end up getting shot down.

See ya, Comics UK - it was fun while it lasted.

[Ginger]

I find that reaction quite extraordinary. I'm sorry, did I have the cheek to disagree with your views? How awful of me.

Wizzkid, if you're still reading, which I guess you're not, but here's hoping:- I wasn't aggressive or unpleasant in any way, I hope, towards you in my last post, was I? I was just disagreeing with you, showing you that your theories aren't necessarily correct. That's how we learn, by having our views challenged, and if you've got any maturity you'll think about what I said and take it on board, perhaps debate it, sure, but certainly not go off in a huff just because someone politely disagreed with your viewpoints.

[WizzKid97]

I find that reaction quite extraordinary. I'm sorry, did I have the cheek to disagree with your views? How awful of me.

Wizzkid, if you're still reading, which I guess you're not, but here's hoping:- I wasn't aggressive or unpleasant in any way, I hope, towards you in my last post, was I? I was just disagreeing with you, showing you that your theories aren't necessarily correct. That's how we learn, by having our views challenged, and if you've got any maturity you'll think about what I said and take it on board, perhaps debate it, sure, but certainly not go off in a huff just because someone politely disagreed with your viewpoints.

It's not you, trust me.

I understand what you've said and I respect it. But there are others on here who just always want to argue.

[Ginger]

I'm glad it's not me, but it would be a rather boring forum if everyone agreed all the time and no-one's views differed from anybody else's!

[WizzKid97]

I'm glad it's not me, but it would be a rather boring forum if everyone agreed all the time and no-one's views differed from anybody else's!

True, but when it's the same argument continuously piping up over and over again, it does become a rather boring forum.

[Raven]

I can't be bothered with this any more. This forum isn't the same as it was previously, it feels like everyone's out to get you now - maybe I'll just follow in suit of many others and just leave.

Harry, a forum is a place for open discussion and the exchanging of views. Having your opinion challenged (in a friendly way) is one of the great pleasures of debate. In this thread, the responses have been reasoned, and nothing has been shot down; views are being exchanged, that's all, which is what forums thrive on.

Honestly, I can't be bothered to stay on a forum where you get criticised for whatever you think, meaning you have to really think about how you've worded things before you hit 'Submit'.

I know it's age of Instant Everything, but ... isn't having to think about how you word things before you hit Submit actually a good thing?

Jamie's Roger are the two pages in The Beano of interest to me and the ones I look at. For me, humour-wise, Roger always tended to be quite a bland strip and it now seems more amusing and fizzing with ideas than I've ever seen it before. I think it may possibly have been you that once made the pertinent point that it wouldn't work as well with conventional lettering - Jamie's work isn't formulaic, and I think he's the one who can break the rules as the results are so lively and appealing.

[Ginger]

Wizzkid:- The reason I got involved in the debate was because I thought it was an interesting discussion and I had a viewpoint which was slightly different from any that had been expressed.
I apologise if you didn't find what I had to say of interest. I thought we might have an interesting discussion about it, a polite debate, but I guess I must just be a boring old fart.

[Raven]

Wizzkid:- The reason I got involved in the debate was because I thought it was an interesting discussion and I had a viewpoint which was slightly different from any that had been expressed.
I apologise if you didn't find what I had to say of interest. I thought we might have an interesting discussion about it, a polite debate, but I guess I must just be a boring old fart.

You made some very good points, Ginger, which added some welcome depth to the discussion; the "nostalgists" term is too dismissive, and the "everything evolves" discussion-closer too simplistic. It's not necessarily that people don't like change per se, but that they don't necessarily like some specific changes.

[WizzKid97]

I can't be bothered with this any more. This forum isn't the same as it was previously, it feels like everyone's out to get you now - maybe I'll just follow in suit of many others and just leave.

Harry, a forum is a place for open discussion and the exchanging of views. Having your opinion challenged (in a friendly way) is one of the great pleasures of debate. In this thread, the responses have been reasoned, and nothing has been shot down; views are being exchanged, that's all, which is what forums thrive on.

It's not Ginger who did so. I just don't want to keep having the same discussion about Jamie, there are other things in The Beano besides Jamie Smart - but because his artwork can be seen as controversial, he seems to always be brought up and criticised.

I was trying to just bring back the conversation to the latest issue by trying to end the debate - this isn't a thread for Jamie's artwork, this is a thread for the latest issue.

Honestly, I can't be bothered to stay on a forum where you get criticised for whatever you think, meaning you have to really think about how you've worded things before you hit 'Submit'.

I know it's age of Instant Everything, but ... isn't having to think about how you word things before you hit Submit actually a good thing?

What I mean is that I can't always say what I want to say because I feel like someone will just shoot down whatever I have to say.

Jamie's Roger are the two pages in The Beano of interest to me and the ones I look at. For me, humour-wise, Roger always tended to be quite a bland strip and it now seems more amusing and fizzing with ideas than I've ever seen it before. I think it may possibly have been you that once made the pertinent point that it wouldn't work as well with conventional lettering - Jamie's work isn't formulaic, and I think he's the one who can break the rules as the results are so lively and appealing.

That's a nice idea to have. When Kid criticises Jamie, he never gives him anything constructive. If he dislikes Jamie's work, why doesn't he suggest how it could be changed to be better? You're correct in saying it was me who mentioned Jamie's humour wouldn't work with conventional lettering - it simply wouldn't, Jamie's writing has to go with Jamie's art (Hairy Steve didn't work because Steve Bright's artwork with Jamie's writing in conventional lettering doesn't go together well).

It's just his style, and it think it works well. It may be different in a way, but it still looks good in my opinion.

[WizzKid97]

Wizzkid:- The reason I got involved in the debate was because I thought it was an interesting discussion and I had a viewpoint which was slightly different from any that had been expressed.
I apologise if you didn't find what I had to say of interest. I thought we might have an interesting discussion about it, a polite debate, but I guess I must just be a boring old fart.

I sent you a Private Message which might explain things a little better. I'd love to have a long polite debate, but it's easier to just give it up because I'm currently doing my A-levels (yes, I'm 16) and I don't have time to discuss things which won't help me in life if that makes sense.

You're not boring, I'm just too busy and I don't want to get involved any more.

[Ginger]

Wizzkid, yes, these discussions can take up a lot of time and energy. But if you're studying for your A-levels and don't want to have these debates, perhaps it's best not to get involved in the first place; which I suppose is what you've decided now. Fair enough.

Raven, thanks for your words, thanks for engaging with what I actually had to say.

And just for the record, I didn't just want to talk about Jamie Smart's work, I also mentioned Alexander Matthew's Ball Boy, Dave Eastbury's Ball Boy, and Nigel Parkinson's work.