PROVING THAT I DO NOT ONLY THINK ABOUT ONE THING. In between writing articles about same-sex marriage (which I personally would prefer had a shorter name, like “bronk” or “sprudge”–am getting sick of typing it), I have been reading comics. Since, as I said a few days ago, I really don’t read any current comics except “Love and Rockets” (I love the first four “ElfQuest” books but pretty much loathe everything after that), this is new stuff for me. Here are my quickie reviews of the recent reads–if anything I say here provokes you to think, “Hey, I bet she’d really like [INSERT TITLE HERE],” definitely shoot an email my way, since I’m having fun and looking for further fun.

First, I should note that I entered the comics shop with a big ol’ list of things to look for, and ended up not buying most of it. Partly this is because I must spend my money on things like fixing my $#@! cell phone and dealing with Health Insurance Madness. But also, comics that had initially sounded really cool turned out to contain many things I dislike.

I want faces to have features. I want the ratio of “people talking” to “stuff blowing up” to be very high. I want the art to have something at least vaguely resembling a style; failing that, I want the writing to have ditto. I have a high tolerance for melodrama but a very, very low tolerance for a) lame dialogue and b) anything that looks like mystery for its own sake. As far as I can tell, lots of the more indie-like comics are addicted to b), and I don’t think I need to tell anyone about the cornucopia of a) to be found in the local comics store.

The thing with the faces was a real disappointment. I thought being able to show people expressing their reactions through, say, their noses, or the crook of their smiles, was a prereq for drawing comics. Apparently not.

Anyway, I ended up getting stuff from four series: Ariel Schrag’s high school autobiography comics; “Love and Rockets” (though only one of the several new titles they had–the others seemed kind of, erm, content-light); “New X-Men”; and “X-Force.”

Ariel Schrag, Definition and Likewise #2: Eh, reviewing these feels very weird, since I’m tangentially related to her. I will just say that I am glad that my high-school relativism, “sex-positive” feminism, and general wig-ness was much more theoretical than practical.

Schrag sometimes comes off as a less (pick your word) pretentious or self-conscious version of Jay McInerney, describing the angst, recklessness, self-indulgence, and purposelessness of a very particular and privileged time and place. I should note that this isn’t a bad thing necessarily; Brightness Falls is a good, basic novel. And Schrag has smart, implicit commentary on family ties, the recklessness that is a natural product of privileged security, and building an identity based around pop icons. (The story begins in “Awkward,” which hits especially hard on that last point.) For me it was more sociology than fun, but your mileage may vary.

“L&R;: Dicks and Deedees”: Haven’t read yet. Will report back if I have anything interesting to say.

“New X-Men: New Worlds” and “Riot at Xavier’s”: I’m liking this a lot, despite a huge, horrible, distracting flaw.

I like this because the storylines are wild. They flow naturally from the characters’ personalities, rather than being imposed from without due to the author’s or the franchise’s needs; and yet they’re unexpected and provocative. The dialogue could be better (would absolutely be substandard in a novel, but is well above average for the comics I browsed the other day) but there are several nice moments. This could become an addiction, I fear.

The problem is the art. The colors are good–lush–but the people–eugh! Everyone looks very glum all the time, for no good reason, and everyone is very elongated. It’s like Giacometti-for-klutzes.

Also, Emma Frost needs to stop dressing like a skank, or at the very least she needs to be drawn as a somewhat more realistic skank. I know it works with her character to some extent, but not if she just looks like the kind of thing you’d expect a teen to draw in calculus class. (Speaking of: Does anyone ever cross his or her legs in the Marvel Universe???)

“X-Force: New Beginnings”: Fun! X-Men as media criticism. Garish colors, which really work given that the story is about superheroes living in the television fishbowl. Good storylines–not great, but some good twists and moments between characters. Much, much better facial expressions than in “New X-Men.” I enjoyed this, but the plots weren’t as imaginative as NXM’s. Not sure if I will read more. Still, definitely a good time. This series is called “X-Statix” now.

I’ve been thinking about what I like about comics. The main things are: 1) obviously, the same things everyone likes about movies–the high-impact collision of word and picture. Since I only write–no drawing, no music (after my short-lived stint as a punk singer…)–I’m really intrigued to see the details and compositions artists come up with to convey plot and emotion. Writers can learn an immense amount from trying to think visually. You learn what to focus on, for one thing.

2) I really, really like the idea of the series. I like that the story never ends. I like the element of time that comics can draw on–how do older characters relate to newer ones? How do you clear the stage when you need to? When and how do you disrupt long-established reader expectations? This is one reason I strongly prefer that dead characters–no matter how much I like them–stay dead. If you want to show us more about dead characters, do a flashback story. Otherwise you’re just fudging the fourth dimension, when really the fourth dimension is one of the key attractions. At least for me.

In some respects comic series, especially “superhero team” series, remind me of my college debating society (OK, yes, I know, everything reminds me of my college debating society…)–a tradition has to figure out how to adapt and stretch as team members leave and enter. That’s why I want things that change to stay changed, rather than being explained away or simply ignored.