Some ridiculous geekificated analogising, from an interview I recently did with SFX magazine. The following rambly guff wasn't used in the printed article. This was probably wise.
The question that prompted all this was about the difference between writing comics and novels. I got carried away. Sue me.
In full auto making-it-up-as-I-go ramble mode, here’s a glib bit of pop-culture analogy for you: “Comics Vs. Novels” as “Mac Vs. P.C.”
Comics are the Macs, of course. There’s something fluid about them; a user-friendly interface which relies on an intuitive understanding of what’s in front of you. They appeal to the inner-artist, and even if you’re completely lost about what the fuck’s going on they’ll always look pretty. You can do stuff with them that you simply can’t do anywhere else. And, lest we forget, they also have a terrifyingly dedicated following.
Novels are the PCs. They tend to be more complex, more involved. They require a lot more time-investment and effort from a user, though (some would argue) the pay-off is often more satisfying. Of course, a lot more can go wrong – that’s probably because there are so many of the bloody things out there – but they’re still destined to remain the most popular format for Johnny Everyone in the foreseeable future. Oh, and they’re dominated by a colossal super-rich empire whose public face is a speccy geek with bad hair.
Evidently some metaphors can be extended beyond all sensible stresses. In your face, Hooke’s Law of Elasticity.