Visual Storytelling in Dutch and Flemish Comic Books a Corpus Analysis Across Culture and Time

Visual storytelling in Dutch and Flemish comic books A corpus analysis across culture and time

Mark Dierick ANR: 886453

Bachelor thesis Communication and Information Science Specialization: Text & Communication Tilburg University, Tilburg

Supervisor: dr. N.T. Cohn Second reader: dr. R. Cozijn

August 2017

Introduction The Dutch and Flemish visual story—stereotypically in comics—has had a rich history, with numerous characters and series having a place in the respective Dutch and Belgian collective memory. However, comic books are more than just characters and stories. There is an entire visual language working behind the surface of every comic book (Cohn, 2013). When viewing comics as shaped by a visual language, most people might especially look at images, text balloons and other common morphological symbols. However, the way the panels of a comic book are framed conveys another important part of the story, and is an essential part of the narrative structure found in sequential images.

A language is not an absolute thing. Not only is every language constantly evolving, they exist in many gradations. These gradations, also called dialects, are often variations of a language that are bound to a certain geographical location (Chambers & Trudgill, 1998). Typically, the phenomenon of dialects refers to a verbal language. An example of this is Flemish, a series of variations on the Dutch language. It is the dominant language in a large part of Belgium. However, it could just as easily be assumed that the phenomenon of dialect goes beyond just verbal languages. Visual languages could have a form of dialectic interaction too: sharing the majority of their properties with a few distinctive differences, based on its geographical origin. This thesis aims to further investigate the way visual languages operate across cultures and across time. Within a corpus of 80 Dutch and Flemish comic books, the properties of their visual language are analysed, as well as the way books from the two countries compare to each other and how they have developed over the last eight decades. History of Dutch and Flemish comics Especially when investigating the cross-cultural differences in comics, it is useful to consider the historical context of both Flemish and Dutch comics. While the very first comic-like visual stories started appearing around Europe as early as the 19th century, it was not until after the First World War that the contemporary kind of comics reached the Netherlands and Flanders (Lambiek Comics, n.d.). While French-language comics like Tintin were released in comic magazines, the first Dutch- language comics usually appeared in newspapers (Lefèvre & Van Gompel, 2003). The Dutch-Flemish comic Bulletje en Bonestaak by George van Raemdonck is a very early example of this, running in newspapers from 1922 until 1937. The newspaper format did present Dutch and Flemish comic artists with some restraints as compared to French and Wallonian magazines: due to the low quality material involved in newspaper publishing, Dutch language artists could only draw comics that were stylistically simple (Lefèvre, 2013). There was simply no room for colours or more detailed techniques, as that would only be lost on the newspaper print. Over the years, most Dutch and Flemish comic series have stuck to a similarly simple style, even in the wake of technological advancements. Furthermore, comics in newspapers could usually only take three or six panels per day. Comic books were often a collection of those three-panel instalments, also called tiers, with four tiers per page. Because of this, many Dutch comic books, even ones that were not published in newspapers first, still have twelve panels per page (Lefèvre, 2013). The short instalment-based structure also has an effect on storytelling style. To keep newspaper audiences coming back, some kind of cliffhanger needed to be built into every instalment. Also, a length of three to six panels does not provide much room for narrative complexity or slow burning atmosphere.

After the Second World War, Flemish comics went into a very successful era with the so- called Great Flemish Four publishing many different issues and series. Especially Willy Vandersteen, author of the most popular Flemish comic Suske en Wiske and Marc Sleen, author of the popular Nero series, often got a circulation of over 100.000 copies (De Weyer & Nihoul, 2015). In the meantime, Dutch comic book authors had trouble dealing with the national paper shortage created

2 by World War II. They took to publishing small graphic novels, also called beeldromans (Lambiek Comics, n.d.). The books often dealt with more mature subject matter, such as crime and violence. When the Dutch Minister of Culture ordered a distribution stop on the beeldromans, insisting they were corrupting children, this was a big setback for the national comics industry. There was a small number of approved comics that could still be printed in newspapers, many of them created by the popular Marten Toonder Studios.

It is around this time that some differences between Dutch and Flemish comics were starting to be reported (Lefèvre, 2013). For example, while Dutch comics still printed the comic strips and the accompanying text separately, Flemish comics had already started using text balloons for dialogue. Also, Dutch comics had a more neat, clean style and a more formal use of language than their Flemish counterparts. Other characteristics that set Flemish comics apart, even from the French- language comics published elsewhere in Belgium, were their flawed, self-deprecating main characters and allusions to socio-political issues. Furthermore, where many Dutch and French- language comics still were mostly populated by male characters, Flemish comics also had a range of important female ones. However, not all story aspects started to diverge between the two countries. Humorous adventure was the most popular genre that is typical of Flemish comics, but is also often seen in comics from other (European) regions including the Netherlands (Lefèvre & Van Gompel, 2003; Lefèvre, 2013; Meesters, 2007). Typically, these comics are about a family or a group of friends that experiences all kinds of adventures. The prime example of this genre is Willy Vandersteen’s Suske en Wiske series, a Flemish comic about Wiske, her (adoptive) brother Suske, and her aunt and uncle who are raising her. It is the most successful comic series in both Flanders and The Netherlands (Meesters, 2007). To a lesser degree, more serious historical adventure comics such as De Rode Ridder are also successful in Flanders. These may be less common in the comics scene of the Netherlands.

While both the Dutch and Flemish comic book markets have been under pressure of imported and localized American comics for some decades now (Lefèvre & Van Gompel, 2003; Lambiek Comics, n.d.), comic culture in both countries still seems to show some discrepancies. Flanders has its own educational facility for comic authors and a literature foundation that also supports comic strips, while the Netherlands had neither (Van Geelen, 2009). Since Van Geelen’s article, one educational facility for comic artists has opened in Zwolle in 2012. Almost a decade ago, Dutch comic authors warned that the last major Dutch comic magazines had shut down, and taken professional guidance for budding authors with them (Kolk & Van Tol, 2008). Furthermore, between 2012 and 2017 only three Dutch artists receive subsidies for their work, while twenty-one Flemish artists did, along with thirty-two writers and poets that wanted to turn their work into comics (Rijghard, 2016). On all accounts, while Flemish media report a national comic book renaissance, Dutch media were left reporting on a decline in both popularity and volume of new work. Background The divergent comic cultures in The Netherlands and Flanders could lead to different styles in visual storytelling. To find out whether that is the case, it is important to take a look at the different aspects and structures of visual storytelling. A theoretical background on attentional framing, framing style and semantic changes is useful when considering these potential differences in the way visual stories are presented. The attentional framing of panels is vital to visual storytelling, in that its main purpose is to guide the attention of readers towards the visual elements that are important to the story (Cohn, 2013). Most of the time, these elements are entities. It should be noted that an entity does not equal one character; it can also be a group of people that acts in unity. Entities can be either active or

3 inactive. When the entity does not interact with the story in any way and is not relevant to the events depicted in the story, it is deemed to be an inactive entity. Panel 4 of Figure 1 is an establishing shot, and the policeman in it is an example of an inactive entity. He does not do anything that sets in motion any part of the plot, and does not feature in any later part of the comic book. An active entity is an entity that progresses the story. For example, in panel 1 of Figure 1, both characters are active entities. They interact verbally and physically, one character talking to the other and both shaking the other’s hand. In addition to the interactions within the panel, the conversation they have, has implications on the following panels: the main character finds it pleasant and is visibly happy about it. The way active entities are framed and depicted determines which of the following categories of attentional framing any given panel belongs to. There are four attentional framing categories, also pictured in Figure 1:

1. Macro: contains multiple active entities (Figure 1, panel 1).

2. Mono: contains one single active entity. (Figure 1, panel 2)

3. Micro: contains part of one active entity (Figure 1, panel 3)

4. Amorphic: does not contain any active entities (Figure 1, panel 4)

Figure 1. Examples of the four attentional framing categories, from left to right: macro panel, mono panel, micro panel, amorphic panel (De Moor, 1990).

Although it is easy to liken the attentional framing categories to filmic shot types such as full shots or close-ups, such a comparison does not hold up entirely. While filmic shots are used to describe a way of visually framing a scene, attentional framing categories detail how many active entities are in a certain panel.

In a cross-cultural study on attentional framing, it was found that American mainstream comics used more macros than monos, more monos than micros, and more micros than amorphic panels (Cohn, Taylor-Weiner & Grossman, 2012; Cohn, 2011). The independent American comic books in the same corpus were similar, but slightly different: macro and mono were used significantly more often than micro and amorphic. Another study looked at how American superhero comics developed over time (Cohn, Taylor & Pederson, 2017). The corpus contained, again, more macros than monos, and a much smaller amount of micros and amorphic panels. However, an inverse trend appeared between macros and monos. From the 1950s until the 1990s, the amount of macros decreased and the amount of monos increased. This would imply that there is a negative correlation between macro and mono panels.

Another way that comic books can use to guide their readers’ attention to a certain element is the framing style of the panels. There are many different ways to frame a panel, but the most common ways are distinguished in the following three categories, also pictured in Figure 2:

1. Base framing: the content of the panel does not interact with the content of any other panels (figure 2, panel 1).

2. Divisional framing: one image is split and spread over two panels (figure 2, panel 2).

3. Dominant/inset framing: an important element in a panel is emphasized by having its own (inset) panel inside the bigger (dominant) panel (figure 2, panel 3).

Figure 2. Examples of the three framing categories, from left to right: base framing, divisional framing and dominant/inset framing.

In a study on the framing styles of American superhero comics over time (Pederson & Cohn, 2016), it has become clear that the pure grid, horizontal stagger and whole row framing styles, all part of the base framing category above, are by far the most used framing styles in American comics. However, while dominant/inset panels were hardly ever used in the 1940s and 1950s, their frequency in American superhero comics has increased over the years, though they remain in fairly small proportions overall.

Another aspect that should be taken into account when researching visual storytelling is the presence of semantic changes between panels. These changes are not exclusive to visual language, and have been established in other fields of research. In film theory, semantic changes take place every time one shot ends and is followed by a new one (Magliano & Zacks, 2011). Such a transition can either maintain continuity with the previous shot, or break continuity in regards to its spatial location, its state of time, or the situation presented. In linguistics, a number of situational dimensions is defined (Zwaan & Radvansky, 1998). These dimensions are stored within the language we use, and include time, space, protagonists and objects, causation and motivation. Scott McCloud (1993) introduced these semantic transitions in the field of visual language. In his work, the three most important semantic transitions are shifts from one action to another, which create a change in time, shifts from subject to subject, which create a change in characters, and a change from scene to scene, which creates a change of spatial location. As such, the following semantic change categories can be distinguished:

1. Character changes: subsequent panels either show the same or different characters.

2. Spatial location changes: subsequent panels either take place in the same location or a different one.

3. Temporal changes: subsequent panels either feature a time change or not.

McCloud’s research also extended to a cross-cultural comparison between American, European and Japanese comics (McCloud, 1993). A sampling of American comics showed the proportion of semantic changes being used as fairly consistent. Time changes were the most common transition. Character changes occurred less frequently, but more often than spatial location changes. European comics, while slightly more variable in their use of semantic changes, largely

5 followed the same proportions. On the other hand, Japanese comics used the semantic transitions in a strikingly different proportion. In manga, time changes were used more sparingly, while character changes were more common. A fourth category was also found to be used regularly in Japanese manga. He called this aspect-to-aspect transition, and it encompasses a series of conceptually related amorphic panels. This transition did not make notable appearances in American or European comics. Other work has looked at the presence of semantic changes in American comics through the past eight decades (Cohn, Taylor & Pederson, 2017). Time changes were the most commonly found semantic transitions, followed by character changes. In turn, more character changes were found than spatial location changes. While the amount of character changes in the books remained somewhat stable, the amount of time changes increased and the amount of spatial location decreased.

Although expectations about the differences and similarities between the visual language in Dutch and Flemish comics have not been studied in existing literature, there is a theory that binds the two countries together. American and Japanese comic books approach semantic changes differently, but no such difference was observed between European (French, German) and American comic books (McCloud, 1993; Cohn, Huffman, Pederson & Taylor, 2017). Thus, though they weren’t examined directly, comics from The Netherlands and Belgium may have a similar narrative style. If there is, as hypothesized in earlier literature on comic books (McCloud, 1993), a Euro- American narrative style that is prevalent across most Western countries, that would mean Dutch and Flemish comic books would follow the same general patterns regarding the use of semantic changes, and possibly in other aspects.

1. As both Dutch and Flemish comic books belong to the Euro-American narrative style, the vast majority of them will have similar approaches in visual storytelling, specifically when it comes to semantic changes.

This storytelling approach will mean that macro panels are used more often than mono panels, mono panels are used more often than micro panels, and micro panels are used more often than amorphic panels consistent with what has been found for American comics in other research (Cohn, Taylor-Weiner & Grossman, 2012; Cohn, 2011; Cohn, Taylor & Pederson, 2017). Also, base framing is used more often than other framing types, as seen in an earlier study on framing types in comics (Pederson & Cohn, 2016). Time changes occurs more often than other semantic changes, and character changes occur more often than spatial location changes, as found in an earlier corpus study that included semantic change in its analysis (Cohn, Taylor & Pederson, 2017).

It could also be assumed that comic books from the Dutch language area would change over time much in the same way as the American comic books in earlier research (Cohn, Taylor & Pederson, 2017).

2. Over time, the visual storytelling in Dutch and Flemish comic books goes through the same changes as the ones found in American comic books.

Dutch and Flemish comics changing along with American comics would mean that their proportion of monos grows and their proportion of macros shrinks, in an inverse fashion. It would also mean that, even though base framing would still be the most common framing type by far, a slight increase should be seen in the use of dominant/inset framing. Furthermore, the amount of time changes would increase and the amount of spatial location changes would decrease.

On the other hand, it could be assumed that Dutch and Flemish comics are different in some aspects. Even though Flemish is a dialect derived from the Dutch language, Flanders is located in another country and has a culture of its own. Also, the historical context suggests that, after a shared origin, Dutch and Flemish comics have respectively gained a very different position and reputation in society (Lefèvre, 2013; Lefèvre & Van Gompel, 2003; De Weyer & Nihoul, 2015; Van Geelen, 2009; Kolk & Van Tol, 2008; Meesters, 2007). This could lead to the two comics cultures leading divergent paths, even in narrative style. However, it should be noted that there is no literature to base assumptions about the concrete shape of these changes on. As such, the following hypotheses are more explorative in nature.

3. Flemish comics, as products of a culture slightly different from the Dutch one, will show some relatively minor differences compared with Dutch comics. 4. Due to a more successful and stimulated environment, Flemish comics might have gone through some developments that did not (yet) reach Dutch comics.

Method Materials In total, eighty books were analysed. The books that made up the corpus were selected based on their country of origin and year of publication. For every decade from the 1940s up to the 2010s, ten books were gathered. Five of those were Dutch books, the remaining five were Flemish books. The materials included short strip collections, comic albums, and graphic novels across all genres. A complete list of used materials can be found in the appendix. Coding process Each book was manually coded by one of two coders. Coding included the whole book, the first 25 pages, or the first 150 panels, whichever came first. The mean rate per panel was calculated for every analysed category of that book. Final analyses were performed on means across all books in the corpus.

To ensure the two coders processed and categorized the books in the same way, the first ten books were analysed by both coders. After completion, the coding results were then checked to determine whether the two coders were in sufficient congruency, tested with a Kappa test. As seen in Table 1, the intercoder reliability ranged from sufficient to very high. The intercoder reliability was at its lowest for the coding of time changes (a Kappa of .541). In this case, the two coders’ assessment deviated on 35 panels of the total 1475 panels. Therefore, in absolute numbers the coders were aligned fairly well, even with a sub-par Kappa score. Before proceeding to the rest of the corpus, the two coders verified that the intercoder reliability was sufficient, and discussed the most common disagreements found in the first ten books to make future coding more consistent.

Table 1.

Intercoder reliability of the various coding categories in the corpus’ first ten books. Expressed in Cohen’s Kappa and the number of agreements and disagreements between the two coders.

Kappa # of panels with # of panels with intercoder agreement intercoder disagreement

Attentional .830 1420 190 framing Framing type 1 1523 0

Character change .857 1371 104 Spatial change .754 1354 121 Time change .541 1441 34 Areas of analysis Attentional category The first of three coded dimensions was the attentional category of the panels. Within this dimension, panels were coded into one of five categories. A more detailed description of the five attentional categories can be found in the background section. A panel was coded as Macro when it depicted more than one active entity in the frame. If there was only one active entity present, the panel fell under the Mono category. If only part of an active entity was shown in the frame, it was

8 categorized as a Micro panel. If there are were no active entities in the frame, for example if it is a panel that serves the purpose to set the scene for the next panel, it was coded as an Amorphic panel.

Framing type The second dimension that was part of the corpus analysis was the framing type. In contrast to the attentional framing category, which contains information about the content of a panel, the framing type is more cosmetic in nature. There are three framing types in this analysis: base framing, divisional framing and dominant/inset framing. A more detailed description of the three types can be found in the background section. A panel was coded as base framing when it did not interact with any other panels. A panel was coded as divisional framing if two consecutive panels together showed one image, split into two parts. A panel was coded as dominant/inset if one, often important, element of a bigger panel (the dominant) was highlighted as a separate panel inside its frame (the inset).

Semantic changes The third dimension that was analysed in the books, was the presence of of semantic changes. Three of these transitions are examined in this corpus: character changes, spatial location changes and time changes. The semantic changes can occur in any combination, and are not mutually exclusive or tied to each other. Semantic changes can either occur on their own, together with one of the other changes, or with all changes at the same time. Other known semantic transitions such as causation and motivation are excluded from this analysis because of their relative subjectivity and lack of precedent in earlier visual language research.

The first semantic change category, character changes, was coded in three ways. A full character change (1) was coded when a panel had a completely different set of characters than the previous one. No character change (0) was coded when all characters from the previous panel were also present in the coded panel, and no new characters were added to the panel. A partial character change (0,5) was coded when some of the characters were the same, but not all of them. This included situations where new characters were added alongside the characters that appeared in the previous panel, as can be seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3. An example of a partial character change. (De Moor, 1990)

The differences in spatial location between panels were also coded in three ways. A full spatial location change (1) was coded when the panel took place in a location entirely different from

9 the one shown in the previous panel. No spatial location change (0) was coded when the panel took place roughly in the same area as the previous panel. The shots could move around inside one single room or locale without a spatial location change being coded. A partial location change (0,5) was coded when the new panel took place in a different area than the previous panel, but one that was still located within the same general location. An example of this can be seen in Figure 4, where the main character is first seen standing outside of a building, and then inside the building in the next panel. While both panels take place at different locations, they still both belong to the same building: the bar “In De Zondebok”.

Figure 4. An example of a partial spatial location change. (De Moor, 1990)

The last category of semantic changes included in this analysis is the difference in time between panels. If there were cues that proved time had passed (or deviated in another way) between the two panels, a time change was coded (1). If there were no cues to prove the passing of time or a time jump between the two panels, no time change was coded (0). If there was any ambiguity at all, the panel was coded as having no time change. This means that a panel that possibly happened at a different time than the previous panel, but does not explicitly show it as a different time, was still not coded as a time change. For example, the events in the first and second panel of Figure 5 could either have happened consecutively or at the same time. Because there are no cues that prove either possibility is true, the second panel would be coded as having no time change.

Figure 5. An example of two comic panels with no time change (Gastmans, 1973).

Data analyisis

For the analysis, the mean use per panel was calculated for every coded variable in every book. Variance analyses (ANOVAs) were then used to check for significant differences both within the coded category, and across the two cultures (Dutch and Flemish) and the eight decades (1940 until now) represented in the corpus. For analyses of single variables such as the number of panels per page, univariate ANOVAs were used. For the variables with various categories, such as attentional framing categories, the analysis was performed with repeated measure ANOVAs. Panels per page, attentional framing category, framing style and semantic changes were set as within-group factors. The country and decade of publication were set as between-groups factors. Because all four coded categories consisted of multiple possible values, pairwise comparison was used to further investigate the exact differences between them in the case of a significant difference.

Results

Basic page properties

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 Mean panels per page per panels Mean 2 0 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Decade of publication

Dutch comics Flemish comics

Figure 6. The mean amount of panels per page throughout the years.

On average, a page from the corpus contained 9.3 panels, with the panels per page ranging anywhere from 2.8 to 24 panels. The number of panels per page remained steady across decades 2 (F = .977, p < .5, ηp = .097). However, a main effect of the comics’ countries of origin suggested a 2 difference overall between Flemish and Dutch panels per page (F = 12.75, p < .002, ηp = .166).

Flemish comics had a mean of 10.5 panels per page, while their Dutch counterparts only had a mean of 8.1 panels per page. An interaction between the country of origin and decade of 2 publication trended towards significance (F = 2.07, p < .07, ηp = .185).

Attentional framing

0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1

Mean proportion of use per panel per of use proportion Mean 0,0 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Decade of publication

Macro panels Mono panels Micro panels Amorphic panels

Figure 7. The mean proportion per panel in which the four framing categories are used in the Dutch language area.

Overall, attentional framing categories differed significantly from each other (F = 824.5, p < 2 .001, ηp = .928). Macro panels were used more often than mono panels (p < .001), while mono panels were used more than both micro and amorphic panels (p < .001), which did not differ (p = 1). Overall, the mean proportion of use per panel was 0.69 for macro panels, 0.27 for mono panels, 0.014 for micro panels and 0.016 for amorphic panels.

2 There was no main effect of either the decade (F = .942, p < .5, ηp = .093) or country of 2 publication (F = 2.8, p < .1, ηp = .042) on the occurrence of attentional categories, nor was there an 2 interaction between them (F = 1.55. p < .2, ηp = .145). Therefore, the distribution of the different attentional framing categories across panels was consistent between Dutch and Flemish comics, as well as in general throughout the years. The proportion of use of the four attentional framing categories in both Dutch and Flemish comics can be seen in Figure 7.

Framing type

The use of the various framing types differed from each other significantly (F = 446905.0, p < .001). 99.8% of all panels used base framing, a significantly more frequent use than any other framing type. The other framing types did not differ from each other. No differences were found 2 between the country of origin (F = .368, p < .6, ηp = .006), nor the decade of publication (F = .715, p < 2 2 .8, ηp = .072) or an interaction between the two (F = 1.1, p < .4, ηp = .107). The mean proportion of use per panel for the four framing types was .997 for base framing, .00032 for divisional framing, and finally .00098 and .00082 for inset and dominant framing respectively.

Semantic changes

1 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1

Mean proportion of use per panel per of use proportion Mean 0 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Decade of publication

Character changes Spatial location changes Time changes

Figure 8. The mean proportion of use per panel of the three analysed semantic changes in Dutch comics.

1 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1

Mean proportion of use per panel per of use proportion Mean 0 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Decade of publication

Character changes Spatial location changes Time changes

Figure 9. The mean proportion of use per panel of the three analysed semantic changes in Flemish comics.

2 The analysis showed a main effect of the type of semantic change (F = 2659.8, p < .001, ηp = .975). Time changes occurred significantly more often than character changes (p < .001), which in turn occurred more often than changes of spatial location (p < .001). The mean proportion of use per panel was .38 for character changes, .17 for spatial location changes, and .96 for time changes.

These proportions held true throughout the years, as there was no main effect of decade of publication on the occurence of semantic changes. There was, however, an interaction between the 2 semantic changes and the country of origin (F = 4.5, p < .006, ηp = .084). On closer inspection, Dutch comics featured a slightly higher amount of spatial (a mean of .172 vs .164) and time (a mean of .964

14 vs .952) changes per panel. In turn, Flemish comics used a higher amount of mean character changes per panel (a mean of .410 vs .352). The differences between the use of semantic changes in Dutch and Flemish comics can be seen in Figure 8 and Figure 9, respectively.

Table 2.

The main effects and interactions of semantic changes, expressed in F-values. Bolded amounts were significant. * means p < 0.5, while ^ means p < 0.3.

Country Decade Interaction between country and decade Character change 2.7 .5 1.4 Spatial change .1 .6 .9 Time change 3.8 .2 1.9 Character & 1 1.2 2.5 ^ spatial changes Character & time 3.1 .2 1.4 changes Spatial & time 4.2 * 1.7 1.7 changes All three changes 1.8 1.1 2.2 *

Further analysis of both the separate and combined usage of the various semantic changes can be found in Table 2. A main effect of the country of origin on the number of panels with both a 2 spatial change and a time change was found (F = 4.2, p < .05, ηp = .062). This specific combination of semantic changes occurred significantly more often in Dutch books than in Flemish books. MEAN.

Furthermore, an interaction was found between country of origin and decade of publication 2 for the amount of panels that had both a character change and a spatial change (F = 2.5, p < .03, ηp = .214). While the this semantic combination slightly decreased in Flemish books, it increased in Dutch comics between the 1980s and the 2000s. This interaction can be seen in Figure 10. Another interaction between country of origin and decade of publication was found for panels that had all 2 three semantic changes included in this analysis (F = 2.2, p < .05, ηp = .193). This interaction follows the same pattern as seen in Figure 10, as the only added semantic change (time changes) is not influenced by the decade of publication.

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

Mean proportion of use per panel per of use proportion Mean 0,0 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Decade of publication

Dutch Flemish

Figure 10. The mean proportion of use per panel of both character change and spatial change, for Dutch and Flemish comics.

Conclusion & discussion This study analysed the attentional framing and semantic relationships within a corpus of eighty books from the Netherlands and the Flemish parts of Belgium. The research asked whether or not there have been significant changes in these visual narratives between the two regions and over the last eight decades. Neither of those dimensions proved to have a consistent influence on the visual storytelling of the various books. This suggests that Dutch and Flemish comics share a certain style of storytelling that has remained stable over the last eight decades. Analysis of the attentional framing categories showed that macros were used significantly more often than monos, and monos more often than micros and amorphic panels. On the whole, this proportion of attentional framing categories indicates that storytelling heavily relies on interactions between different characters. The large majority of panels involve multiple characters, rather than one singular protagonist. This can be explained by the Dutch and Flemish popularity of humorous adventure comics about families and groups of friends (Lefèvre & Van Gompel, 2003; Lefèvre, 2013; Meesters, 2007). The fact that there are at least two, and often more, protagonists in this particular genre makes macro panels especially common. Absence of large amounts of micros and amorphic panels could indicate that environment and details on characters play a secondary role to the characters themselves. This could be another reason why macros appeared more often than monos. Furthermore, macro panels provide the reader with information about multiple characters, whereas mono panels make assumptions about the whereabouts and actions of entities outside the panel’s frame necessary. The use of different framing categories shows a very basic approach to panel framing. The overwhelming majority of all panels used base framing, with a very small proportion of both divisional and dominant/inset framing. Divisional framing could only be found in two books of the eighty book corpus. Dominant/inset framing showed up in four books. Even these sparse appearances of alternative framing types seem to be a modern development: all instances of divisional and dominant/inset framing occurred in the 21st century. This could be related to the longtime existence of Dutch and Flemish comics as newspaper strips, shying away from dedicated comic books or magazines popular in the French language area (Lefèvre, 2013). The creative constraints introduced by newspaper publishing may have established a more straightforward style in Dutch and Flemish comics that also translates to an aversion of using more complicated framing types. The proportion of semantic changes also attests to a certain simplicity in Dutch and Flemish storytelling. Time changes were found significantly more often than character changes, which were found more often than spatial location changes. The high amount of time changes points to a largely linear and chronological passing of time in Dutch and Flemish comics as opposed to more complicated representations of time. Also, paired with the high proportion of macro panels, the many time changes mean that Dutch and Flemish books mostly show the passage in time of complete scenes. On the other hand, the amount of spatial location changes is relatively low. This infers a fairly constant backdrop for the story. The higher amount of character changes compared to location changes meshes well with the concept of a character-based storytelling approach, as mentioned earlier in this section.

Dutch and Flemish: dialect in verbal and visual language? The country of origin of the books seemed to have a bigger influence on the basic properties of the page than on the actual contents of the panels. The number of panels was significantly higher in Flemish comics (10.5 panels per page) than in Dutch comics (8.1 panels per page). Strikingly, both

17 means are higher than those found in earlier analysis of American comics, where the corpus had a mean of just 5.0 panels per page (Cohn, Taylor & Pederson, 2017). This can be explained by the historical popularity of comic albums with three-panel tiers and four-tier pages (Lefèvre, 2013). Even though this structure is not as widely used as in the early days of Dutch and Flemish comics, it may have kept the amount of panels per page up when compared to American comics. The difference between Dutch and Flemish panel numbers can also be traced back to a historical difference: especially the older Dutch comics seemed to contain less panels per page than Flemish comics. This can be explained by the fact that Flemish comics started using speech balloons, rather than an accompanying text (Lefèvre, 2013). The introduction of speech balloons and other text carriers changed the way a story could be told visually. The comic strips were no longer just there to support a text, they could contain the entirety of the narrative. However, this meant that some elements that used to only appear in writing, now had to be expressed in the comic strip itself. The comic used to only visualize the most important parts of its accompanying text, but now it had to show the reader all its other elements too. More panels were needed to make that shift possible. In the meantime, Dutch comics still used a separate, accompanying text for dialogue and storytelling. Because Dutch comics were typically printed on smaller pages than Flemish albums, a new lay-out was needed. Apart from the accompanying text, several books in our corpus only had space left for one tier of three or four panels per page. This makes for an overall number of panels per page that is significantly smaller for Dutch books than Flemish books. The actual contents of the panels, however, were hardly influenced by the country of origin. The country of origin only had a main effect on one specific set of semantic changes and an interaction with decade of publication on another two. A combination of a spatial change and time change was found more often in Dutch books than in Flemish books. A simultaneous instance of a character change and a spatial change, as well as an instance of all three semantic changes at once, were also found more often in Dutch comics. Especially between the 1980s and the 2000s, comics from the Netherlands displayed these semantic combinations significantly more often than their Flemish counterparts. The interaction between country of origin and decade of publication seemed to concern spatial location changes primarily. In Flemish comics, spatial location changes were used more often in the 1960s, whereas there was no increase of spatial location changes in Dutch comics until the 1980s through the 2000s. Both attentional framing and the general type of framing were left uninfluenced by the country the comic books were published in. Given that most of the analysed fields did not differ between Dutch and Flemish comics, it seems to discount the hypothesis that visual storytelling differs between Dutch and Flemish comics because of their respective languages’ dialectic relation. The history of Flemish comics shares many aspects with the history of Dutch comics. For example, early comics from both the Dutch and Flemish area were newspaper comic strips first and foremost (Lefèvre, 2013; Lefèvre & Van Gompel, 2003), which comes with narrative and stylistic consequences. The countries share an affinity for humorous adventure comics based around families and groups of friends, rather than solitary protagonists (Lefèvre & Van Gompel, 2003; Meesters, 2007). If anything, this shared origin might have pulled the comics from the two regions closer together when it comes to narrative and style. That could be why Dutch and Flemish comics remain so alike in analysis. Just after World War II, the similarities seen in the Dutch and Flemish comics also extended to comics from other parts of Europe and America. Over the years, this did not remain the case, as detailed further on in this section. Changes through time The decade of publication of the comic books had an even smaller impact on the analysed aspects than the country of origin. In this corpus, no main effect of decade of publication was found on any area of analysis. While the basic page properties, attentional framing structure, and framing

18 style were not connected to publication date at all, there are two instances in which the decade of publication interacted with the country of origin to influence the occurrence of simultaneous instances of character and spatial location changes, as well as the occurrence of simultaneous instances of character, spatial location and time changes. This result contrasts the changes over time observed for attentional framing structure in American superhero comics over the same time span of eight decades (Cohn, Taylor & Pederson, 2017). For example, the amount of mono panels in American comic books increased over the years and showed an inverse trend from macro panels. Strikingly, neither of those developments was found in the Dutch and Flemish corpus. The same goes for the occurrence of the different framing styles. Corpus research on American superhero comics suggested that the proportion of panels with dominant/inset framing has increased throughout the years, even though the vast majority of panels still used base framing (Pederson & Cohn, 2016). That increase through the years did not take place in the Dutch and Flemish books analysed. Instead, the proportions of the three framing styles remained stable. Furthermore, the interaction between semantic changes and decade of publication found in the aforementioned research also did not translate to the Dutch-Flemish corpus. No changes over time, either similar or inverse, were found in the Dutch and Flemish comic books. Instead, the use of the different semantic changes stayed the same across the decades. There are a number of reasons that could explain why Dutch and Flemish comics did not see the same changes over time as the American comics. The shift in American comics has been attributed to decompression (Cohn, Taylor-Weiner & Pederson, 2017). This phenomenon is believed to originate from imitation of the storytelling of Japanese manga, and accounts for longer scenes within the same location. This makes for a more cinematic experience. This could clash with the Dutch and Flemish comic style, which is more functional and less detailed. Dutch language comics tend to stick to a more straightforward model, especially when the majority of these comics are tailored towards children (Kolk & Van Tol, 2008). Graphic novels that are geared towards a more mature audience could open up creative possibilities and more opportunity for change, but fail to find a big market, especially in the Netherlands. Another reason that manga-style decompression might not yet have a noticeable influence on Dutch and Flemish comics, is the stigma and prejudice associated with Japanese comics. Even though manga is gaining a fanbase in the Netherlands and Belgium, its popularity might be held back by assumptions that Japanese material is violent and sexual (Vermeulen, 2009). Perhaps that is the reason manga is not as widely distributed as in the United States, limiting its influence on local comic narratives.

Cross-cultural differences While the Dutch-Flemish corpus did not show the same changes over time present in American books, it does mirror some previous corpus research on American comic books (Cohn, Taylor-Weinier & Grossman, 2012). For example, the attentional framing structure found in the Dutch and Flemish books was similar to mainstream American comics in its preference for macro panels over mono panels. However, the way amorphic and ambiguous panels are handled is more like independent American comics: the two categories take up less than 1% of all panels and do not significantly differ from each other. This same distribution of attentional framing was also found in a more recent corpus study on American superhero comics (Cohn, Taylor & Pederson, 2017), and the American results in a comparative study between American comics and manga (Cohn, 2011). The framing types present in Dutch and Flemish comics are similar to those in American comics, as well (Pederson & Cohn, 2016). The overwhelming majority of panels had base framing, with a very small proportion of alternative framing types. The proportion in which the three semantic

19 categories are used also resembles the one found in the corpus study on American superhero comics (Cohn et al., 2017): time changes were the most common, though not as common as in Dutch and Flemish comics. Character changes occur less often than time changes, but more often than spatial location changes. While the proportions of attentional framing types and semantic changes of American and Dutch/Flemish comics are similar to each other, they do differ from those found in Japanese comics (Cohn, Taylor-Weiner & Pederson, 2012). Dutch, Flemish and American comics tend to show a complete scene rather than details and environments. This is indicated by the proportion in which macro panels are used: they are used at least as often as monos in the Western comics, while the majority of Japanese manga panels are monos. The semantic changes found in manga are also quite different from those in Western comics (McCloud, 1993). Japanese comics had less time changes, more character changes and a similar proportion of location changes when compared to Western comics. McCloud suggests this might be related to the way manga is published. Manga is often collected and consumed in large volumes, which lessens the pressure to provide a lot of action within one comic. The Dutch-Flemish comic tradition stands in stark contrast, because of its origins in the newspapers: every instalment of three or six panels needed some kind of action or tension to keep their readers on board (Lefèvre, 2013). Showing many details on characters or the surroundings was simply not an efficient use of the small amount of panels comic artists had, and it seems manga’s attention to detail and deliberate pacing has not gained much importance in the Dutch language area. The attentional and semantical structures in Dutch and Flemish comics can be likened to those used in American comics. The similarity is especially striking in the earlier decades of this analysis. However, over time the American comics seem to have shifted in a slightly different direction. The proportions of attentional framing categories, framing types and semantic changes found in American comics started changing. These changes can’t be found in Dutch and Flemish comics. Even if there was once some kind of Euro-American narrative style that connects Western comics, this analysis provides evidence that it is not absolute. The Dutch and Flemish comics did not move into the same direction American comics did, so there seems to be at least some room for cultural differences within a broader, contemporary Euro-American style. Recommendations for future research The key to finding out whether a less strict version of McCloud’s proposed Euro-American narrative style could exist lies in doing more thorough and broad corpus research on comics in other European languages. While some research has been done on comics from other parts of Europe, such as Germany and France (Cohn, Huffman, Pederson & Taylor, n.d.), this only encompasses a number of specific narrative patterns. More corpus research could be done to compare their use of attentional framing category, framing style and semantic transitions. This would be especially interesting as French and German comics are not as entangled with the history of the Dutch language area, as Flemish and Dutch comics are. Another possibility lies in further examining the various publishing styles of comics. While comic books, comic albums and graphic novels were all part of the corpus analysis, they did not appear in equal measures. Especially the graphic novels could benefit from further investigation, because of their distinctive stylistic and narrative experimentation compared to mainstream Dutch and Flemish comics. The Japanese influence that is absent from the corpus as a whole might be more apparent in these graphic novels.

The goal of this corpus analysis was to shed some light on the way visual storytelling has developed over the years in Dutch and Flemish comics, and the role the culture and time in which the comics were published played in that development. Neither culture nor time turned out to have a

20 considerable impact on visual storytelling. The differences between the Dutch and Flemish books, as well as between the eight decades analysed, were minimal. This means no evidence could be provided to support the hypothesis that visual languages can have dialectical interactions. However, there was a striking difference in development with American superhero books. While American books have changed their use of attentional framing, framing style and semantic changes, none of these developments carried over to the Dutch-Flemish corpus. This seems to put a nuance on some earlier work’s suggestion that there is a uniform Euro-American narrative style (McCloud, 1993; Cohn, Huffman, Pederson & Taylor, n.d.). Even though the comics from the Dutch language area have, especially in their early days, shared many properties with those from America the differences between them are certainly not negligible. This could indicate that the Euro-American narrative style is a thing of the past, or at the very least less cohesive than assumed. This analysis of Dutch and Flemish comics fills a relative blind spot when it comes to research on visual storytelling, even when it’s a small one. It could be a first step to getting a clearer image of European comic culture and the way it handles visual narratives. It will remain to be seen whether the rest of Europe treads the same road as America or stays closer to their origins like the Netherlands and Flanders seem to have done. No matter if the concept of an Euro-American style in comics disappears into the side of the frame, there is still a lot to be learned about European comics and their relation to their American relatives.

References Chambers, J. K. & Trudgill, P. (1998). Dialectology (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Cohn, N. (2011). A different kind of cultural frame: An analysis of panels in American comics and Japanese manga. Image & Narrative, 12(1).

Cohn, N. (2013). The Visual Language of Comics: Introduction to the structure and cognition of sequential images. London, England: Bloomsbury Academic.

Cohn, N., Huffman, R., Pederson, K. & Taylor, R. (no date). Diversity of structural complexity in visual narratives: A cross-cultural corpus analysis. [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego.

Cohn, N., Taylor-Weinier, A. & Grossman, S. (2012). Framing attention in Japanese and American comics: cross-cultural differences in attentional structure. Frontiers in Cultural Psychology, 3, 1-12.

Cohn, N., Taylor, R. & Pederson, K. (2017). A Picture is Worth More Words Over Time: Multimodality and Narrative Structure Across Eight Decades of American Superhero Comics. Multimodal Communication, 6(1), 19-37.

Van Geelen, T. (2009, 31 March). De strip in opmars. Trouw. Retrieved from: https://www.trouw.nl/cultuur/de-strip-in-opmars~ad3ae6f3/

Kolk, H. & Van Tol, J. (2008, 27 September). Red de Nederlandse strips. NRC Handelsblad. Retrieved from: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2008/09/27/red-de-nederlandse-strips-11614272- a1230143

Lambiek Comics (no date). Comics history, in: Comiclopedia. [Website]. Retrieved from: https://www.lambiek.net/comics/index.htm?lan=english

Lefèvre, P. & Van Gompel, P. (2003). Introduction: Comics in Flanders. In New Flemish Comics. Antwerp, Belgium: Vlaams Fonds voor de Letteren.

Lefèvre, P. (2013). Narration in the Flemish Dual Publication System. The Crossover Genre Humoristic Adventure. In D. Stein & J. Thon (Ed.), Comic Strips to Graphic Novels: Contributions to the Theory and History of Graphic Narrative. (pp. 155-169)

Magliano, J. P. & Zacks, J. M. (2011). The impact of continuity editing in narrative film on event segmentation. Cognitive Science, 35(8), 1489-1517.

McCloud, S. (1993). Understanding comics: the invisible art. New York City: HarperPerennial.

Meesters, G. (2007). Strips in het Nederlands: onbekend is ongebruikt. In Neerlandistiek in contrast: Handelingen Zestiende Colloquium Neerlanicum. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Rozenberg Publishers.

Rijghard, R. (2016, 2 June). Nederlandse strip beleeft schrale jaren. NRC Handelsblad. Retrieved from: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/06/02/nederlandse-strip-beleeft-schrale-jaren- 1623698-a84856

Saraceni, M. (2016). Relatedness: Aspects of Textual Connectivity in Comics. In N. Cohn (Ed.), The Visual Narrative Reader. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Vermeulen, A. (2009, 21 September). Manga: lering en vermaak. Trouw. Retrieved from: https://www.trouw.nl/home/manga-lering-en-vermaak~afc7c4e2/

Weyer, G. de & Nihoul, P. (2015). La Belgique dessinée. Paris: Urban Comics.

Zwaan, R. A. & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation Models in Language Comprehension and Memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162-185.

Appendix: list of materials used in corpus

Decade Country Reference 1940- Dutch Mazure, A. (1940). Dick Bos. Ten Hagen. 1950 Piët, F. (1940). Sjors, voorzitter van de Rebellenclub 4. De Spaarnestad. Schulte, K. (1947-1948). Tom Poes Weekblad. Uitgeverij Boumaar. Kuhn, P., & Aberson, W. (1947). Kapitein Rob: De avonturen van het zeilschip De Vrijheid. De Nieuwe Pers. Kresse, H.G. (1948). Eric de Noorman: De steen van Atlantis. ’t Kasteel van Aemstel. Flemish Vandersteen, W. (1946). Rikki en Wiske. Standaard Uitgeverij. Vandersteen, W. (1946). De Sprietatoom. Standaard Uitgeverij. Vandersteen, W. (1947). Vrolijke Bengels 1. Standaard Uitgeverij. Sleen, M. (1948). Het geheim van Matsuoka. Standaard Uitgeverij. Vandersteen, W. (1949). Op het eiland Amoras. Standaard Uitgeverij. 1950- Dutch Piët, F. (1952). Sjors en Sjimmie bij de arabieren. De Spaarnestad. 1960 Koeleman, J. H. (1954). Koning Neptunus helpt Pinkie. Mulder & Zoon. Toonder, M. (1957). Zoals een Bommel betaamt. De Bezige Bij. Koeleman, J. H. (1958). Vreemde bezoekers uit het heelal. Mulder & Zoon. Toonder, M. (1958). Panda en de olie-boertjes. Skarabee Laren. Flemish Sleen, M. (1954). De avonturen van Nero en Co: De Hoorn des Overvloeds. Uitgeverij het Volk. Waterschoot, J. (1954). Jan zonder vrees. Magnum. Waterschoot, J. (1955). Robinson Crusoë. De Dageraad Uitgeverij. Vandersteen, W. (1957). De Snorrende Snor. Standaard Uitgeverij. Vandersteen, W. (1959). De Rode Ridder: Het gebroken zwaard. Standaard Uitgeverij. 1960- Dutch Wijn, P. & Mallot, H. (1961). Alleen op de wereld. Big Balloon. 1970 Smulders, L. & Voges, C. (1964). Mario en de toverpluisbloem. Uitgeverij de Spaarnestad. Toonder, M. (1964). Koning Hollewijn en de Steen der Wijzen. Andries Blitz. Piët, F. (1966). Sjors en Sjimmie: de geheimzinnige duikboot. Uitgeverij De Spaarnestad. Matena, D. & Hertog van Banda, L. (1968). De Argonautjes: De onderwereld. Rijperman. Flemish Sleen, M. (1963). De avonturen van Nero en Co: De brief aan Nasser. Uitgeverij het Volk Vandersteen, W. (1964). Jerom: De bronzen kabouter. Standaard Uitgeverij. Vandersteen, W. (1964). De Rode Ridder: Kerwyn de Magiër. Standaard Uitgeverij. Van Hove, J. (1965). Piet Pienter en Bert Bibber: Invasie uit het heelal. Standaard Uitgeverij. Nys, J. (1966). De belevenissen van Jommeke: De muzikale Bella. Uitgeverij het Volk. 1970- Dutch Kruis, J. (1970-1980). Jan, Jans & de kinderen. Joop Wiggers Produkties. 1980 Bakker, J., & Van Banda, L.H. (1970). Blook: De supermolekuul. De geïllustreerde pers. Brugman, G., Van Banda, L.H., & Ringers, R. (1972). Ambrosius: De gefleste geesten. De geïllustreerde pers.

Van der Heide, F., & Van Haasteren, J. (1978). Baron van Tast tot Zeveren. Oberon. Lodewijk, M. (1978). Agent 327: Dossier zevenslaper. Uitgeverij M. Flemish Vandersteen, Willy. (1972). Suske en Wiske: De Poenschepper. Standaard Uitgeverij. Gastmans, E. (1973). Willeke: De draak van Kokoluput. Studio Rigida. Broeckx, J. (1976). Sloeber: Het Komplot. Standaard Uitgeverij. Mau, B. (1976). Kari Lente & Co. 4. Born Superstrip. Vandersteen, Willy. (1978). Bessy: Ondergang in de grot. Standaard Uitgeverij. 1980- Dutch Kruis, J. (1980-1990). Jan, Jans & de kinderen. Joop Wiggers Produkties. 1990 Steeman, J., & Brandt, A. (1981). Een avontuur van Roel Dijkstra: De superspits. Oberon. Roep, T. & Wijn, P. (1982). Douwe Dabbert: Florijn de Flierefluiter. Oberon De Jager, G., & Stevenhagen, W. (1986). De Familie Doorzon: Het geslacht Doorzon. Big Balloon. Vervoort, J. (1988). Een avontuur van Elno: Déjà vu in sMon-Thang. Oberon. Flemish Vandersteen, W. (1981). Suske & Wiske: Het geheim van de Kalmthoutse Heide. Standaard Uitgeverij. Nys, J. (1982). Jommeke: Het piepend bed. Het Volk. Urbanus, & Linthout, W. (1984). De Avonturen van Urbanus: Tegen de Dikkenekken. Broeckx, J. &, Meul, M. (1986). Bessy Natuurkommando: De nacht van de schildpad. Standaard Uitgeverij. Michel, M. (1988). De Spookjes: Spoken en Piraten. Reprint Books. 1990- Dutch Ritsier, W., & Oosterveer, M. (1990). Claudia Brucken: Operatie Sneeuw. 2000 Uitgeverij Boumaar. Kuijpers, H. (1992). Franka: Gangsterfilm. Big Balloon. Schreurs, E. (1993). Joop Klepzeiker. Uitgeverij C.I.C. Van Driel, T. (1994). De Nakomertjes: Nooit meer uitslapen! Land Productions. De Heij, F., & Leijen, M. (1995). Don’t Panic! Drukkerij Zuidam & Zonen. Flemish De Moor, B. (1990). De avonturen van Johan en Stefan: De Zondebokken. Uitgeverij Boumaar. D’Hont, E., & Ravijts, R. (1996). Baxter: H20. Standaard Uitgeverij. Merho (1996). Kiekeboe: Schiet niet op de pianist. Standaard Uitgeverij. De Budt, L. (1998). Thomas Pips: De rode Heks. Uitgeverij 9de Kunst. Broeckx, J., & Legendre, M. (1999). Waterland: Onweer. Standaard Uitgeverij. 2000- Dutch Unknown. (2000). Sjors & Sjimmie: Van dik hout. Big Balloon. 2010 Steeman, J. (2001). Noortje: Altijd opgeruimd. VNU Tijdschriften. Heuvel, E., Metselaar, M., Van der Rol, R., & Groeneweg, H. (2003). De ontdekking. Anne Frank Stichting. Stok, B. (2003). Je geld of je leven. Nijgh & Van Ditmar. De Bel, M. (2008). De Kriegels: Happy Halloween, Mister Zablow. Standaard Uitgeverij. Flemish Legendre, M. (2001). Biebel: De Doos. Standaard Uitgeverij. Jean-Pol, & Swerts, W. (2003). Samson & Gert: De vliegsiroop. Studio 100. Van Asten, L., Swerts, W., & Leemans, H. (2004). W817: Een keivet akke- fietje. Standaard Uitgeverij.

Roelens, P. (2006). K3: De hoed van YaYaYippee. Studio 100. Van Aken, A., Paquet, P. & Van Uffelen, Y. (2009). Weer over naar jou. Bries. 2010- Dutch Hogenbirk, P. (2013). De Ruyter: De Engelsen komen! Strip 2000. now Van Barneveld, R. (2014). Rood: Feestje met de regen. Het Syndikaat. Van Raffe, R. (2014). Zonder filter. Oog & Blik. Heuvel, E., & Mok, I. (2015). Quaco: leven in slavernij. WalburgPers. Kriek, E. (2017). In The Pines: 5 murder ballads. Scratch. Flemish Geirnaert, J. (2010). Het Grote Kabouter Wesley Boek. De Harmonie. De Decker, F. (2013). Otto: Op hete kolen. Het Syndikaat. Merho. (2014). De Kiekeboes: Vluchtmisdrijf. Standaard Uitgeverij. D’Auwe. (2016). FC Schwalbe: Daar is ‘m. Strip2000 Leemans, H. (2016). F.C. De Kampioenen: Miss Moeial. Standaard Uitgeverij.