Most preposterous piece of Tintin "scholarship" ever?

jock123
Yes, yes it is complete and utter pants. And I mean it. I hate it, because:
1. It's long and so boring. Who on earth is going to read all that? No. 2 is the reason!
2. I think just about everything in this essay (Yeah, right. Essay.) is nonsense!


If she does not know that, then (not to be rude) I don't think she has a clue about Tintin, let alone comics!

I should remember that I am not allowed to write any kind of paper like that. Duh, this article wrings my brain!

But anyway, I think the only one who got the article right in this thread is only yamilah, which said that the image sequences contain something cryptic, something unmentioned by the speech (although yamilah went somehow unclear after several post). I doubt it too (like jock) if crypt contains other things outside the story, but if yamilah means the crypt contains a compliment to the speech (which might be the aim of the writer), then isn't it dead clear that, without knowing any fancy theories and some sort of other academical high-brow things, pictures in the panels always* explains more than words in the speech bubbles?

*well, in most cases it's usually so, isn't it?