Over the last several weeks, in preparation for this roundtable, I’ve been rereading the Locas material I have in my library. This is volumes 1 through 11 of the original Complete Love and Rockets trade paperback series. It covers the first dozen or so years of Jaime Hernandez’s career, beginning with the early “Mechanics” efforts and culminating with “Wigwam Bam.” For those familiar with the current publishing plan for the work, these are the stories in Maggie the Mechanic, The Girl from H.O.P.P.E.R.S., and nearly the first half of Perla la Loca. Because of the recent attention given to the stories “Browntown” and “The Love Bunglers,” I’ve sat down with them as well. Here are some thoughts and observations.
I’m still in awe of Hernandez’s draftsmanship, design sense, and all-but-unsurpassed skills as a visual dramatist. And I again found myself impatient with the bulk of his stories, which are invariably slight and undeveloped. Most never get beyond the level of sketches, and the longer they are, the more meandering they tend to be. (“The Death of Speedy Ortiz” and “Wigwam Bam,” the most ambitious of the extended pieces, are inchoate sprawls.) In general, Hernandez doesn’t tell stories so much as play voyeur on his characters. His work often feels like the comics equivalent of a reality TV show, albeit one shot by a world-class cinematographer.
But this is perhaps what gives Maggie, Hopey, and the others the quality that makes his fans see the characters as real as people in their own lives. (The elegant visuals also provide a basis for aesthetic appreciation that isn’t available for viewers of The Real World or Jon & Kate + 8.) In most narratives, characters are in service to the larger effect of the story, which leads to aspects of their personalities being heightened for the story’s purpose. Since Hernandez’s narratives aren’t generally conceived in terms of overall effect, the heightening is absent, and the result for some is that the characters become a source of relaxation in the manner of hanging out with one’s friends. For my part, I can’t enjoy characters and narratives in this way. I tend to see characters in stories as a means to an end, not the end in themselves.
I don’t think all of Hernandez’s stories are negligible. There are times when he demonstrates the narrative chops of a good prose-fiction writer, particularly with the short character studies he produced between “The Death of Speedy Ortiz” and “Wig Wam Bam.” The smartly constructed “Tear It Up, Terry Downe” makes deft, varied use of irony and reversal, and it has a good sense of humor besides. “Spring 1982” is beyond smart; it’s fairly masterful. Here, irony and reversals are used at least as effectively for dramatic purposes as they were for comic ones in “Terry Downe.” Hernandez takes the reader inside the Doyle Blackburn character, his propensity for violence, and his accompanying feelings of self-disgust. One sees the character’s violence from all sides: how it allows him to make his way in the world, how it defines and disrupts his relationships, and how it stands in the way of his finding any lasting fulfillment. The running-water motif is brilliantly used to organize and pace the narrative. This piece and “Terry Downe” can easily hold their own with most contemporary fiction.
“Flies on the Ceiling” is generally cited as the most accomplished of the stories from this period. At its best, one certainly agrees. It’s about the efforts of the Isabel Reubens character to flee her sense of guilt, and how this has resulted in that guilt defining her. With this story, Hernandez has moments of artistry more dazzling than he has ever shown elsewhere. Montage is used in a brilliant variety of ways: to condense the passage of time, to dramatize multiple perspectives, and to render the central character’s internal conflicts. Dream sequences are stunningly used to escalate the narrative tension. The command of pace and rhythm at times is nothing short of astonishing: in particular, the shifts between condensed-time single-moment montages to standard multi-panel scenes feel as natural as can be.
However, it’s maddening when Hernandez undermines this largely tour de force effort midway through. The two-page dialogue between Isabel and the devil (who personifies the guilt she can’t escape) is exasperating. The sources of her guilt are made thuddingly, redundantly explicit. Worse, the scene degenerates into a comic taunting match, which disrupts the carefully wrought tone that comes before and afterward. The rest of the story moves up and down the scale of portent, and this scene completely throws one out of that. Hernandez regains his footing once he moves on, but the wrongheadedness still leaves one wanting to punch the wall.
I’m also put off by Hernandez’s insistence on building effects out of one’s knowledge of Isabel from other stories. A minor example is the gang-member tattoo she sports on her shoulder. The tattoo is an ideal trope for being unable to escape the past, and Hernandez certainly calls attention to it. But he doesn’t make any other reference to her gang experiences. If one doesn’t know or recall the earlier material, it comes across as an ostensibly relevant but conspicuously undeveloped detail—in short, a lapse. The story’s ending is similarly problematic, although on a much greater scale. The devil tells Isabel, “I may turn up as flies on your ceiling.” Now for those who have read “The Death of Speedy Ortiz” and recognize the reference to Isabel’s dissociative episodes, this means quite a bit. The guilt that has haunted her is going to return in bouts of madness. The phrase “flies on your ceiling” is a fairly chilling trope. But if one hasn’t read the earlier story or doesn’t remember it, how is one supposed to take this? In light of the devil’s immediately preceding statements to Isabel, especially “You’re not afraid anymore,” one is apt to think the devil, having lost his hold on her, is exiting in a moment of empty bravado. It comes across as a hollow taunt. That’s exactly the opposite of what’s intended! Hernandez tries to build the ending out of an Easter egg for his long-term readership, and he ends up with the yolk all over his face.
Hernandez’s Easter-egg storytelling tactics were present even before “Flies on the Ceiling.” If the more recent stories “Browntown” and “The Love Bunglers” are any indication, they have become an increasingly integral aspect of his material. Hernandez’s admirers don’t see this as solipsistic or undisciplined, though. Rather, it’s indicative of how the Locas stories are “a wonderfully cohesive and organic work.” One can expect the comparisons to Marcel Proust’s In Search of Lost Time and John Updike’s Rabbit tetralogy to follow. But unlike Hernandez, Proust and Updike didn’t take reckless chances on confusing the reader. The narrative plan of Proust’s work is in place from the start, and Updike took care to design the individual Rabbit books as reasonably autonomous units. Proust’s framing scene and his “Swann in Love” novella notwithstanding, the two authors also develop their narratives chronologically. Hernandez, by contrast, just seems to be making it up as he goes. The stories superficially appear to be autonomous pieces, but they’re not. They also jump back and forth across the timeline of Hernandez’s narrative world, but they require that one read them in the order they were created to be properly understood. “Flies on the Ceiling,” for example, takes place before the Maggie-and-Hopey narrative that grounds the series, but one has to read “The Death of Speedy Ortiz,” which was created first but takes place much later, for it to have its full intended effect.
Getting back to Proust and Updike, one also notes that their narratives were strongly realized from the very first page. The dozens of pages prior to “The Death of Speedy Ortiz” (generally seen as the beginning of Hernandez’s more ambitious work) are thinly conceived banality, and a good deal of what follows isn’t much of a step up. However, one still has to wade through it all to fully grasp the more accomplished pieces. The Locas stories have their moments, but overall, they’re an erratic, haphazardly conceived mess.
Hernandez doesn’t really remind one of Proust or Updike; the most analogous figure is a contemporary, Cerebus creator Dave Sim. The two cartoonists—both technical virtuosos—came along when open-ended serials were the norm for comics, but they weren’t very far into their careers before literary fiction began to assert itself as a new model. Caught in a transitional period (one they admittedly helped bring about), they tried to create work that combined the values of both approaches.
Hernandez’s Easter-egg aesthetic is a conspicuous reflection of this; it’s the transplanting of highbrow literary effects into a serial-fiction structure. The applause this has earned from certain circles of comics fandom isn’t surprising; as anyone who’s been around a Trekkie knows, fannish types place particular value on details and resonances that casual audiences either miss or don’t understand. It’s sad that Hernandez, with all his talent, undercuts his work by catering to this proclivity at a larger readership’s expense.
That said, I do think Hernandez’s work is somewhat better than Sim’s. It’s far less of a thematic free-for-all, and unlike Sim, Hernandez smartly ditched the pulp and children’s-entertainment aspects of his material before they became incongruous with his ambitions. But he and Sim both ended up with very similar things: artistic projects that are unwieldy leviathans, intermittently brilliant, but ultimately accessible to only a devoted cult audience. One wishes it were otherwise, but Hernandez’s material is what it is, and one can only accept or reject it. In my case, it’s the latter.
_____________
The index to the Locas Roundtable is here.



63 Comments
I have some sympathy for most of this (and I think the Sim comparison is useful)…but preferring John Updike to anybody is just wrong.
“ultimately accessible to only a devoted cult audience”–
Pretty much true of Proust, as well…. the masses ain’t wading through those thousands of pages anymore than they are the Locas stories.
I think some of what you say here is true enough…though I disagree about Wigwam Bam (and Chester Square, etc.)–They seem sprawling and messy, but they do thematically cohere…
I agree about Flies on the Ceiling though—the chat with the devil thing screws it up.
I certainly agree that the overall narrative design of the “Locas” stories doesn’t resemble the elegant, classical design of Updike or Proust: it more often resembles the messy organization of a modernist hack like Faulkner who also — unforgivably, it seems — worked up to his best efforts.
Faulkner doesn’t really work as a comparison, though? His stories are loosely interconnected, but you really don’t need to know characters or history from one work to the next, and he even tends to alter characters from work to work. The Sound and the Fury is a stand alone achievement; so’s Light in August; so’s Absalom, Absalom. Robert’s arguing that it’s difficult to appreciate any part of Jaime’s oeuvre as a stand alone achievement without having to take into account the whole sprawling mess. It’s not that Jaime started not so good and got better; it’s that he’s erratic and the less good parts aren’t easily separable from the better (unlike Faulkner, where you can easily ignore the lesser novels while reading the better ones, since the better ones don’t rely on a knowledge of the lesser ones in any meaningful way.)
The issue of accessibility with Proust isn’t the same as it is with Hernandez. The length is intimidating, but it’s an edifying read right out of the gate. I know any number of people who’ve only read the first book–or even just “Swann in Love”–and thought the world of it. They just haven’t gotten to the rest because of other demands on their time.
With Hernandez, one is being asked to take in a great deal of frankly insipid material as preparation for the more effective moments. One has to take it on faith that the payoffs are worth it, and I don’t think they are. Another aspect of the problem is that Hernandez doesn’t appear to be creating the earlier material with these payoffs in mind. He just seems to be reexamining his earlier material and playing off it in ways that fetishize it. In a way he’s his own biggest fanboy. The practice is incestuous, and it leads to the material being ingrown.
I was being a bit silly — my real point is that Updike and Proust, as near-obsessive in their desire to control narrative form, seem misleading models, and Jaime seems faulted here for not having a master plan in which every part clicks together nicely. Robert’s description of “Locas” as messy seems accurate: it’s the negative evaluation of that by models and standards that seem rather irrelevant to Jaime that I’m questioning. Jaime’s models seem to derive from a willfully messy range of aesthetic options, most obviously punk rock, but also heterogeneous junk culture rather than organic wholes. The negative claim that Jaime “just seems to be making it up as he goes” seems as thorough a repudiation the punk DIY aesthetic underlying his work as I can imagine. The objection seems less then to Jaime than to an entire artistic tradition which he inherits and continues to practice. It’s an implicit rejection of the collage, bricolage, or (more culturally specific) rasquache aesthetic which animates Jaime’s work, emphasizing rather than smoothing over visible fragmentation and a messy juxtaposition rather than smooth blending of previous materials, genres, and references. For me, the messiness has always been part of the pleasure of Jaime’s work, stemming from a cultural and aesthetic base he has often foregrounded. Sure, sometimes I also like a clean structure, overall plan, and classical balance: I can listen to Bach as well as The Minutemen, but those just aren’t fundamental qualities I’ve ever expected from this artist. They don’t apply to Clash albums, Godard films, or, in fact, most comics.
“He just seems to be reexamining his earlier material and playing off it in ways that fetishize it. In a way he’s his own biggest fanboy. The practice is incestuous, and it leads to the material being ingrown.”
I think Noah waffles around a bit in some of his criticisms of Jaime’s work but a lot of it has to do with what Robert says in quite a straightforward manner here. It’s clear that Locas-likers and dislikers part ways on this point – that at some point in the proceedings, Jaime’s later work actually enriches the past (or not).
I like Corey’s reading but I think it needs to be balanced with the fact that Jaime has talked about a Locas “road map” in some of his interviews. At least, that’s what I vaguely remember. That’s what I get from Wigwam Bam – a planned messiness.
I think the way fannishness works in Jaime’s work seems pretty important, as Robert says.
Along those lines, I’d agree that Robert is rejecting the punk aesthetic. However, I think Robert’s criticism also raises some problems for the punk comparisons you’re making. The Clash aren’t obsessively recycling and revisiting their earlier material, right? Part of the point of punk is to kill your idols, not to constantly re-fetishize them. Johnny Ryan or Bob Burden are people who you could argue are absolutely not about clean structure, overall plan, or classical balance. I think you’ve got a much more difficult case to make if you’re saying that Jaime isn’t working for those things, or that he isn’t regularly praised in those terms.
The Minutemen are actually quite formally sophisticated — though they’re not Bach of course….
Isn’t punk about simplicity of form and direct communication, though? A good deal of what The Clash and so on were about was rejecting the pretentious, self-fetishizing, and over-professionalized aesthetic of bands like Yes and Led Zeppelin. In practice, Jaime seems a lot more like the latter than the former, right down to the virtuosity of his surface execution.
“They don’t apply to Clash albums, Godard films, or, in fact, most comics.”
The Godard comparison is completely inappropriate. Yes, Godard is messy, or even anarchic- on the surface. Once one delves deeper it becomes apparent how in control he is. Anyway, his work is so distinctive that I’d say that most comparisons to him wind up being pretty dicey.
If we’re going the literary route then perhaps Marquez would be a better comparison, as passe as he might be these days. Though even then that comparison only works from certain angles and probably fits Gilbert’s work better.
The Minutemen comparison is apt in the sense that punk tends to work in scattershot short bursts- “Political Song for Michael Jackson.” In the long term one seldom finds punk “masterpieces.” The Minutemen regrettably burned out in a hurry, judging from the follow-up releases to “Double Nickels on the Dime.”
I do agree that the Hernandez bros. best work is certain short stories. Besides the ones Robert mentioned, the punk touring story “Jerusalem Crickets” works quite well. “The Death of Speedy” to my mind has always been overrated, I regret to say. The closest thing to a “best” long-form work for Jaime is (once again) “The Education of Hopey Glass.”
“The Minutemen regrettably burned out in a hurry”
Okay, so I’m good with contrarian opinions and everything, but there have to be limits. There will be no slanging of the Minutemen, or I will have to take drastic steps.
I even like fIREHOSE, damn it.
The way I remember it, towards the end the Minutemen got overly preachy, much to a fault. Though I certainly don’t mean to slight them. They had some great songs.
A few comments about “Flies on the Ceiling” and that scene. I never thought that the devil was taunting Izzy. “You’re not afraid anymore” feels more like a respectful acknowledgement of Izzy’s mental recuperation. And while it’s true that earlier stories help round out the comprehension, I don’t think that this particular story demands that one be familiar with them. The little “easter egg” details you mentioned are so seamlessly integrated that even if they’re noticed they’ll probably be taken as effective, but minor background details. Would that one could say the same of Jaime’s latest stories. Unfortunately not.
Why do I get the sense that EVERY comparison is going to be flawed? In the future I think “add your example here” will have to suffice … Or we could just play this game: Jaime is to X as Gilbert is to Y …
Is messiness ok if the artist’s mastery is in some way suspect?
I’m surprised that no one’s brought comparisons to TV serials when speaking of Jaime’s work. Certainly there’s plenty of series to choose from and needless to say, the awkwardness of comparisons would be less pronounced.
Sorry Corey! I think it is kind of fun/helpful/interesting to think through why the comparisons work or don’t work.
Steven, I’m trying to think of a television series that ended up in a very different place from where it started in terms of tone and ambition….I’m not coming up with anything, but that probably has as much to do with the limitations of my television watching as anything….
I still think Sim is a pretty solid comparison. Though you know…you could also see some of this in Chris Ware’s work, where what are essentially gag characters end up turning into extended narratives. Ware definitely goes further along the path towards transitioning to graphic novels/completed works — not always for the better IMO….
Oh, and re Steven’s question about mastery — the whole point about messiness is to sideline questions of mastery and focus on other issues. It’s like asking if abstract art is okay if the person can’t do representational drawing.
Messy or Mastery? Can’t these two co-exist? Or must they be opposed? Risking another comparison to he who cannot be compared to anyone (it seems), yes, Godard exercises control over his collage-like films, but he has at times worked (in the Duchamp, Cage, etc. tradition) to remove control from some aspects of his work, as did Warhol by making films when he wasn’t in the room. The deep, dark secret of some punk musicians is that they were musicians with talent and technique even if the aesthetics and ethics of punk disdained that talent. My sense is that Jaime’s “mastery” in style is counterbalanced by a degree of unplanned improvisation in narrative organization (and I’d say that’s even more true of Gilbert, who indulges in far more non-narrative work than Jaime). For me, an analogy for Jaime’s work would be (here I go again) the Clash’s “London Calling,” which is a masterful mess; I take it that for others Jaime’s work is a bit closer to the messier and less great “Sandinista!” …
I’m generally fine with cross-medial comparisons, but comparing Locas to the work of Proust or Updike is really wrong-headed. Proust and Updike were serializing, but they were serializing in large chunks. Proust could go back and edit that first part of A la recherche up until the point he send the whole first volume out for publication. Ditto Updike.
Jaime sends out pieces of Locas a bit at a time. There’s no going back and rewriting. So while, sure, he can plan ahead, unlike a novelist he can’t change the early parts of the plan as he goes along. He’s stuck with what he’s put out there.
Steven–
I don’t think the devil’s “You’re not afraid anymore” is a taunt. The “flies on your ceiling” remark is.
I did make a comparison to reality TV early in the piece. I think those shows may be a more apt comparison than soaps.
Derik–
The Proust and Updike comparisons have their roots in a discussion that begins here. Jeet Heer was drawing a connection between the two and others with Hernandez. It was a different context, but he was still identifying Hernandez’s work with theirs in terms of intent.
The “wonderfully cohesive and organic work” quote is from Jeet at TCJ.
There are instances of Jaime revising his work after initial publication. I know he did it for the book-collection version of the early story “100 Rooms,” and I think he’s done it elsewhere, too. Gilbert certainly has. I’m not criticizing him for being inconsistent with story points, though, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
When I bring up the lack of a plan, the point I’m making is that the material isn’t a unified work, at least not in a formalist sense. That quote above from Jeet is more or less claiming it is.
Links (or citations) when quoting would be nice, then, especially since your rhetoric makes it sound like you are arguing with some generic person when really you seem to be arguing with Jeet . I still think the comparison doesn’t work (I guess I disagree with Jeet too).
You’re right. Sorry about that.
Derik, I think it’s worth pointing out the differences in production for Jaime…but at the same time, you seem to actually be agreeing with Robert as to the outcome, right? That is, it’s not as unified — which, whatever the reason, can be seen as a weakness, yes? (It could be seen as a strength to, I suppose, depending on predilection….)
I don’t think it can be a unified work in the same sense that a novel (or even a series of novels) is because of the differences in production and, probably, because of differences in intent. The stories in Locas are written/produced like a series of short stories and vignettes with a few longer pieces added in. That in itself makes for less unity. You add in the temporal aspects of the production (how it was serialized) and it’s a rather different creature than a novel.
I don’t think it is really as much of a weakness as Robert does. Yes, the early stories are a weakness (I mentioned that in my piece for the Best Comics poll). But I think there is also a strength in that Locas doesn’t stick to a conventional sense of overarching plotting.
Even in comparison with Sim, Locas is rather different in its structure. Sim pretty quickly settled into novelistic structures, clearing seeing the whole more than the parts. Having read a lot of Cerebus in its serialized form, the individual issues did not have the same individuality of the Locas serialization. They do share the “early weakness” issue where so much of later narrative draws on elements set-up in the weak, too genre-based early stories, which is a danger of this time of serialization (one sees something similar in a lot of TV shows where it takes a little while for the writers/directors/actors/etc to find their voice, so to speak).
Actually tv serialization might be a much better comparison.
The individual stories can be unified, reasonably autonomous works, and some, like “Spring 1982,” are. But if Hernandez is going to make the bulk of them interdependent, then I can’t evaluate the work as short stories. I’m going to look at it the way I would a novel, and it’s just too erratic for me to think very good.
I don’t think we’re differing all that much about our analysis. What’s different is our judgment: it works for you, and it doesn’t work for me.
I agree there’s a lot of differences between Hernandez’s work and Sim’s, but that doesn’t necessarily invalidate the analogy. Do you disagree with any of the similarities I cited in the piece?
I think your criticism is mostly right — it just doesn’t bother me? Maybe that makes me fannish, but I found a very low barrier for entry for Locas simply because the individual vignettes are extremely engaging and the art is fantastic.
Once I got into the world of the stories, consuming the rest of them was easy. They ARE sprawling and chaotic, but that’s part of their charm — at least to me.
I’m not sure it’s fair to declare that either Locas must work as a series of short stories, or it must work as a unified novel, or it doesn’t work at all. What golden tablet is that engraved on?
I was just going to make a similar statement as John’s last paragraph. “Independent short stories” and “novel” are not the only option here. If you are just looking at literary forms, there are a lot of works that are in the “linked short story” form (the first one that comes’s to mind is A Visit from the Goon Squad, though I also think of older genre work like Lieber’s Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser stories or, more recently, Delany’s Neveryona series) which operate somewhere in between the two previously mentioned options.
As for the Sim comparison, I agree with the way they both were in process as the possibilities/expectations for comics were changing (though one could argue they were part of the reason for that (ie causal relationship rather than being effected by), and yes both started out weak/genre (as I agreed with in a previous comments). I don’t think Cerebus is any more of a “thematic-free-for-all” than Locas. I think Cerebus is a bit more consistent that way, especially in that, to my mind, it is a more unified work in a broader thematic/novelistic sense.
I also disagree that Locas is as inaccessible as Cerebus. Cerebus is pretty inaccessible (except for a couple parts), both from the standpoint of having to read from the beginning (and get through the really crappy parts) and in the way it obsessively plays with other comics and the comics industry. I think many more people are able to read Locas at almost any point and get a decent reading of it (admittedly, yes, having read the whole series does add a lot to various stories).
Also, I think the “linked short story” form in a way goes back to my post about Locas, because to me the novelistic would be more about narrative closure, which both Locas and superhero comics tend to avoid. Any assumed closure only lasts as long as the time until the next installment.
And that last paragraph two comments up is probably, partially contradicting my point in my post about continuity and understanding the stories. I do think that varies from story-to-story in Locas.
John–
It shouldn’t bother you. If you like the work, then fine. A number of people obviously do.
I’m articulating why they don’t work for me. I’m largely applying formalist criteria, however loosely, and the work doesn’t hold up very well when seen through that prism.
I’m not saying it must work as either short stories or as a novel, I’m saying that it doesn’t. To work, it has to be approached as something else, and that something else requires a fannish/fetishistic type of engagement that I’m unable to muster, at least in this instance.
I guess that’s what I’m not entirely clear on…it works for me, and not for you…so, somehow, that makes my appraisa fannish or even fetishistic. I’m not sure that’s true…
I’m not saying that if you like something and I don’t, then your interest is fetishistic. I apologize if it came across that way. I’m just trying to describe how I see the formal and reader-response dynamics of Locas working.
With Hernandez, the constant of appreciations of his work is responding to his characters as if they were real people. Examples include the other contributions in this roundtable aside from Noah Berlatsky’s and Richard Cook’s, Derik Badman’s essay about the work for the Best Comics Poll, and the recent paeans to Hernandez and “The Love Bunglers” by Dan Nadel, Frank Santoro, and Adrian Tomine. If one is responding to fictional characters as if they were real people, one is fetishizing those characters by definition.
When I look at how effects are structured in the Locas material, I see an underlying assumption on Hernandez’s part that the engagement of his readers is fetishistic. Consider “Flies on the Ceiling.” Now, in order for the ending to have its intended effect, one has to have at least read “The Death of Speedy Ortiz.” Furthermore, one has to recognize Isabel as the character from that earlier story and remember the scene being referred to. That’s not the easiest thing. One, she looks very different for most of the “Flies on the Ceiling.” Two, she’s not a central character in the earlier story, so one can hardly be blamed for not remembering her or the scene in question. Three, Hernandez does nothing while setting “Flies” up that would bring the reader up to speed. And when one considers that the two stories were first published a year-and-a-half apart, and until recently, collected in separate book editions, not recalling the crucial material from “Speedy Ortiz” when reading “Flies on the Ceiling” seems more likely than not. Unless, of course, one’s interest in the material is on the obsessive side, which means it’s being kept at or near the center of one’s consciousness enough for the time in between reading the two stories not to matter. It seems to me that Hernandez is creating this material for his cult and no one else. As artful as “Flies on the Ceiling” is, it’s fan fiction in terms of intent and effect; it’s just fan fiction that happens to have been created by the original author. The same strikes me as true of the bulk of the Locas material.
By the way, I’m not knocking fannish or fetishistic interest in material. I definitely have it with certain things. My favorite film is The Fabulous Baker Boys, and one of my favorite novels, especially while growing up, was Judith Guest’s Ordinary People. And they’re far from the only examples. My regard for them is very personal, though; when i put my critic hat on, I don’t think of them as masterpieces. Maybe that’s peculiar; I don’t know.
I think Jaime does use and rely on fan investment in many ways for his effects. Maggie as the constant central object of desire for all, for example, seems pretty deliberate and telling.
Does that make it a lesser work of art, though? Robert thinks yes…but I don’t think the answer necessarily has to be yes. Desire and identity are important parts of art and of reaction to art…I don’t know that the way Jaime interacts with them is necessarily invalid or uninteresting….
Robert: Unless, of course, one’s interest in the material is on the obsessive side, which means it’s being kept at or near the center of one’s consciousness enough for the time in between reading the two stories not to matter. It seems to me that Hernandez is creating this material for his cult and no one else. As artful as “Flies on the Ceiling” is, it’s fan fiction in terms of intent and effect; it’s just fan fiction that happens to have been created by the original author. The same strikes me as true of the bulk of the Locas material.
I think that’s probably a bridge too far as far as your arguments are concerned. Even using your preferred example, In Search of Lost Time was published from 1913 to 1927, and a new reader probably wouldn’t get much from Time Regained without knowing or remembering some aspects of the earlier sections. Does this make Time Regained fan fiction or the response of his readers fannish? After all, one could stop at the Overture and Combray and feel some degree of closure. Proust’s novel is the superior work but that has nothing to do with the accessibility of the individual parts or chapters.
The real difference is that Proust works for you and Locas doesn’t. To take a less elevated example, Blueberry works for you on some level (?art ?story) but Jaime’s work doesn’t. I think a reader would get more out of later volumes in the Blueberry saga with some prior knowledge of characters and events; this despite its more conventional narrative and structure.[From my own experience, reading Wigwam Bam or Ghost of Hoppers actually require very little knowledge of prior events for them to have some effect. Locas is actually pretty easy reading which must account for its broad appeal.]
Like Noah, I don’t think a fannish reaction in some quarters necessarily lessens a piece of art, but your use of the terms here are probably meant to denigrate Locas and Jaime’s approach (or at least to push it off its comics pedestal). Not a bad tactic but not as powerful as one which specifically pin points real weaknesses in Jaime’s oeuvre (of which there are many). A requirement for readers to have a basic grasp of some back story for the full effect can’t be construed as fannish.
A lot of this is really interesting, but I’m not persuaded by the example of “Flies on the Ceiling” as a story that requires the reader to be immersed LOCAS lore to work, because I don’t think that Jaime’s “intended” effect with the conclusion — to the extent we can even know what that intent is — is the only valid and meaningful effect one can experience. When I teach a comics class, I often include “Flies” at the beginning of the semester along with a handful of other short works as a way of raising questions about comics form. Some students like it, some don’t; they have different reads on the conclusion, and generally it seems like a coherent and complete work to them. And I think in fact it is. Reading the whole of LOCAS might change one’s reading of the conclusion of “Flies,” but that’s not to say that everyone will apply that knowledge of LOCAS in the same way and arrive at the same interpretation.
Isn’t “Flies on the Ceiling” published in Maggie the Mechanic, the first Fantagrahpics volume, while “The Death of Speedy” appears in the second volume, The Girl from H.O.P.P.E.R.S.?
That’s my recollection, anyway. I certainly read “Flies on the Ceiling” first and greatly enjoyed it.
“Flies on the Ceiling” is the last story included in Girl from HOPPERS.
Not sure if this question is applicable for the discussion…
Does anybody know what stories are NOT collected in the Locas I/Locas II hardcovers, but are reprinted in the new smaller digests? I know “Flies On The Ceiling” isn’t in the hardcovers, but I’ve been looking for a list of missing stories and which digest they might be found in, so I know what volumes to look for.
I’m pretty sure “Spring 1982″ was not included in the first LOCAS hardcover, but it is included in the new softcovers (and was included in the old softcovers, too).
“To take a less elevated example, Blueberry works for you on some level (?art ?story) but Jaime’s work doesn’t.”
I can’t imagine anyone getting taken with Blueberry’s stories. Maybe the artwork. It’s just standard Western with the usual escapes and near-deaths, Indians,, etc etc.
“I also disagree that Locas is as inaccessible as Cerebus”
It’s safe to say that most of Locas is much more accessible than the hermetic Cerebus.
Some Locas stories are less accessible than others. The “Maggie” stories that were serialized in the NY Times magazine I thought probably bewildered or bored a lot of people.
Steven: “I can’t imagine anyone getting taken with Blueberry’s stories. Maybe the artwork. It’s just standard Western with the usual escapes and near-deaths, Indians,, etc etc.”
Hear, hear!…
BW–
Would you please describe the different readings of the story your students have had? It sounds like it would be really interesting.
Suat–
I may be indulging my polemical tendencies a bit too much with the fan-fiction swipe. It is playing a bit too rough.
You write, “A requirement for readers to have a basic grasp of some back story for the full effect can’t be construed as fannish.” I agree with this in general, and I wouldn’t fault “Wigwam Bam,” to pick one example, for assuming some general knowledge of Hopey and Maggie from the earlier stories, although pretty much everything one needs to know is apparent from the context of the story itself. The ending of “Flies” is designed around a fairly obscure reference to an incidental scene from an earlier piece. The protagonist of “Flies on the Ceiling” is not a principal character in either that earlier effort or the Locas material as a whole. Additionally, Hernandez is relying on knowledge of a couple of panels from an even earlier story for the reader to recognize the character. For these and other reasons, I think Hernandez is going way beyond requiring a basic grasp of the back story. He’s demanding a fairly obsessive knowledge of his prior œuvre. It’s as if Proust, in Book Five of In Search of Lost Time, stuck in a story about the early life of Françoise the maid that used a few sentences in Book One as a starting point and relied on a reference to a minor scene in Book Three for the resonance of its ending. I don’t recall Proust coming close to doing something that extreme, and he’d deserve complaint if he did, especially if that story enjoyed the status among Proust’s readership that “Flies on the Ceiling” does with Hernandez’s.
The ending of “Flies” is an example of where Hernandez’s Easter-egg storytelling outright sabotages the story. It’s kind of anomalous in that. With most of the material I’ve read, the Easter eggs tend to be the most interesting thing about them. There are pieces that are exceptions, some of which I’ve noted, but on the whole the narratives are shapeless and the characters lack dynamism. That’s not the case with Proust, who consistently interrogates the ironies in his characters, crafts his individual scenes with clear effects in mind, and has those scenes build to a larger cumulative whole. Hernandez appears so captivated by his characters’ personalities that he doesn’t treat any of that as necessary. As I said in the piece, the main thread of Locas reminds me of a reality TV show. There’s no real narrative arc being developed; it’s just a continually updated account of the people being depicted. That certainly works for a number of readers. It doesn’t for me, although I do think there is an aesthetic basis for my disdain.
Oh, with Blueberry, my recollection is that Charlier & Giraud as a rule make the back story of an individual episode apparent from the context. At least that’s the case with the five Epic volumes I have. Art-wise, I think Giraud and Hernandez, as different as they are, are pretty much equals, at least in the sense that one couldn’t ask for the work to be any better visually. Charlier’s scripts are modest–they’re adventure melodrama, after all–but they are very well crafted. In American comics, the most comparable talent is probably Archie Goodwin, although I think Charlier is a lot better. [Stop groaning, Domingos.]
Sorry, Giraud really gets on my nerves. It’s as if Bouguereau was considered a better painter than, say, Goya.
Robert, I’ll post your comments on Jason’s post since its connected with what he’s saying. More people might see it there as well.
Charles Hatfield posted the below comment in the thread following Jason Michelitch’s piece. He is responding to the portion of my last comment that Suat posted in Jason’s thread.
It’s not clear if Charles had read my original essay or the other comments in this thread before posting that reply. If he hasn’t, I want to give him some time to do so, and I’ll respond either later today or tomorrow.
Here’s the full comment:
There’s no real narrative arc being developed; it’s just a continually updated account of the people being depicted.
Not so. The great Jaime Hernandez stories (and “Flies on the Ceiling” is emphatically one of them) possess an internal consistency and crystalline formal and aesthetic unity that makes them noteworthy and powerful on their own terms. The idea that JH is just artlessly spinning in the orbit of favored characters is a canard that is belied by the brilliant narrative shaping of stories like “Wig Wam Bam” (boldly shaped around the lead charcters’ absence!) and, yes, “Flies on the Ceiling.”
The claim that the characters lack “dynamism” is also a canard. What the characters lack is the reassuring sense that they will do something heroic that entirely transforms their lives, their circumstances. They don’t. But that doesn’t mean they lack the capacity for meaningful change.
I think these comments rhetorically construct JH as naive and in thrall to soap opera/comic book conventions. That’s a very reductive characterization in my view.
Charles—
Before I get into your statements about Hernandez, I’m going to discuss why I resented this comment. I don’t mind being disagreed with. I also don’t mind being disagreed with in a rowdy or polemical manner. However, I do get offended when certain lines are crossed. An accusation that I am writing things in bad faith is one of those lines. A canard is a false or obviously baseless statement. My claims are not canards; they are opinions you don’t agree with.
I have argued in detail in the above essay why “Flies on the Ceiling” cannot be said to have “an internal consistency and crystalline formal and aesthetic unity that makes [it] noteworthy and powerful on [its] own terms.” If you have disagreements with my points beyond the assertion I just quoted, I’ll be happy to read them. I’m very much interested in readings that contradict my own, and I’m willing to change my mind if I encounter one that I like more than the one I’ve offered. That’s why I asked B. W. Costello to share the readings by his students that consider the story a “coherent and complete work” in its own right.
With regard to the question of “dynamic” characters, let me elaborate on what I mean. A dynamic character is one defined by opposing qualities or tendencies. The depictions of a dynamic character in a given story are built around the tensions between those oppositions. In the context of “Flies on the Ceiling,” Isabel is a dynamic character: both she and the story are defined by the conflict between her sense of guilt and her efforts to put it behind her. Doyle Blackburn is a dynamic character in “Spring 1982”: he’s defined by both his violent nature and his sense of disgust over it, and the story is shaped both around that and the positive and (mostly) negative impact his violence has on the touchstones of his daily life. (Good for his job; bad for his romantic relationship.) In “Tear It Up, Terry Downe,” the story explores the contradictory aspects of Terry’s personality, particularly her domineering, disdainful surface manner and the obsequiousness she shows with those she forms attachments to. Dynamic characters make for effective stories; I’m inclined to say effective stories feature them by definition.
I don’t think Maggie is a dynamic character in any story I’ve read that includes her. Once one perceives that she’s an aimless, flighty mope, that’s it. As for Hopey, there’s not much beyond her being a brash, self-centered bitch. Hernandez may march them through this or that plot contrivance to have them show a range of surface emotions, but the stories I’ve read don’t interrogate ironies or tensions in their personalities. Hernandez doesn’t even play the two off each other very memorably.
My description of “Wigwam Bam” never goes deeper than the rhetorical, but I really don’t care. If one agrees with me, fine. If one doesn’t agree, that’s fine, too. I’m not going to make an extended case for my opinion because I frankly found the thing quite tedious and woolly. I’m not going to suffer through writing an explanation why I think the various threads of the story—including Hopey’s experiences with a decadent retired actress, Danita’s travails as a stripper, Maggie’s diary passages about her dead childhood friend, and Doyle’s brief affair with a high-school girl—just don’t add up to a larger thematic whole. If that makes my disdain for the piece a “canard,” then so be it.
“The ending of “Flies” is designed around a fairly obscure reference to an incidental scene from an earlier piece. The protagonist of “Flies on the Ceiling” is not a principal character in either that earlier effort or the Locas material as a whole. Additionally, Hernandez is relying on knowledge of a couple of panels from an even earlier story for the reader to recognize the character.”
Robert, it seems your own (fannish? obsessive?) knowledge of the Locas material is leading you to assume intent and difficulty where there may be none. As I wrote in my contribution to the roundtable, “Flies on the Ceiling” was the first Hernandez story I ever read, and it worked wonderfully for me. The phrase “Flies on the Ceiling” is deeply resonant without the literal connection to the scenes from “Death of Speedy.” In fact, you assume a necessary reading order of “Death” and then “Flies,” but I read them in the opposite order, and the chill that went up my spine when I saw Izzy swatting flies on her ceiling…I’d gladly trade precise literal comprehension of the end of “Flies on the Ceiling” for that moment.
Jason–
What did the phrase echo when you read it?
It spoke to Izzy seeing the devil everywhere, no matter how “far” she “ran” – the devil speaking from the crack in the wall is as insignificant as appearing as flies on the ceiling. To me it read as a symbol for the complex detente Izzy reaches with her guilt – she’s no longer fleeing from herself as she was at the beginning of the story, but she isn’t freed from her torment either. She’s entered a resigned phase, in which “the devil” will always be with her, but merely as background noise – a buzzing from somewhere near her head.
Hey Robert. I think there’s something to what you say about Maggie and Hopey in terms of their characterization…though I think that’s possibly because Jaime is going for different effects than the ones you’re suggesting? That is, Maggie and Hopey don’t really behave as dynamic characters because Jaime is more interested in the way people change by accretion, or in the non-dynamism of everyday life. (Which is a conceit that, personally, I find alternately charming and irritating…but I do think it’s what he’s going for more or less.)
I’m with Noah on this one:
“Maggie and Hopey don’t really behave as dynamic characters because Jaime is more interested in the way people change by accretion, or in the non-dynamism of everyday life.”
It’s one of the things I love about the series.
“The Education of Hopey Glass,” for example is pretty much nothing else but a series of accretions.
Robert, I agree 100% with your assessment of “Wigwam Bam.” But I think you’re still missing the point a little bit with “Flies on the Ceiling.” Clearly a lot of other people are able to comprehend it without needing to know the significance of details like Izzy’s tattoo.
I think Charles and Robert can split the difference, at least to a degree. There are certain stories in the series that have an arc to them where the characters undergo genuine change. Like any long term series, though, a good majority of the stories are subservient to the exigencies of bringing back the characters for the next story down the line.
Steven points to a valuable notion that I at one point meant to include in my own piece but ended up cutting for space and cohesion: comparing Jaime’s literary structure to that of a novel or even a series of novels or short stories is an ultimately limited exercise, because Jaime’s work was created in and for the very particular and complicated form of comics, which have a different set of front-end and back-end expectations than most prose forms.
To quickly clarify: not that such comparisons can’t bear fruit, but that they should be undertaken with an eye towards the inherent differences of the forms.
I’m bogged down with a deadline right now. I’ll reply to the new comments as soon as I’m clear.
Jason—
The premise of my argument is that a naïve reading of the ending should be congruent with a reading that’s knowledgeable of the prior material. If a reasonable naïve reading—which yours certainly is—lacks that congruence, then the story does not work in the way Hernandez intends. I’m certainly not saying that a naïve reading should realize that the devil’s “flies on your ceiling” statement to Isabel is telling her that, in the future, she’s going to be suffering dissociative episodes such as the one depicted in “Speedy Ortiz.” However, I do believe that a naïve reader should be able to recognize that the statement is extremely ominous, and he or she should be disturbed by Isabel’s rather dismissive reaction. When you write that your reading was that the devil (i.e., guilt) will be with her from now on “merely as background noise,” you are pretty clearly indicating that you didn’t find the statement ominous. You’re confirming my argument.
If you are disputing my premise, then I think we’re in an agree-to-disagree situation.
Let me clear about something, though. I do think “Flies on the Ceiling” is a good story. In some ways, I think it’s more accomplished than either “Spring 1982” or “Tear It Up, Terry Downe,” which are much more consistent. Parts of it are among the best work Hernandez has done. But on the whole I think it has some pretty glaring flaws.
As for the novel and short story question, I put an aesthetic premium on cloture. I’m just saying that, in general, if the whole doesn’t have cloture, then I feel the individual pieces should be reasonably self-contained and provide it. If they don’t, I’m inclined to take it as an aesthetic weakness.
Noah—
Pardon my putting my polemical hat on, but you make Hernandez’s long-form work sound like the narrative equivalent of watching paint dry or grass grow. That’s the process you’re describing. However, I must admit you are doing so in a very charming way. I guess Hernandez’s approach is charming in theory and irritating in practice. At least for me. There are several people whose opinions I respect, including Derik and Jason and Charles Hatfield, who take a different view.
Steven—
Thanks for the solidarity on “Wigwam Bam.”
I don’t think one needs to know the story behind the tattoo to understand “Flies on the Ceiling.” I’m saying the lack of development in the piece’s context creates a discord that can interfere with a naïve reader’s immersion. It’s hardly a fatal flaw. I just think it’s sloppy on Hernandez’s part.
Shifting gears, a problem with discussing Jaime Hernandez’s work (and that of his brother) is that a lot of prominent people in the world of comics criticism want unfavorable views silenced. Some, like Tom Spurgeon with his “We can’t let that be a criticism” about a fairly obvious issue, are rather forthright about their desire to circumscribe debate. Most, though, prefer to launch personal attacks on detractors. R. Fiore will, at length, liken your writing to a fiber-laden stool. Jeet Heer will charge that your statements are rooted in sexist and racist assumptions. Charles Hatfield will denounce your criticisms as canards. Someone will invariably step up to denounce your essay as the worst piece of criticism ever. (With the above post, it was the idiot who was busted for writing bogus reviews at The AV Club a year or so ago.) There are plenty of other examples, believe me. I think the point of this is to intimidate people, and to some degree it’s successful. As Noah can confirm, I backed out of writing my contribution to the roundtable twice, and concern about the reaction was part of the reason why. Noah has written that a number of potential contributors who don’t like Hernandez’s work declined to participate, and I have to wonder if the same trepidation was a factor.
I don’t think Charles or anybody else needs to split the difference with me. I’m not sure a consensus is even all that desirable when it comes to critical discussions. I don’t mean to speak for Noah, but a goal of having a roundtable, I would think, is to define the issues that are central to disagreements about the material. Supporters and detractors of the material can hopefully come away with a better understanding of the questions they need to grapple with. I’m glad if I’ve raised some points others hadn’t previously considered, even if they end up rejecting them. That’s all I’m after.
Fwiw, I think there have been a number of fruitful discussions during the roundtable.
“I put an aesthetic premium on cloture.”
And this is a key place where we disagree, Robert, but I can understand the point. It’s probably a point I should’ve addressed in my post, as far as the “neverending” serial and the way Locas does, by not having closure, provide a similar pleasure to me as I suspect many people get out of superhero comics (or soap operas, or… super long manga series that seem to have no endpoint).
Yeah, it’s been an interesting discussion for me. I think maybe most interesting in the way that nostalgia — or at least the experience of the work over time — has been so important to the discussion.
I think when you aren’t in sync with conventional wisdom for whatever reason, and you say so with some force, you’re bound to get some pushback. I don’t think that’s a horrible thing, necessarily, and really it’s been pretty mild for the most part this go round. (I don’t think Charles’ comments were meant to be as confrontational as you heard them to be.)
I think the folks who weren’t interested in writing about it the issue was less concern about pushback and more just that most people don’t want to spend a lot of time thinking and writing about work that they don’t like that much. I’ve mentioned this before…I think it does tend to be a real bias in criticism. That’s especially true in comics, where (unlike television or movies or music, for example) there’s not really a sense that even major work is an event or a public cultural occurrence which non-specialists need to pay attention to.
Derik:…as far as the “neverending” serial and the way Locas does, by not having closure, provide a similar pleasure to me as I suspect many people get out of superhero comics.
I would have thought the pleasure would more closely mimic our experience of existence than superheroes. It’s a move away from the omniscience of classical narrative. Of course, superhero comics could be making a deep philosophical point about recurrence and inertia.
“would more closely mimic our experience of existence”
Oh sure, but that doesn’t fit my posts’s thesis!
Robert,
I think I found “Flies on the Ceiling” to be as ominous in my naive readings as I find it in my knowledgeable readings. Izzy’s dissociative episodes aren’t cataclysmic invasions of evil, they’re life-crippling and permanent but low-key and innocuous seeming from the outside (Izzy is seen as just a crazy depressed woman, as opposed to someone tortured by the devil). In “Death of Speedy,” the flies ARE background noise. Ominous but understated background noise that she’ll never be rid of. “Flies” ends with Izzy, defeated, resigning herself to never ridding herself of her guilt or her insanity, which is exactly how we find her in the other Locas stories.
That said, I do disagree with your premise that a naive reading needs to be congruent with a knowledgeable reading, though I don’t think that’s the case here.
I don’t know if I put an aesthetic premium on closure, but I appreciate it when individual pieces operate discretely from one another – which I do find to be the case for “Flies” and most of Jaime’s other works (with key exceptions such as “The Love Bunglers”).
Jason
I’m coming late to this discussion, but I just wanted to chime in and thank Robert for the piece and the discussion, which has really crystallized a lot of my thought on Jaime’s work. I’ve tried to like Locas, I really have, but while there are moments of absolute genius, and everything Jaime draws is gorgeous, it’s all ultimately tied up in characters I find ultimately superficial and unconvincing, and to a host of other stories which are somewhere between inane and insulting. “Flies on the Ceiling” is a perfect example to pick apart, because it’s probably one of the strongest stories Jaime’s done – but you really do need to have read a long string of other stories in order for it to really work (and not just “Death of Speedy,” either, since I’d argue that that one isn’t terribly self-contained, in and of itself). This would be fine, if the quality among those various stories was generally comparable, or at least at a level that made them all worth reading – but there’s SO much dreck to wade through. To get to the parts of Locas that are worthwhile, I have to put up with – and all too frequently, pay attention to – the wrestling stuff, the bizarre and asinine superhero stuff, the punk-poser stuff, that utterly wretched story where Hopey and Penny get pregnant for shits and giggles, everywhere else where it seems like Hernandez is less interested in writing about human beings than he is in mashing cartoons together. Locas is, to put it mildly, a mixed bag – and the way it’s constructed, you have to take the whole bag, as a whole.