(or everyone has tunnel vision except me; or in the land of the blind, everyone is blind)
[Allegory of Comics Criticism by Wallace Allan Wood]
TCJ.com recently published an exchange between Frank Santoro and Sean T. Collins concerning the state of comics criticism (c. 2013).
In his prologue, Santoro expresses concern about the neglect of a whole new generation of cartoonists now as much wedded to the world of the internet as to paper.
“… the small subculture of engaged comics reviewers is getting older, myself included. I really hope that members of the younger generation will start writing about each other. I’m seeing some hints of it here and there, but not many organized voices…The “pap pap” demographic of comics is so insular – which is fine – but out on the circuit younger makers are telling me that they never read this site, or any websites related to comics at all. There’s really not much for them in most comics sites that reflects their tastes or their concerns.”
Some questions should spring to mind immediately upon reading this. Why is it of special concern, for example, that younger makers of comics are not reading TCJ.com or any website related to comics at all? Are they representative of the alternative comics readership as a whole? Or are they simply the kind of people Santoro would prefer read TCJ.com and comics criticism?
Comics has a long history of cartoonists not engaging with criticism and critics at all; they for obvious reasons preferring the company and conversation of their “own kind.” No doubt long time comic aficionados will begin pointing to the classic comic histories or the critical works of Seth, Chris Ware, Scott McCloud, Art Spiegelman et al. It should be pointed out, however, that the very idea of a negative critique is anathema to this school of criticism (unless it is directed at blind intransigent critics). It is adulation and evangelism which is required. Such is the rarity of this engagement that one might say that the arrival of a celebrated cartoonist into the unhallowed halls of comics criticism is, more often than not, greeted with a joyousness befitting the arrival of the Queen of Sheba (the royal metaphor here being no accident of choice).
The attitude of young comics makers conforms to this pattern. They are merely ape-ing the behavior of their forebears. What was once good for the artists of Fort Thunder (and its adherents)—namely steadfast, earnest positive promulgation—is now good for the new web-based alternatives. Collins returns to these concerns towards the close of the dialogue:
“The other big problem, maybe the biggest, and certainly the one that’s worried me the most and I think inspired my whole end of this discussion with you, is that there’s an entire generation of young artcomix makers whose work just isn’t being reviewed at all. …An entire generation, an entire movement, of altcomix creators who are doing vital, defiant, personal work is badly undeserved by criticism, and that will have a huge effect on both comics and comics criticism moving forward.” [emphasis mine]
This might certainly be of concern for readers (and critics) with a long term interest in sustaining the comics grassroots. It might in fact be seen as the duty of committed blog aggregators (with a compliant readership) to push links to these sites on a more frequent basis and for publishers to consider the best of these for print publication and more sustainable retailing. Comics critics who see themselves as evangelists and want to sideline as marketing agents for the small press may also choose to delve into this. Indeed, the vast majority of comics reviews do in fact fall into the category of marketing. There is no reason why these hats cannot be put on or taken off at will. There are even college courses in marketing for those so inclined. One might even consider being reborn as Peter Laird (of the Xeric Foundation) or Kevin Eastman (of Tundra).
But all this is of secondary importance to the state of comics criticism. Last time I checked, The Comics Journal was supposed to be the magazine of news and criticism, not the Journal of Comics Marketing. Collins’ concern that the artists of the Happiness anthologies are not being reviewed suggests that he is concerned that they are not being covered positively and disseminated widely—that they are not being sold to a whole generation of readers. This would appear to be the primary purpose of comics criticism in Collins’ view.
I beg to differ. If you want to sell things, then sell them—send them to famous cartoonists, influential publishers, and comics critics who are interested in selling things. One influential Tweet by a comics celebrity will do more good than a 3000-word review of the highest quality produced by a nobody. And for god’s sake, don’t send your comics to critics who want to criticize them. Find someone who cares more about how many copies you sell than about the quality of your work. If we could only separate these comics critics from comics marketers, comics criticism might be in a more healthy state.
Comics must be the only art form where the most prominent commentators in the field (who shall remain nameless) regularly dismiss or deprioritize discussions of the art form they are engaging in. The art form I am referring to is not comics but criticism. Santoro’s comment that he “noticed that [he] wasn’t taking the time to read long reviews or blog posts” (in the last few years) is not a new phenomenon but purely a symptom of this modern age—an age of endless distractions and diminishing attentions spans. The idea that someone might take a copy of The Comics Journal on a long plane flight as reading material (as Tucker Stone has admitted to doing at least once) could be taken as a sign of mental illness or at least an eccentric attitude towards comics.
Comics criticism doesn’t actually need more people who are interested in comics (that is a given considering the insular nature of the hobby); what it needs is people who are interested in criticism. Collins’ main concern—that the comics he likes aren’t being reviewed—is understandable but should be of little concern to comics criticism per se.
* * *
Santoro and Collins began their discussion with much broader concerns, starting with the number of comics reviews being published of late. This question of quantity is first directed at Collins who answers:
“Less. Certainly less as far as alternative/art/literary/underground comics go. It seems as though there’s as much of a profusion of reviews of superhero comics as ever.”
Any proclamations on this topic are guaranteed to be anecdotal and unscientific but my impression is that there has not been a drop in the quantity of long form criticism concerning non-superhero related comics since I started monitoring the field more closely. Santoro suggests that there was an apparent golden age from 2008-2009 “when 1000-word reviews were common.” No doubt quality is always preferable to quantity but a 1000-words can hardly be considered the high water mark of long form criticism. Perhaps it is the bare minimum Santoro demands but 1000-words often suggests:
(1) “I don’t have enough space or money to pay you for more”, OR
(2) “I don’t want to waste my brain cells on this so I’m going to vomit out whatever is on the tip of my tongue”.
600 words for opinion and short analysis (at best), 300 words for the gloss and information, and 100 words for padding and style don’t often add up to much in terms of essential reading for the informed except in rare circumstances. A little more leeway might be found in instances where the work has been thoroughly assimilated by the comics community and a tighter focus brought to bear on the subject matter. 1000-words is of course the “industry standard” for long form criticism and not something to be especially proud of. As a purveyor of this kind of material, I should know. The call for 500-word reviews (to increase coverage) during the closing years of the print Journal certainly heralded the arrival of poorly substantiated opinion as opposed to analysis. A publisher’s synopsis and an Amazon.com comment would have worked just as well in this instance.
The short form approving review or “call to purchase” is tailor-made for the comics critical community, a grouping which is largely unpaid and interested primarily in fellowship—the generation of comments and making friends on Facebook and Twitter. Collins points to this early in the exchange where he writes:
“It’s exceedingly easy to type up your strongest single impression of a new work and post it to Facebook, Twitter, or Tumblr, and receive feedback almost immediately. And since your strongest single impression could be nothing more complex than “This is SO GOOD, you guys,” and the feedback can just be a like or a fav or a reblog or a retweet or a share, it’s tough to build up a thoroughgoing interrogation of a comic. The energy is diffused.”
The motivations for writing comics criticism are many and this is but one possibility. Some might do it for pocket change while others might participate in the interest of generating a conversation by which process they might attain enlightenment or at least a modicum of self-improvement. If one desires a large readership and a huge reception on Twitter, then an article on a superhero comic would increase the probability of this (preferably a controversial one). To expect a substantial response when writing a review of an alternative comic with a readership in the low thousands (or hundreds) at best would be to deny reality. At the risk of stating the obvious, people are interested in what they’re interested in. They are unlikely to read, comment on, or even click on a link to an article about a comic or subject of which they know nothing about. In fact, the best way for a comics critic to get an audience is to not write about comics at all—easily one of the least popular art forms extant today.
The problems associated with writing good, well researched long form comics criticism mirror those found in the creation of alternative comics with a marginal readership. The present day solution to these problems is echoed in both endeavors. If one desires quality criticism of the alternatives in the field then an altogether different attitude (and critic) is required. This is the kind of critic who primarily writes for herself or at least because of some deep inner need (pompously metaphysical as this may sound). It is a simple equation. You write criticism because you have something to say, because you feel compelled to write about it, and because you want to do the best job you can (as would any artisan). The need for an audience (and this is an ever present gnawing desire) must come only after this. The available readership for comics criticism is limited by the popularity of the form and the attractions of the topic or comic being written about; much less so the quality of the criticism.
An actual increase in the volume of comics criticism is not necessarily desirable or even achievable considering the state of the industry and art form. A different lesson presents itself if one considers the titans of comics. Kirby’s oeuvre, for instance, would have been substantially enhanced had he the luxury to draw and write less and not more comics. In the same vein, I would much prefer it if unusually prolific critics would write substantially less but longer and more considered reviews. Which makes Collins’ point later in the exchange appear somewhat wrongheaded:
“My point, ultimately, is that without a sufficient volume of reviews being written, you’re not going to see needed critiques — particularly since most people are writing for little or no money, and most humans like enjoying themselves if they’re not getting paid, and it’s generally easier to enjoy yourself if you’re thinking about something you like instead of something you don’t.”
It is not critical volume which is required but concentrated quality. The idea of twenty 500-word articles on Alternative Comics X does not please my mind in the least and would certainly not be an advancement over just one good long form article on the same comic.
Monitoring the comics critical scene is an endless drudge considering how often blog aggregators point me to worthless plot synopses and marketing copy masquerading as reviews. Even worse is how little effort they spend differentiating between this excrement and the truly worthy articles which generally get lost in the shuffle. In any case, the state of coverage is considerably better than was the case back in the 80s and 90s when The Comics Journal (the print version) was virtually the only game in town when it came to non-superhero related material. Not being reviewed in the Journal (for good or ill) in those days was tantamount to not getting reviewed at all. Since then, the state of comics criticism has been enriched by voices emerging from the fields of academia; a not surprising new source considering this grouping’s dedication to thinking, reading, and writing about things. A number of these writers emerged from fandom and it is high time fandom looked beyond its own narrow shores to the wider world of critical writing if only in the interest of improving itself.
* * *
Side note:
Noah commented twice on the article at TCJ.com; I understand with some irritation that the site you are reading was left out of the conversation when it turned to subjects such as long form comics criticism and analysis, extended comments sections on subjects other than superheroes, female writers, and coverage of non-superhero related material.
He should not be surprised or overly concerned. To put it bluntly, The Hooded Utilitarian is a pariah site as far as the traditional comics community is concerned—reviled primarily because of its owner and a lack of correct communal spirit. Others might add lies, bad faith, and a lack of “professionalism” to the mix. To expect consideration from a school of comics criticism which you have rejected is perhaps asking far too much. Like a lump of shit, the only instance in which they might care to notice this site is if they stepped on it accidentally.
HU is not exceptional in its pariah status. The manga community is yet another example of a group of “comics untouchables”, a community with women writers and readers in far greater abundance than on HU. Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that, for all intents and purposes, women are the Dalits of comics, alienated by virtue of the types of conversations which engage the longstanding comics critical community of males. It might be that in their view, it is the men who helm the traditional comics conversation who are to be avoided. They also don’t need anyone to fight their battles for them (see comments by Peggy Burns, Sarah Horrocks, and Leah at the original article) .
Suat, it’s dispiriting that you can read that interview and write an entire response piece alleging I was calling for boosterism when the interview includes a lengthy section in which I say one of the biggest problems with the lack of criticism is that flawed work is being given a pass, and then go on to offer examples in which I critique flawed work myself — a passage you cite only to ignore in favor of the truism that quality work is ultimately superior to quantity. But if you were wondering why people avoid HU, this kind of bad-faith argumentation’s a good example.
“this kind of bad-faith argumentation’s a good example.”
Suat says that people avoid the site because they say it is in “bad faith.” He even uses the term…so I don’t think he’s “wondering”.
Yeah, I realized that the moment I clicked “add comment.” Maybe I’m as bad at this whole “reading and writing about things” thing as Suat says.
HU is a pariah site? Jeez, guys, why didn’t you tell me. Now I have cooties!!
An interesting and thoughtful piece. As someone who writes one kind of criticism for my bread n butter for day job and often different kinds on the interwebs for love and because the voices in my head command me, I think there is perhaps more to be said about the various forms “criticism” takes and its meaning in very different contexts. But as a broad stroke describing the state of comics criticism today, I would concur: we have appreciative criticism, closer to evangelism for the cartoonists the writers care about and the form itself (this is the kind I write in my dotage when I write at all at guttergeek nowadays), and on the far end of the great divide we have “academic” criticism (still a microcosm) which is rarely interested in evaluative criticism but focused on larger patterns, themes, argument (here, of course, the “boosterism” is often in the service less of comics than of the author’s own career, but such is the nature of the enterprise, then, now and for however many decades remain for the humanities in higher education).
The criticism you are calling for, and that has marked HU out as a pariah, is a hybrid of the two: combining the attention to quality and value with the big picture lens of cultural studies and critical distance, all safely and profoundly insecurely outside the ivory tower. It does not exist, save for a few corners of the interwebs like this one, but not just in comics. We used to call this the work of the public intellectual—intellectuals who could exist outside of universities because there was a public interested in paying for their bread and butter. Many of the heroes of my youth were folks, already old men and women or long dead when I discovered them, who did this kind of work in and with culture (Warshow and Seldes come to mind). By the 1970s and 80s, all those folks who could had come within the ivory tower seeking shelter from an increasingly distinterested publishing economy. Now of course, that shelter is itself looking precarious at best, but more urgently, those who attempt to occupy the role in the 21st century find themselves cast as pariahs and labeled as “bloggers”—which by definition now means those who think, write, and work for “free.”
My friend and collaborator, Dean Mullaney, who has been at this game a lot longer than me, often tells me we need is a NY REVIEW OF BOOKS for comics. He is right, if we imagine the NYRB from a generation or two ago. But this last bastion has become the epitome of log-rolling and get-of-my-lawn-shouting old white men, so it doesn’t present an ideal model any more.
I like TCJ.com because I am myself a booster of comics. I like HU because I am a booster of public criticism in the best and old sense of the word. I want to see both thrive. The problem right now is one of imbalance. We have lots of off-shoots of the tcj.com school of “criticism” and not nearly enough modeling themselves on the HU school. What we need is more angry young critics saying “fuck you, Chris Ware!” “I hate EC Comics!” and “Hey, comics, stop patting yourself on the back, you are still seriously racist and sexist.” We need a two-part voicing to our comics criticism. Otherwise we just have what sounds an awful lot like the monotonous chants of cheerleaders.
and with that vaguely incoherent ramble, I will get back to my cheerleading from the sidelines.
Okay, yes–I have two flights this week, and I was planning to read the Charles Schulz “3AM” interview on the way there and then read the Bill Sienkiewicz Elektra one on the way back.
Oliver Risteau pointed out on twitter that HU isn’t necessarily all that different from tcj, which I think it worth keeping in mind. The truth is, that lots of writers have written for both (including Suat and me, for that matter.) A lot of these divisions end up being about past arguments rather than about different approaches per se.
I think tcj does in fact have a lot of interesting public intellectual style criticism, is I guess the point, and we’re certainly not above boosting a comic or two here. I think the lines are blurrier than Suat presents them (though I do appreciate the vote of confidence, Jared!)
We need comix criticism which focusses more on artwork …
Oh, of course they are. And I think more blurry under the current editors at tcj and the onset of middle-aging of some of the folks at hu ;}. But still, TCJ is and should be founded on the “Comics is Art!” cry that still drives much of their work and HU is and should be founded on the “EC sucks” cry that at the very least forces us to make sure we know how and why we want to argue back. So, even as they converge, I kind of hope they remain distinct voices, because I depend on both for my own thinking about comics. The “problem” lies with the fact that there aren’t enough people saying “GHOST WORLD is overrated” or whatnot, and so HU ends up with a persecution complex and it becomes too easy for folks to avoid hearing the voices that might force them to stop and think about what they think about comics.
Is word count of a critical review always necessary? For the review I did here of “Dale’s Comic Fanzine Price Guide 2011,” the title summed up my critical conclusion perfectly: “It’s Better Than Nothing.” The rest of the essay was simply backed up my assertion.
When I received my journalism training in the early 1990s, it made my writing more focused and concise — which I think was a positive. This begs the question: In this era of Twitter and electronic device-driven short attention spans, is “speed criticism” more desirable (and practical) in cases where there is a large volume of material to be reviewed? Like “speed chess” it puts the seasoned professional on the clock, forcing them in, say, one minute or less, to strip away the fluff and make a decision. In the case of popular culture critics, it would force them to encapsulate the essence of their impressions of creative material.
“It sucks,” “Derivative to the core,” “wonderfully innovative,” and “Visually spectacular,” would all be valid examples.
Think of such criticisms as headlines, or, in a more contemporary sense, Twitter tweets. Of course, for those who like more detail, one could add some supporting paragraphs. But these days, more may not necessarily be better if the bulk of one’s audience won’t bother reading the supporting material.
Just playing the Devil’s advocate here.
“onset of middle-aging of some of the folks at hu ;}.”
Eh, get off my lawn, ya whippersnapper.
A lot of good points here, that whether you think they apply to what Sean said or not, retain their validity on their own.
“Yeah, I realized that the moment I clicked “add comment.” Maybe I’m as bad at this whole “reading and writing about things” thing as Suat says.”
I don’t think Suat thinks you’re bad at it! Certainly, a minor slip-up on a comment thread isn’t evidence for the prosecution; these things happen all the time….
Something I’ve been thinking about is the need for more disclosure in comics criticism. It certainly doesn’t help when you see an effusive review of someone’s work, only to find out later that the author of the review and the author of the work being reviewed are best friends and have a podcast together/live together/get lunch every week. I’ve personally made the decision several times not to review comics by friends of mine or publications I’m deeply involved in, and it takes me aback when I read reviews with no kind of disclosure at all. It complicates the argument a lot, too, when questions of racism or sexism are involved, because defenders of the work are simultaneously portraying themselves as highly objective critics, and not acknowledging that they are good friends with the creator of the work in question. I don’t necessarily know how this problem could be addressed in such an insular community, but it’s something that’s been on my mind.
I’m going to reiterate Sean’s point that in his discussion w/Santoro he states clearly the need for more negative criticism, particularly when it comes to early work by young cartoonists who are, by definition, most likely to grow as a result of it.
That said, I do agree with Suat that what we need isn’t more criticism, but better criticism.
Worth pointing out too that tcj.com actually links to HU quite a bit, so it’s certainly not like there’s some policy of pariahhood.
Man, Noah. Back in the old days you would be throwing gasoline on these sparks, and here you are dousing them all with reasonableness and camaraderie. Aw. Who am I kidding? I like the new Noah!
Heh. That’s not really true. I’m much the same as ever. Check out some old comments threads if you don’t believe me. I’ve always been a peaceful sort.
mahendra singh said:
“We need comix criticism which focusses (sic) more on artwork”
Whatever else, THIS. I am totally guilty of it because my background and training is literary, but I plan/hope to make more of an effort in this area in the future.
Oh and yeah, I am totally in the camp Jared describes that is not so interested in evaluative criticism, not only because of my academic approach, but because evaluative reviews are generally unreliable.
I DO like evaluative criticism and think it is every bit as reliable (or unreliable) as other kinds. I am only suggesting that in an idea world we have a balance between evaluative criticism of the evangelizing kind (which is what I tend towards in my old age); academic criticism of the, well, academic kind; and public criticism of the iconoclastic kind. We need all (or at least I do).
PS: I know you’re a big peacenik, N, despite what the interwebs say
Jared, sorry if I insinuated that you didn’t. . . I was just putting my 2 cents in about (generally) not trusting reviews for a variety of reasons (including, but not limited to, personal relationships with creator, personal vendettas against creator, fanboyish obsession, the appeal of negativity in drawing traffic, etc. . .)
“the appeal of negativity in drawing traffic,”
This is always taken as true, but I’m not so sure. The best way to draw traffic is to follow the news cycle and (as Suat suggests) to write about very popular things. If you write a negative piece about something that nobody cares about, nobody will care (same with a positive piece about something no one cares about.)
Noah, I don’t think you’re wrong about the news cycle being the primary force driving traffic, but to whatever degree, sometimes shitting all over something leads to the review/essay being shared more by both people who agree (“I always THOUGHT Ghost World was overrated!”) and those who disagree (“How DARE they talk shit about Ghost World!?”), who want affirmation about their position.
Regardless of the degree to which this is prevalent, sometimes the more vociferous the writer of the piece is about hating on something, the more I wonder if that is tone adopted simply to draw outrage and piss people off – or to continue to perform a certain reputation that one has garnered over time that is expected from a reading audience. I am not saying this is necessarily bad – those things can be fun as hell to read – but I don’t necessarily trust it as a source to help me determine if the work it is about is worth my time/money.
Mahendra: Actually I would say that people who are trained in literature and the English language don’t often bring to bear their training on comics that often either. It’s been some time since I read a detailed analysis of the actual language (structure, style, grammar, whatever) of a literary comic. It might be that these critics don’t often get the chance considering the language skills of most cartoonists.
And I do get where Mahendra is coming from since comics does actually need more criticism like his articles on Moebius. The problem is the people who have the ability to do it aren’t interested in writing about it.
Also, the article above isn’t actually meant to be about HU vs TCJ.com. It’s about that specific interview at TCJ.com. The confusion is understandable since both Frank and Sean are closely associated with the online magazine and the powers that be.
Sean, I did read the part where you suggest that Rob Clough diminishes his helpfulness by saying mostly positive things about almost everything he reviews. And I also saw the part on Sam Alden and Chuck Forsman where you say that social media doesn’t get any push back from what I assume to be constructive negativity. But it’s strange that you should specifically say “work of obvious quality that’s nonetheless flawed.” What about work that is obviously shit but praised to high heaven? I think there’s probably some sense in ignoring/putting aside the experience when the work is being read by a few hundred people but what about the alternative majors?
We’re also addressing two different sections of your interview which you circumscribe yourself by talking about the “biggest” problem and the “one that’s worried [you] the most.” What happens if people don’t actually like the Happiness anthology as much as you do or don’t think it is “vital, defiant, personal work”? Mind you, I’m a sucker for publicity. If enough people say it’s the bee’s knees or even mention it in vaguely positive terms, I’ll definitely buy it. I’m a very trusting person when it comes to reviews and marketing.
So, anyway, if you’re saying everyone should put aside friendships, freebies, and convention/online networking in favor of frank and honest reviews in the negative (and lords knows it’s mostly crap out there), then the first half of the article above has nothing to do with you. Hopefully there will be much more unhappiness about alternative comics at TCJ.com quite soon from both you and Frank.
I also understand it’s been a good year for you in terms of paid work – so less comics criticism this year maybe? But just out of (honest) curiosity, when was the last time you basically said, “Don’t buy this Fanta/D+Q/alternative/small press comic” in a review of reasonable size (?500 words) for TCJ.com, Vorpalizer, Rolling Stone, your blog or wherever else I’ve missed? There was something vaguely negative you wrote about Katie Skelly’s “Nurse Nurse” in 2012 but anything since then?
Comics devotees often say that they don’t want to waste the column inches in a NYT piece for a negative review but comics really needs to grow out of this. The negative review Alison Bechdel received in The Guardian was definitely a sign of hope not of despair. It was a sign that the editors felt that she was ready to play with the “big boys” (even if they also commissioned a balancing piece to go with it).
Hey Suat–Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I wanted to respond to your penultimate graf above specifically: It’s probably been a long, long time since I wrote a pan, because I rarely write about comics right now and that’s been the case for some time. Vorpalizer’s my dayjob blog, and my remit there is to share work I’m excited about, so panning stuff is literally not part of the job. I think I’ve reviewed…I dunno, four books for the Journal this year? Five, if that? And none in months and months. And zero for Rolling Stone, since there’s no slot for reviewing comics there at all that’s accessible to me. When I *do* write about comics — and this has been the case for me for some time, but more so now than ever — it’s almost always about a book that made me say “hm, this looks pretty good, lemme check it out” because my limited time makes me not that interested in wasting what’s left on something bad. Since I’ve been reading and writing about comics for some time, I know my own taste pretty well and rarely guess wrong, though there are exceptions — Sam and Chuck’s comics, for example. If I were writing more often about comics at all, anywhere, they’d have gotten full reviews where I’ve talked about this at length. I think they’re both very good drawers, hence the “work of obvious quality” thing. It’s rare that I’ll even crack open a book that looks overtly shitty. But that’s sort of my point — the quirks of my reading/reviewing habits shouldn’t affect whether, like, TCJ runs any negative reviews that month, and it’s pretty darn close to doing so. The reason I’m looking for more reviewers is because it seems as though the more there are, the more likely you are to see a range of material, approaches, responses, and of course quality.
I’m part of the problem, is what I’m saying. But then, that’s what I was saying in the interview, too.
I have a hard time with your jump from “needs more criticism” to “that is marketing.”
The idea that criticism and marketing are to be separated is…a fallacy because anything can be used for marketing. The critic responsibility in analyzing new work is the health of the art form in question. If the artist in particular gets some shine, that’s a byproduct of the discussion.
After this, I lost the point of the essay since the essay seems partially built on this faulty premise.
“The critic responsibility in analyzing new work is the health of the art form in question”
I don’t agree with that I don’t think…unless the “art form in question” is criticism itself.
The critic’s obligation is the same as a comics’ creators; to make the best art she can. The sales of comics or the health of comics isn’t really an issue, is what I take Suat to be saying (and that’s where I’m coming from as well.)
We agree at least that sales of a comic aren’t in The Critic’s goals & objectives.
So I’m asking: what is the jump between people analyzing stuff that they think is good into “that’s just PR.” That’s a reach worthy of Mister Fantastic.
I dont’ think Suat is saying all positive reviews are marketing. I think he’s saying that positive reviews which are intended to get people to buy particular comics as their main (or one of their main) purposes are equivalent to marketing.
And watch those superhero references. What kind of blog do you think this is?
Ok Noah.
( 0_0)———————–b
I think I may be guilty of some of what is being examined here. I have ragged so long about certain inequities related to artists who suffered under old school work-for-hire practices that when it comes to newer stuff, I prefer to write about books I like and so I’m not exactly out to slag them. And then, I only have so much time to spend writing while I’m doing my own comics and also still in school, but I don’t want to ignore stuff that was sent to me and so I’ve been more often recently doing clusters of brief capsule reviews. Again, usually mostly positive and so they could be seen as a form of marketing…also, a lot of alternative/literary work is virtually suppressed in the market because of Diamond’s exclusionary policies and so a lot of good stuff isn’t distributed….that work needs and deserves to be promoted.
I don’t think that Suat’s saying that doing that sort of writing is wrong (at least, I don’t think it’s wrong.) Just that it’s not really criticism of the kind he’s interested in, and which he would like to see more of.
I think the incentives/reasons both you and Sean give for doing that kind of writing are entirely reasonable.
Suat, you don’t say this outright, but much of those first few paragraphs very strongly suggests that serious criticism qua criticism has no room for advocacy on behalf of neglected work — that such advocacy is evangelism or marketing. That the serious critic may or may not pursue such PR efforts in their (as it were) private capacity, but that it is no part of their role as critics. Or are you just saying that there’s too much of that kind of advocacy in comics criticism?
It’s obviously all criticism and criticism has a long history of advocacy. I’m just saying that comics evangelism as criticism is overwhelmingly the dominant trend in alternative comics. Even worse, this evangelism is often barely substantiated (I’ve got a companion piece with evidence of this awaiting Noah’s scheduling). I get why this was the case during the 80s and 90s but when do we get to throw off this yoke and start to resemble other art forms.
I mean, even TV.com (isn’t this like Wizard to comics) regularly drubs once critical fave Homeland now. Which gives you some hope (probably false), since the latest episode makes 24/Jack Bauer look like the epitome of tolerance.
I was drubbing Homeland for Jann Wenner’s $$$ before drubbing Homeland was cool
Another issue might be put as: how much of what is coming out can bear up under very deep scrutiny? And when something interesting does come up, like, say, Jaime Hernandez’s outstanding work in Love and Rockets New Stories #s 3 and 4, reams (or rather, long scrolls) of discourse are squandered just trying to sort out the various misreadings of the author’s intent.
Having spent a great deal of time lately thinking about critical theory and art practice in the company of some marvelous, critically minded practitioners (and not thinking at all about comics), I second Suat’s suggestion that at least one reason comics criticism is in this condition is because so few cartoonists practice criticism. And by “practice”, I mean read and write not journalism, not the “theory of craft” (as Frank Santoro does so brilliantly and charmingly), but classical “criticism” – argumentative/philosophical/descriptive essays, about art in general, both inside and outside their area of specialization. In fields where there is a strong critical culture, there is typically also a significant population of working artists who consider critical conversations about art, with other artists and critics, in their own and other fields, to be an essential part of their creative practice. Something they do for themselves, because it makes their art richer and better.
Film and literature and music have extremely healthy critical cultures, but they also have large numbers of engaged critic-practitioners – not just practitioners who occasionally toss off a piece of writing about something they’ve read or something they think is important, but practitioners who consider the work of criticism (i.e, reading incisive, informed essays on a range of art-related topics as well as working out their own ideas about their art and practice in essay form) to be an essential facet of being an original, challenging practitioner. (Fine art has a tremendous history in this regard although post-postmodernism is a bit of a nadir.)
This is not to say you have to be a practitioner to be a great critic (or vice versa), but to have a great critical conversation about any field, you need a critical mass of practitioners participating in that conversation at the highest levels. The conversation between…let’s call them practitioner-critics and philosopher-critics — so many of the great critical ideas historically have come out of that conversation. But the practitioner-critic has an exceptionally tough go in comics’ supercool, DIY, populist, “a picture is worth a thousand words” climate. There are vigilant souls, but by in large the critical stance seems to be treacherous waters for cartoonists.
I think one major issue is in the general frame of reference most people seem to have. A remedy for at least some of the bad comics criticism might be for reviewers to spend less time reading other people’s comics criticism and more time reading criticism outside of the bubble (ie reviews of film, art, or literature in publications like the NYRB, LARB, or LRB).
I absolutely agree with Caroline. The anti-establishment aspects of comics culture definitely have their advantages, but it’s unfortunate that this seems to have discouraged cartoonists from engaging in criticism — the history of many first and second generation alt-cartoonists rebelling against art schools that didn’t see comics as art still weighs heavy, even as the orientation of academia towards comics has changed significantly. Stereotypes of art school critiques as meaningless bullshitting are certainly rooted in truth, but there is a real value in learning how to be articulate about your own work and the work of others. Not everyone can be an autodidact in the Art Spiegelman tradition. Obviously the fact that comics is a younger art form with fewer institutions to support this kind of critical discourse is a factor as well.
Pingback: Comics A.M. | South African cartoonist could face charges | Robot 6 @ Comic Book Resources – Covering Comic Book News and Entertainment
Did anyone see this other perspective on the TCJ piece on Comics Beat?
“So what does a gal have to do to get into The Comics Journal anyway?”
http://comicsbeat.com/so-what-does-a-gal-have-to-do-to-get-into-the-comics-journal-anyway/
Yep! I tweeted it yesterday I think. It’s a really nice piece — except for the sneer at Matt Seneca, which I think is kind of mean-spirited and off-base.
I don’t agree, Noah. Seneca deserves all the derision he can get. He is basically what would happen if a stereotype about an “art comix person” came to life.
However, opinions aside, it’s understandable why a critic who happens to be a woman would feel that way about Seneca, considering the weird, intensely off-putting way he depicts women in his comics.
Huh; I haven’t read any of Matt’s comics. I often found his criticism interesting, though.
I think Matt as a critic was overhyped. He was interesting, but not exponentially better than lots of other folks who didn’t get as much attention (including women.) I think it’s totally reasonable to point that out. But that doesn’t mean his work was worthless, in my view.
Matt’s comics aside, he almost never wrote about comics by women in his critical capacity. I can recall a piece or two he did on Aidan Koch, one of which was a comic he made about her book Q, and I swear he wrote something about a Daredevil or Batman short story Ann Nocenti wrote (for David Aja to draw? does that sound familiar), but his weekly carte-blanche column for Robot 6 ran for over a year without once featuring work by a woman. (I’d link you to the list of topics as I did in my interview with Frank but Matt’s blog has since been deleted; I guess you could just manually scroll through the R6 author page.) The stunt aspects of his work were the weakest of course, and his pieces devolved into hyperbole easily enough, but he was deeply invested in close reading and in trying to understand how comics did what they did. It would have been nice to see him broaden his range of coverage.
What comics criticism needs is a bunch of folks who share a vision of what comics criticism should be, what it is lacking, and what they can contribute, to band together and make a space to promote that vision of comics criticism. No one is getting rich writing comics criticism (is anyone getting paid at all? I can honestly say that for all the reviews I’ve written over the years I’ve been paid a total of a dollar three eighty, give or take a dollar three eighty). The one compensation we get is the relationships we build over time with the cartoonists we review (not always favorably) and the presses who occasionally provide review copies (usually pdfs these days), and of course the few readers who share our idea of what criticism is useful or find our criticism provocative for their own. Part of my initial response was to suggest that hand-wringing over comics criticism as if it could or should resemble literary criticism or film criticism which came of age when people paid people to write instead of demanding or expecting it to free is not realistic, or really fair to the critics who share their opinions for free (or close to it) in a range of venues. If you don’t like the criticism you see out there, write it. If you can’t write it, pay someone talented and dedicated to do it. But finding fault with the criticism that is out there seems in the long run a colossal waste of energy. Or a fantasy, sweet but naive, that meaningful power is in any way involved.
“What comics criticism needs is a bunch of folks who share a vision of what comics criticism should be, what it is lacking, and what they can contribute, to band together and make a space to promote that vision of comics criticism.”
Sort of what we’re doing here, maybe? Or trying to?
Comics crit is a small pond…but if it’s a pond you’re in, then it’s your pond, and trying to figure out ways to make it better is worthwhile. That can involve writing it yourself…but the fact is that there are, even in a small pond, (and the metaphor breaks down here) established institutions. You put something on tcj, more people see it or find it than if you put it somewhere on tumblr, and it has a different kind of cache. Not to say that these things are entirely stable, and of course some folks with tumblr accounts get more traffic than tcj, and so forth. But I don’t think it’s silly to point out that folks who should be leading aren’t doing as well as they might.
Sean, I don’t hate performative criticism. It can be done well or not so much, just like anything else. Eating the comic was cute. Your point that Matt’s criticism was very male centered is well-taken. I wasn’t objecting to any criticism of him or anything (I disagreed with him as often as not.) I just found the obviously-he’s-worthless approach unnecessary.
Yes, what HU is doing. Or tcj (the team was not too long ago its own collective, after all, at Comics Comics) But more of them: the anti-HU, the quasi-HU, splinter groups, unificationists, anarchists, and all the rest.
No, comics criticism is not a small pond. It is a series of puddles, unconnected to any larger tributaries, and requiring our constant drip drip drip to keep them from evaporating completely.
>>No one is getting rich writing comics criticism (is anyone getting paid at all?)
Well obviously there are quite a number of people who get paid to write comics criticism or at least what’s taken for comics criticism. A bit less if you just count those doing alternative comics criticism. I presume your question was meant to be rhetorical. Even Noah gets paid to write comics criticism. But maybe he’s earned more in one month doing his regular writing then in all his years writing comics criticism? That’s my experience anyway.
Real money payments? Good on ya! Honestly, it wasn’t rhetorical, but I should probably pretend it was so I don’t embarrass myself
Pingback: Comics Criticism « Attentiondeficitdisorderly by Sean T. Collins
Jacob C. says:
November 4, 2013 at 8:54 am
“Something I’ve been thinking about is the need for more disclosure in comics criticism. It certainly doesn’t help when you see an effusive review of someone’s work, only to find out later that the author of the review and the author of the work being reviewed are best friends”
Absolutely agree. The gang of like-minds currently running the online TCJ are a perfect example… when’s the last time they DIDN’T link to a Ben Marra or CF interview, for example? It’s so predictable.
At the same time, there’s a history of this sort of thing in literature and arts, no? Weren’t Greenberg and Hess friendly with all the painters they wrote about? Didn’t Kael sleep with a few filmmakers?
It’s not just TEAM COMICS ™ but also TEAM SUNDANCE and TEAM IOWA WRITER’S WORKSHOP and so on.
At this point the best way for a cartoonist to make valid, challenging comics would be give zero interviews and attend zero shows. But this is the Age Of The Hustle, Get Out Of My Way Motherfucker!
I’m sure you’re right that it’s standard practice across artistic mediums, Bill. I don’t know – it might be unreasonable to ask for full disclosure every time, but I, as a reader, would definitely appreciate a little “btw, we’ve been close friends for 7 years” disclaimer somewhere. Even the illusion that the critic acknowledges a potential bias towards their best friend’s work would make me feel less betrayed than when I find out later that they’re besties.
Comics needs more critics who don’t care about quality. Pop culture journals in general seem to be full of people who will write about anything and everything.
Pingback: How does George Herriman’s Krazy Kat Reshape the Comics Canon? |