So reading the new issue (293) of The Comics Journal, one thing that caught my eye was fellow HU blogger Bill Randall’s review of a couple of new Chris Ware titles, the Acme Novelty Date Book and Acme Novelty Library #18. Bill’s review begins with a discussion of Ware’s penchant for self-critique in the Datebook, which is basically a sketchbook/diary. Bill says:
Among its snippets of comics and drawings, it contains diary passages of unrelenting self-criticism…. I hesitate to do more than note that these passages record, with bald honesty, a portion of Ware’s inner life. They are complex, conflicted and self-obsessed. They likely mix honesty with self-deception. Having never met the man, much less related to him over time, I can’t say for certain. nothing in these passages, however, strikes me as particularly unusual. Such feelings are common; only the bravery, or foolishness, of making them public is not. Some readers, especially fellow cartoonists jealous of his success, will grow impatient with them. Others will likely feel great sympathy.
I don’t think you have to be jealous of Ware to think that his constant whining is stupid. I mean, it’s incredibly self-absorbed and just indecent to be going on and on all the time about how bad your art is. Newsflash here — nobody cares if your art is bad or good. It just doesn’t matter that much. We’ve all got our own troubles. Do the best you can and fucking move on. Really, wailing on and on…it’s not a whole lot different than constantly talking about how great you are. It’s in horrible taste, and it’s boring and it kind of suggests that you don’t care about anyone but yourself.
I want to make clear here — this isn’t about Ware’s personal life. As Bill says, all artists have moments (or more than moments) of self-doubt, and really, how you relate to your own art in the privacy of your own home is strictly your business. But Ware’s self-flagellation is a central part of his public persona. It’s tied up in his presentation of himself as an honest, deep artist; it’s a central theme in the work and aesthetic of the sincere, deep-feeling, alt-cartoonist mafia which he more or less helms. Basically, it’s how he fetishizes tedium and selfishness as aesthetic goals. It’s pernicious, and it deserves to be hooted.
Of the latest Acme Novelty, Bill writes:
Scott McCloud’s criticism in Reinventing Comics that “Ware’s outrageously complex pages often do no more than deliver a single morbid “gas” as payoff,” off-targe then, now applies not at all. The pages remain outrageously complex, like the task of sorting through one’s life. Though difficult to read, the overall effect is neither morbid nor a gag. It is simply a wish that this young woman would see the good in herself.
I disagree with the McCloud quote too, but for almost opposite reasons. A lot of Ware’s early work was, at least somewhat, gag driven; a lot of it was morbid. Gags and morbidity were what gave it a lot of its energy and appeal; it was darkly, blackly funny, and often mean-spiritedly satirical. Now, though, it’s much more about lit-fic sincere meaningfulness. Oh, the complicated sadness…. Oh, the humanity…. As a result, where Ware used to consistently delight me, my reaction to his work over the last few years has ranged from loathing (the horrible Branford the Bee series) to more sedate disappointment and mistrust (which is pretty much my reaction to the Building Stories series, which Bill discusses in his review.)
*******
I’m not sure I’ve told this story before, but…several years ago I was at a party/art event thing to see my friend’s work. As it happened,I’d just purchased an issue of TCJ. I didn’t have anywhere to put it, so I was carrying it. A woman saw me with it and asked what it was, and I told her, and my friend then outed me by telling her that I wrote for the magazine. To which she responded, “Oh…so that means you write about whether you like Chris Ware or not, right?”
The truth hurts.
Update: More on TCJ 293 here.
That last anecdote is hilarious.
I pretty much agree with most of what you say about Ware and the rest of the people who worship at the cult of the sad sacks.
I still like Rusty Brown, and I did not dislike building stories, but I think a lot of his stuff is just as flawed as anything else out there, and certainly not worthy of the deification it is often the subject of.
Part of it is personal, since I just have a different outlook on the whole “sincere lit fic” outlook and the woe-is-me approach of many alt comics. Many see it all as some profound expression of the human condition, but I find it more adolescent than any given comic from either of the big two. The kind of self flagellation and so forth that Ware engages in is something I associate with angst filled teenaged boys, not adults.
Noah, that’s an amusing summary dismissal, and I’m going to hate it if you ever go after me. But as it stands I don’t find it very convincing except as it serves as an open appeal to people’s knee-jerk (or in some cases considered) reactions against what they perceive is “woe is me” whining.
For one thing, it’s a huge leap to suggest that Chris being self-critical is doing so because he believe someone cares about it. That’s like football coach psychology. I’m also not getting the logic of assuming that the sketchbook work was part of some trackable, overall way he presents himself as an artist — did he always intend this work to be published? If he didn’t, I think you need to take a closer look at it to see if it really fits in with that generalization.
Have you read the works Bill’s reviewing? I find it hard you could group it all together if you’d read it. Several of the anecdotes and asides related are about behavior that has nothing to do with self-criticism.
Also, I don’t find your summary statement over what should be a private struggle and what is fit for a public one to be very convincing, although again, the critical part of it is amusingly phrased.
Hey Jason. I think Ware is deified in large part because he’s massively, massively talented. His technical abilities are stunning, and he’s extremely smart. The stuff of his I like I really like a ton. I just want him to use his powers for good, not evil.
Tom, you are quite able to hold your own, thank you. “Football coach psychology” — that’ll leave a mark.
Ware chose to publish that stuff; therefore it seems to me that it’s something he wants to put out there in the world (unless his house was hijacked or something.) And it seems absolutely clear to me that he believes people care about it. I mean, it’s not like he doesn’t engage in all sorts of whining and self-criticism in his actual comic strips On the contrary, he does it frequently, in public, as part of his art. He’s not Emily Dickinson or Henry Darger; he creates with an audience in mind.
I thought I made is at least somewhat clear that I haven’t read these works, though I’ve certainly read a lot of Ware’s self-criticism in various venues (and I’ve read some of Building Stories in various places.)
So what you’re saying is that if Ware decides he wants to do the sort of morbid, gag strips you like, then he’ll be “Returning to Form”, as it were?
And how exactly does Ware maintain the time to “mann the helm” of some imaginary alt-cartoon-mafia? It doesn’t truly exist. If it does, then somebody set me straight, because i think it’s actually a figment of collective imagination at this point.
John
Hey John. Ware is at the center of a loose group of cartoonists who support and encourage each other’s work. That includes Ivan Brunetti certainly; also Jeff Brown and David Heatley and, I believe, Dan Clowes. Also Dan Raeburn, who is a critic. I’m certain other folks as well.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with associating with like-minded artists, or even with promoting them. In fact, I think Ware’s desire to use his influence to promote less-successful artists whose work he likes is admirable and generous. It just so happens that the aesthetic he’s promoting is one I dislike intensely. Again, I just wish he’d use his power for good…. (though, to be fair, in anthologies and what not he’s also included work by people I do like, such as the Fort Thunder folks.)
I think i get it. If Ware doesn’t like you for whatever reason, then you are not likely to be included in the glee club and the glee club has a certain amount of influence. Makes sense actually.
Sounds like a bunch of cheerleaders to me.
John
Well, I think that may be a little harsh. It’s not necessarily (or primarily) about who he likes personally, but about whose work he likes. Again, I don’t see anything wrong with artists supporting each other; I mean, it can be a little cliquish, but art is kind of like that. But anyway, it’s really his aesthetic choices I have an issue with, not how he conducts himself personally.
you mean the aesthetic of getting all touchy feely after you’ve just blasted someone a new hole? It doesn’t really get more personal does it? I thought I was being tame by comparison.
John
Touché.
I do see a line between what I was saying (whiny self-criticism is a bad foundation for art) and what I took you to be saying (Ware promotes his friends because they say nice things about him.) I’m not disagreeing with you because I think you’re too mean or too personal; I’m disagreeing because I don’t really think it’s true that he does that.
I’m happy enough to be taken to task for being insufficiently mean, or inconsistently mean, in any case. At least it’s a new experience….
Haven’t gotten the issue yet, but it looks like Bill took my comment about Ware out of context. I wasn’t criticizing Ware at all, just making a broader point about different cartoonists’ approaches.
Lots of typos too, but I’m assuming that was the blog post, not Bill’s review.
–Scott McCloud
I think we’re quickly into the disagreement/interpretation category on everything except maybe this:
“Ware chose to publish that stuff; therefore it seems to me that it’s something he wants to put out there in the world (unless his house was hijacked or something.)”
I don’t think this is anywhere near the same as creating something with its publication in mind, let alone creating something with how it will be accepted in mind, which I believe is more important to the point being made.
Sorry about the apparent severity of the football coach crack; that wasn’t my intent.
Tom…for Christ’s sake! I’ve had like three comics bloggers apologize to me in the past week; it’s getting ridiculous. Read the sort of thing I post! Really, I’ve got no call to be offended by anything, ever, except maybe death threats. I thought the football coach crack was great.
Scott…yes, the typos are absolutely me, not Bill or the Journal. Sorry about that!
That anecdote is a scream. We can all retire now.
***
Good morning. Ideally I would reread all the books first (while charging Google my usual hourly rate). But Noah's reminded me how hard– excruciating– it was to get through the text in the sketchbook. I wrote as little as I did about it because I'm not a licensed therapist.
He does play this up in his public persona, often for laughs. (I'm reminded of a bit where the Norwegians criticized his lettering?) But the bits in the sketchbook– even the "toastmaster" bit– don't merit the same approach. It's more incisive, more painful, and unrelenting. Beautiful drawings with notes like "bad," "crap," "what was I thinking," long passages of tiny text with self-critique I would never have published.
The sketchbook also began without hope of publication (like Crumb's). I'm reminded of the monk Thomas Merton's diaries. He wrote for himself, but after he became a literary celebrity, he knew they'd be published & often notes this fact in them. But still, for long passages, it's clear that it's just him & the page, especially when he's rapturously, giddily describing the woman he falls in love with. I think any writer ends up here in the end– I certainly do– even if they're conscious of an audience. (Writing for themselves, that is, not in love.)
As you say, Noah, Ware is massively talented, which is why I’m more willing to accept these things at face value. I think the skeptical frame you’re using is useful, but I haven’t had success when I’ve tried to use it.
The second part of your argument’s more interesting to me. While I like naturalistic fiction just fine, it’s not my favorite kind of comics; and Ware’s early work focused mostly on the teens-and-20s style cartooning. Quimby and the potato guy.
I think a lot of them are funny, but only in a visceral and cathartic way. To be precise, I can’t say there’s compelling textual evidence that he’s stacked the deck against the characters, that he’s mean-spirited, that he’s more than an observer of this consistent system he’s working in. When readers find this inhumane (in Douglas Wolk’s phrase, Ware “hates fun”), I wonder if we’re reading the same work. But I think that multiplicity’s a strength in his work.
If you’re arguing, though, that Ware loses a motivating tension in the work by moving to straight fiction, I do agree, partially. Building Stories can’t ply cartooning history against painful content, so it’s got to get its energies from elsewhere– here, one well-drawn character. Someone on TCJ’s board aptly compared the characterization with Love & Rockets. (There's also the formal development of the way he maps space on the page, but I think it's secondary.)
Finally, here's a question-as-statement. Among Ware & his contemporaries– alt- & art-cartoonists who came of age in the late 80s-to-mid 90s, the two dominant tones are self-pity/loathing and nostalgia. They contrast with the sentiment & melancholy in Porcellino and people he's influenced. I think the former get their dominant tones from Crumb, whose influence has been massive no matter what you think of his work. I personally don't think this influence has been a good one, at least not for the type of art I want to see in the world. Thoughts?
Now vote!
Noah- I think you should go to Quimbys and read Building Stories in a larger dose. I absolutely hated the short installments I read for a lot of the same reasons you seem to dislike Wares’ work. But it does develop into something much more interesting than ‘sad sack girl in vintage sweater feels bad’.
And, besides, like you mentioned, Ware is so exceptionally skilled that I think his work is worth reading for that reason alone. I can’t imagine other cartoonists even attempting to portray so many minor, subtle actions .
As far as the sketchbook goes- Yes, I’m sick of reading his self hatred type stuff. I’d much rather he wrote about his successes, or simple observations, but I think he’s got this inner dynamic that is propelled by self hatred.
You can call it bullshit.He might even agree to a certain extent, but I don’t think it’s disingenuous.
I don’t think it’s a shtick or anything.
-And I don’t think Building Stories is perfect, by any means, but it’s worth reading.
Uland–
When you write, “I think he’s got this inner dynamic that is propelled by self hatred. You can call it bullshit.He might even agree to a certain extent, but I don’t think it’s disingenuous. I don’t think it’s a shtick or anything.” you reminded me:
A friend of mine usefully described this as “his engine.” She meant this guy who drove us nuts at work but got stuff done for precisely the reasons he was so annoying. In Ware, I think the critique propels the work in a similar way. If it’s a sin, it’s a small one.
I totally agree Bill, though I do think that propellant oozes into the narratives far too often. “Write what you know” is one thing, but I do wish Ware would challenge himself to write without so much ooze, so to speak. I think a portrait of relatively well adjusted people might actually be a [i]more depressing[/i], ironically. Cause there’s nothing at all comfortable about it. You can’t fetishize that kind of “no fun” they way you can a plain jane amputee girl alone in her apartment ( wearing vintage sweaters..) .
Scott,
I didn’t read you as criticizing Ware (except for my word choice, duh). I do think your word choice of “morbid” is off-target, not for implied criticism so much as imprecision. I’ve never read his gag stuff that way, not even the Book of Jokes. But that could be me just niggling, or reading a different Ware than everyone else.
And touché to me for using “criticize” when it too is imprecise. If I’ve misrepresented you, apologies.