While corresponding with a prominent comics blogger recently, our discussion drifted towards the imminent release of The Best American Comics Criticism of the 21st Century. He made the suggestion that it might become “a yearly thing, in the style of Houghton Mifflin’s Best American series, tracking the 21st century as it moves forward”. Now I don’t think this rumor is accurate in any way (not least because there are no other sources backing this claim up) but I was incredulous for an entirely different reason. Quite simply, there simply isn’t enough good comics criticism to fill a book on an annual basis. You might be able to fill a book once every 5-10 years but certainly not more often than that.
Now I’ve been know to write some reviews in my lifetime so I’m essentially lumping myself in that pool of mediocrity called “comics criticism”. I’m approaching this, however, from the perspective of a person who is a reader first and foremost – a reader who is just about lazy enough to want to rely on the hard work and intelligence of others for a deeper understanding of comics.
In this spirit, I decided to make a short analysis of the reviews available for one of the “big” books from 2008 – Dash Shaw’s Bottomless Belly Button (BBB). There’s nothing remotely scientific about the following survey. I’m merely trying to reproduce the experience of a reader trying to find out more about a comic after having read it. From the perspective of an occasional comics reviewer, such an exercise is not without its benefits as the articles I’ve encountered mirror the deficiencies in my own writing.
I’ve chosen BBB quite deliberately. As one of the “biggest” and most talked about books of 2008, one would expect a reasonable amount of quality reviews around which to crystallize readers’ thoughts. I hardly expect a critic to devote acres of space to ascertain the merits of an insignificant work but this label simply doesn’t apply to BBB.
It has to be said that most comic reviews and articles aren’t written with needs such as my own in mind. Rather, they’re aimed at readers in search of much more basic guidance: to read or not to read; to buy or not to buy.
Most readers aren’t interested in the inner mechanics of comics or the layers upon layers of meaning an artist imbues his work with. In other words, the very things a good cartoonist wrestles with on a daily basis. Most aren’t even interested in well argued, detailed essays debating the merits of a work. To most readers, comics are momentary diversions hardly deserving of this the kind of attention. Another group of readers find reviews entirely useless, preferring to rely on their own brilliance to pierce any semblance of a veil. Needless to say, this blog entry is not meant for persons such as these.
The web is perceived (not entirely without reason) as the province of ephemera directed at short attention spans. That the vast majority of reviews of BBB amount to little more than a short description and recommendation should come as no surprise. I count among these the reviews at Boing Boing, Comic Book Galaxy, Comic Mix, Entertainment Weekly, Fiction Writers Review,, the Hip Librarians Book Blog, infibeam and The Stranger. There are a series of blurbs at the Fantagraphics website as well as at Publishers Weekly. The review at Comic Book Bin goes into more detail but is once again mainly descriptive with the faint whiff of opinion thrown in for good measure. In short, the web is replete with choices in this category. I’ve merely chosen a small representative sample from a wide variety of sources. Perhaps this reflects, in part, the lack of money attached to this activity - this lack of money discouraging the use of more resources in terms of time and effort.
The well known New York Magazine article on Dash Shaw is little more than a puff piece containing some background information on the author. The extent of its adulation is easily captured in the following quote:
“Yet that disparity between the roughness of the art and the maturity of the story—not for children! the book’s spine reads, alongside Shaw-penned faces of crying tots—lends Shaw’s work an emotional jolt that’s sometimes absent from the work of other graphic novelists, even those as acclaimed as Ware and Clowes.”
On second thoughts, perhaps it’s not so much adulation as clutching at straws.
Well argued negativity is also in very short supply. An article at the Inkwell bookstore has some embryonic antagonism in relation to BBB but does so in passing while reviewing Ariel Schrag’s Likwise. The writer at Fiction Circus uses his review of BBB to launch into a tirade against simplicity and “humble line art” among alternative cartoonists. Seth, Alison Bechdel and “maybe everyone at Topshelf” are brought up in defense of his case. He writes:
“My problem is with how the boring “cartooning” style is privileged as artistic and honest in comics, the same way Hemingway’s writing style used to be in literature. The same way, arguably, that literature now privileges boring “realistic” subject matter. Unfortunately, in Bottomless Bellybutton, Mr. Shaw is guilty of drawing in a boring style…”
And later:
“It is a credit to the modest, weirdly involving art and writing in Bottomless Bellybutton that, despite all these problems, I didn’t realize it wasn’t very good until I was about halfway through.”
The entire experience is not unlike wandering through the arguments of a petulant child.
The New York Times is not much better. Here’s exhibit A:
”Though there’s plenty to enjoy in “Bottomless Belly Button” – realistic dialogue, an emotional connection to the characters, some wonderful flourishes in the layout – it seems wrong to delve too far into those elements before pointing out another major ingredient: nudity. The book’s spine has a “not for children” label and a drawing of six young faces overlaid with X’s – quite appropriate, because some of the interior illustrations merit a triple-X rating. The images run from the mundane to the racy to the positively, well, graphic. Perhaps the use of nudity is a budding trend in graphic novels.”
I understand the limitations imposed by writing about comics for a mainstream publication – the need for evangelical zeal and a sensitivity for reader’s of a more puritanical nature – but this reads too much like a blast from the “Comic aren’t for kids anymore!” past. I imagined a nun at the keyboard before the writer started proclaiming a fondness for the decompression used by Brian Michael Bendis in Ultimate Spider-Man. I can’t imagine a nun liking Ultimate Spider-Man. I certainly can’t conceive of any nun labeling Y: The Last Man “exquisite” as the NYT writer does. Nuns have better taste than that. The less said of this travesty of a review the better.
Derik Badman who makes a valiant effort at analyzing some of Shaw’s techniques but gets bogged down in the somewhat repetitive mechanics of the book. Badman’s entry reads like a series of notes prepared for a more comprehensive article and it really never pretends to be much more than this. I suspect that a longer and more thorough piece might have emerged in a more encouraging critical environment.
The single best article on BBB available on-line is in all likelihood one of the least read – Charles Hatfield’s article at Thought Balloonists. This isn’t even Hatfield at the top of his game – it’s merely a long entry for his blog, written with some degree of thought and planning of course but not with the rigor of one of his academic articles or published reviews. It’s a clear, methodical discussion of the themes, mechanics and deficiencies of BBB. Hatfield has been doing this for years and it shows even in the most casual of his writings.
One good review of BBB out of dozens – a sad testament to the state of comics criticism by any measure. For the sake of comparison, I urge you to do the most basic search for reviews of any prominent work of literary fiction – a recent one if need be if only to give a small edge to comics-related reviews (Thomas Pynchon’s latest novel Inherent Vice. Even in a critical scene notorious for incestuous relationships and glad-handing the difference in quality is sobering. Comics criticism has a long, long way to go – certainly before it satisfies my most basic needs as a reader.
I've thought the same thing virtually every time I finish reading a smart, complex comic and want to see what people are saying about it; in fact, I know I had this reaction after reading Bottomless Belly Button. There's generally just nothing out there that makes me feel like it clarifies my thoughts about the comic or points me towards things I hadn't noticed or deepens my appreciation of the work. Those are the things good, analytical criticism should do and comics just don't seem to have many critics who do that consistently.
I think it comes down to numbers. Writing sophisticated analysis of comics just isn't rewarding because virtually nobody reads it. Write about the new Pynchon novel or the Tarantino film and you're joining a lively and (at least hopefully) intelligent conversation. Write about the new Dash Shaw comic in any detail and listen to the crickets chirp, more or less. Writing about literature, or about film (as I mostly do) is rewarding because there's a sense of a real audience for that kind of stuff. Look at all the vigorous and often substantive discussion churned up at various film blogs and in newspaper/magazine reviews regarding Inglourious Basterds in the past week or two. That's exciting for a critic, however they feel about the film. There's no comparable community for in-depth comics discussion.
Suat and Howard, I *know*, deep in my heart, that when you say, "there's no intelligent comics criticism," what you really mean is "there's no intelligent comics criticism…except at the Hooded Utilitarian, which is so fantastically great that my brains ooze from my ears, and I never want to read literature or watch movies, or indeed, read comics ever again, but just contemplate the ethereal blogness of it all for eternity." But I understand why that's a little lengthy to add on.
Anyway…welcome Suat!
Interesting post, Suat.
I agree on all accounts, including your comments on my post. I have a tendency to write about comics in a kind of bullet point style of things that interested me in the work. Style and coherence are generally lacking. This is where blogging and lack of editorial input causes a lack of improvement.
Were there some edited outlet for me to write, I'd probably write more coherent pieces of criticism.
Sadly, there aren't many such outlets that are publishing comic criticism, as opposed to reviews.
i just came across your comment about the influence of japanese art on western comics. absolutely the voice of wisdom. i'm preparing a post on the very subject right now.
Very nice.
Two things:
first, Ed, reading your film blog reminds me that I can't think of a comics work as evocative and open to good, analytical criticism as Sans Soleil or Histoire(s) du Cinema. Haut-Mal, maybe.
And they're well-discussed online, thanks perhaps to the legacy of university film societies. Then you get political activism, cinephile obsession and talk over coffee all together. It's not jarring to see a movie put into context.
With comics it is jarring, even if the context is just rich-world youths indulging themselves. Likewise, I never see intelligent writing shut out with the old saw "all art is subjective" (as if there's no value in someone else's subjectivity) as much as in online comics circles. It's like there's only one perspective from which to appreciate these things.
Second, I've always done my best writing for print. Because of the paycheck, or the venue, or the permanence. (Because it doesn't suffer Lotusgreen's self-promotional comment appearing in the wrong place.)
And because online comics crit has skewed towards performance. Tucker's work comes to mind, as well as Abhay Kholsa. So's a lot of the Comics Comics blog, like here when Frank goes on a tear and the comments explode. Anything with Oliver East, Jason Overby, and DerikB chiming in will have some good in it. A lot of the heat in comics theory (or whatever it's called) seems to go to places like that– lots of artists and critics both, very heated, off the cuff.
But I'd rather read a 3000-word essay after the editing than wade all the time.
There are, in fact, places to write and read comics criticism (as opposed to reviews) in academic circles. Like most academic publications, their circulation appears to be limited and they may be little known, but they do exist.
Imagetext is an online venture from U of Florida
The International Journal of Comics Art is a print venture
and there's a new one coming forth shortly called "Journal of Comics Studies" or something like that.
If you like Charles Hatfield's work, I have to say, he's one of, if not the, best critics out there…but there should be material in the same vein in some of these journals. They also publish reviews.
I tend to agree that perhaps scholarship is better in criticism of other media…but perhaps not inevitably or completely so.
Joseph Witek is another very good comics critic/scholar.
Noah, I was perhaps too absolutist; there's not a total lack of really good comics criticism, just not enough of it for my tastes. I find some good stuff here, some at Jog's blog, some at Comics Comics, some in TCJ, etc. But overall I'd say the original poster's point holds true.
Bill, you're probably right that there are few enough if any comics works quite as rich or dense as Histoire(s) du cinema or Sans Soleil, but then, those are exceptions even in film, truly staggering works of virtually inexhaustible depth. If there aren't any comics working on quite as many levels, I nevertheless think artists like Martin Vaughn-James, Jamie Hernandez, Chris Ware, etc. are worthy of the kind of in-depth examination we're talking about here.
I think comics criticism would really benefit from a few extended analyses of individual works, initially aimed at college English departments, maybe (where people actually take the time for such things if given half a chance). Textbook treatises on Bottomless Belly Button, Watchmen, Jimmy Corrigan, Asterios Polyp…or even mainstream series taken in their historical entirety- it's not like we're completely lacking for material here. Once comics are more firmly entrenched within the art/lit curricula, once a few brave souls have shown how it could be done, I think the public's appetite for comic criticism would flourish (and, residually, more qualified and capable reviewers would be pouring out of the academic woodwork).
Pipe dream?
Oh, sure, Ed. Retract now. But it's too late, my friend…far, far too late.
Anyway…this is an interesting discussion, and on that I find myself unexpectedly (and uncharacteristically) uncertain about. I guess I'm not exactly sure what Suat (and Bill, seemingly) are asking for exactly. It sounds like in part you're looking for more/better academic criticism? Or are you looking for better reviews? Or just writers coming from any perspective and engaging with the work in a way that seems intelligent?
I think Bill's right to some extent in that comics (in the U.S. at least) have…well, certain aesthetic limitations, to put it kindly, and that that can limit criticism in a lot of ways. On the other hand, I feel like I've found various things to write about that seem multi-layered and meaningful and moving to me, anyway. I was just thinking that that Marston/Peter run has to be one of the triumphs of twentieth century art, bar genre or medium. But obviously I'm a minority opinion on that.
To me, though, Derik and Bill are both reverent of editors in a way that I don't think is especially justified, at least from my experience. The difference between published pieces and blogs is more about time and finishing than about editing per se. I've rarely had editors improve a piece in any substantive way. In fact, in most cases, editors don't really do much at all; TCJ, Reason, Culture 11, etc. etc. — none of those editors try to do any substantial rewriting. The Reader does…but the less said about that the better, probably.
Peer review is different; I've never done that. I expect it would mostly just irritate me at this stage in my life…though I'd be curious as to whether Eric thinks it's helpful.
bill–
1. i did not mean my comment to be self-promotional; i was thrilled to read noah's comment. it's a consciousness few people share.
2. i probably should have excused myself for interrupting, it's true. but i could find no email address and i wanted to comment on the most up-to-date place.
Hey Lotus. I actually wasn't sure initially whether you were talking to me or Suat. Just FYI, you can always comment on the relevant post (I assume you were talking about the Japanese Superman one?) I'll see it.
And my email is noahberlatsky at gmail. I need to put it up on the blog, I think. Sorry about that.
If you want to continue the discussion, you can email me or post on the post in question so we're not cluttering up this thread.
Noah, I've read a few works of criticism that have brought me to tears. None were on comics, so I'm still waiting for the waterworks there. Barring that, a much larger pool of thoughtful readers and writers with a rich variety of perspectives, more crystalline articles online and off, and fetching good looks would be nice.
Ed, there are plenty of complex comics worthy of in-depth criticism. The perspective from which to criticize them's rather limited, though. Compared to Sans Soleil (not as complex as poetic, I'd say) and the Godard, they lack the historical and political points of entry that make the films richer critical ground. It's comparing how some characters make us feel with the sweep of history and ideas. Maybe it's me– I read more nonfiction these days. (And I'll have to check out Vaughn-James, thanks.)
Eric, the varied venues are great but most academics can't write English prose. That said, the only ones I read are David Bordwell and PP Karan. If there's someone I'm missing, please let me know.
Lotusgreen, fair enough. It seemed out-of-place enough that I took you for a drive-by bot. Since you're not, welcome!
arigato. ;^) to the both o' youse.
I hear/read this "comics crit has a long way to go" remark on a semi-regular basis, and yet I'm never quite sure why that's especially a bad thing. Considering the status of the business itself, where the strongest of the critics are getting paid, at best, part-time wages to write, it seems like there's a solid foundation. Some of Jog or Santoro's best work is written on a completely free basis–and if there is an audience, and that audience is willing to pay at some point, all the better. I'd hope, maybe with a stupid, misplaced optimism that the future will allow for more of the smarter criticism that one can find in film and prose–but it has to start somewhere, doesn't it? I think you'd be hard pressed to look at the "state of criticism" over the last ten years, twenty, and not say that it's gotten stronger-and when you're talking about any kind of art criticism, you can totally gauge its success based on the progress it has made over time.
Bill's point about online comics discussion getting smashed by the classic "just one snob's opinion" rejoinder is a good one though, and one that's skyrocketed in popularity, but not just in comics circles. I can't remember the last time I've read a online movie review, by anyone, where that particular comment has showed up at some point, especially when a film makes any money whatsoever.
Bill: Interesting comments – especially your implied criticism of “performance” reviewing. I suppose some of it comes out quite honestly from the personality of the writer. But it’s obviously a way of getting eyes on a blog entry. Anything which isn’t immediately/viscerally entertaining is a hard sell on the web. I’ve had discussions with Jog about writing about comics in print and on-line and he seems to favor the latter. I think he’s also of the impression that on-line writing is becoming less impermanent. In any case, avenues for serious writing about comics in print are very limited – even worse if you exclude all the academic venues. Comic Art is gone so that just leaves TCJ.
Anon: That’s a very optimistic view and one possible future I suppose. I don’t how long we would have to wait for things to grow naturally out of college courses though (or even if it’s a possibility). I’ve been reading comics criticism for about 20 years or so and I can’t honestly say that things have actually improved both in quantity or quality in “popular” (as opposed to academic) publications. All of this reflects poorly on the attention paid to the comics themselves. Is it any wonder that so few people actually want to draw comics?
Noah: I looking for both “better” and more “intelligent” reviews/articles. And they certainly don’t need to be academic – something like Jonathan Rosenbaum on “Nights of Cabiria” would be more than sufficient. Of course, something like “Cabiria” has the ability to inspire much better writing than BBB but you know what I mean.
Tucker: With respect to these comments: “but it has to start somewhere, doesn't it? I think you'd be hard pressed to look at the "state of criticism" over the last ten years, twenty, and not say that it's gotten stronger” – I’m definitely of the opinion that it has not got stronger and possibly become even worse in some areas now that TCJ has decided to focus more on interviews and short form articles. Was there even a good article on BBB in TCJ? The last time I read anything interesting about Chris Ware’s “Building Stories” was a short entry on Domingos Isabelinho’s blog. The comics are getting better but the writing and attention paid to them is not
What else was there besides TCJ in 1980? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I honestly don't know. I look now, there's multiple books this year alone, Comic Art, Comics Comics, the Bookforum articles, all kinds of academic classes devoted to studying comics–even if you throw out the internet entirely, it just seems like a much more active field than ever before.
Obviously, there's a disagreement on taste here–I do think that a yearly book of Abhay's writing, Tim O'Neil's and Jog's (maybe even Noah's stuff on Wonder Woman) would be worth someone's time– but I'm just plain confused by your argument that things are steadily getting worse when there's so much more to draw from.
"I've read a few works of criticism that have brought me to tears. "
Now I must know; what were they?
The best criticism of anything I've ever read is James Baldwin's "The Devil Finds Work," which is about film. It's pretty spectacular.
There’s certainly a far greater amount of writing about comics today than 20 years ago but my impression is that it’s not of a significantly higher quality in general. So much of the popular writing surrounding comics is about publicity and marketing, so little pertains to a deeper understanding of comics. The proportion of good writing to bad/mediocre writing about comics remain very small. The coverage is higher but the number of good articles on any single “important” work is tiny. You would still need to look long and hard to find a good, detailed/insightful article on the recent Love and Rockets collections, Chris Ware, Dan Clowes, Kramer’s Ergot or Kevin Huizenga etc.
I don’t think we have a disagreement on taste and I certainly have nothing against the writings of Abhay Khosla or Jog. But let’s take Douglas Wolk as an example – wouldn’t you rather have more articles like his long-ish piece on Grant Morrison (in relation to The Invisibles/Seven Soldiers) than his more introductory short form reviews (clearly meant for the “layman”)? I write those introductory reviews all the time but I know which type of article I would prefer to read. The Morrison essay is the best thing in Wolk’s book but it’s also the most likely to confuse the hell out of anyone who has never read those comics before.
Suat:
"Now that TCJ has decided to focus more on interviews and short form articles. Was there even a good article on BBB in TCJ? "
I don't think this is true. TCJ articles are still quite long, as far as I can tell, and they've always focused heavily on interviews. I don't remember a BBB review…but the lag time on TCJ is so long, it could still be in the pike, for all I know.
"something like Jonathan Rosenbaum on “Nights of Cabiria”"
I'm torn about Jonathan Rosenbaum. He's a good writer, and has some smart things to say. He's also an insufferable moral climber, and pretty much everything from him comes through that lens. Basically, throw some proles into your movie acting earthy and moral, sneer at capitalism, and you're good to go in his book. And his enthusiasm for "Dead Man" is pretty thoroughly intolerable.
I guess he's fun to argue with, which is maybe the all you're saying. But if you point to him and say — "more comics reviewers like Jonathan Rosenbaum" — I don't know. That's not a battle-cry I can get excited about, necessarily.
"your implied criticism of “performance” reviewing. I suppose some of it comes out quite honestly from the personality of the writer. But it’s obviously a way of getting eyes on a blog entry."
I think the characterization of "performance reviewing" is a pretty brilliant act of christening. I think the practice it's certainly older than blogging; I'm thinking of Oscar Wilde's very performative criticisms in the form of dramatic dialogue, for example ("The Critic As Artist.") Anyway, I'm certainly someone who enjoys doing the occasional performance review. I think such things are (or can be) valid aesthetically in their own right from a number of perspectives — satire maybe most obviously.
"The comics are getting better but the writing and attention paid to them is not"
I would disagree with you here. I don't think the comics are getting better overall.
"What else was there besides TCJ in 1980? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I honestly don't know. I look now, there's multiple books this year alone, Comic Art, Comics Comics, the Bookforum articles, all kinds of academic classes devoted to studying comics-"
It's really fun to see you sincerely defending an art form, Tucker. I mean, I knew you had it in you, but you don't do it all that often. It looks good on you.
Anyway…I think the point here makes sense to me. Comics is way, way more respected now than it was twenty or thirty years ago; there are a lot more venues for criticism, both online and in print and in academia. Suat, you can certainly argue that comics criticism should be better, or even that it sucks, but I don't see how you can argue that it has fallen off from some golden age. If there's a golden age of comics criticism, this is it, for better or for worse.
Whoops; you posted while I was posting, Suat.
I have to say…I found the bits of Wolk's article on Grant Morrison I read mostly tedious, wrong-headed, and hagiographic. And, in addition, I really have little desire to read anything in particular on Love and Rockets or Chris Ware, and no desire to read anything on Dan Clowes or Kevin Huizenga.
On the other hand…Matt Thorn writing a book-length work on Dame Darcy? Yes please. Which just goes to show that my critical daydreams are less likely to be fulfilled than most, I guess….
"You would still need to look long and hard to find a good, detailed/insightful article on the recent Love and Rockets collections, Chris Ware, Dan Clowes, Kramer’s Ergot or Kevin Huizenga"
You're right, I'd totally agree with that, especially when it comes to the dearth of multiple voices/looks at one particular comic. But at the same time, I do see it changing a bit–both All Star Superman and Final Crisis were able to produce some solid criticism, even if you had to wade through a whole lot of dross to get to it. Should there be more, or do I want more? Of course! In a way, your post reminds me of Tim Hodler's post last year about the similar lack of reviews around the latest Acme Novelty. (Noah's dislike for those comics notwithstanding, I think he'd agree–and has already, with those hooded roundtables–that it's always worthwhile to have a bunch of smart people write about one comic/series/whatever.)
I don't know what else I can say to defend my belief that things are progressing, since I'm operating from a place of not being aware of what it was that was better before. (Which, of course, means I shouldn't have said it in the first place, since I'm not in a position where I can back up the claim.) I've been reading a LOT of the 1980's TCJs lately, and while I think that there's some really nice, smart writing in them, a good bit of it is the same sort of aggressive sarcasm that one finds on the internet right now. Even at its best, little of it seems to me to make the case for having superiority over what's available right now. Either way, the interviews seem to be the real meat for thought-provoking responses.
On the Wolk example…well, yes, I'd like it if there was longer, more involved writing beyond the consumer guidance stuff. I don't want to switch gears too much and play the "let's be realistic" card, but that is my immediate response to you saying that–I just don't think there's an avenue that allows many people to do that kind of extensive writing, beyond the blogosphere…where they can't get paid. Still, that's unfair to your point, to turn it into an argument on economics. I'd like it if more people wrote long form essays on the specific titles or comics that really stuck out with them. Yes. Is most of what's available right now bad/stupid/so on? I guess I can agree with that too. I just don't know if I can follow you all the way to saying that it was that much better in the past.
I did spend a good part of the weekend trying to track down serious criticism/any writing at all regarding an alt-comic from 1990, so maybe I'm just taking this personally.
I will say I don't mind review-as-performance (which I should have called "performative" to up the snobby). I've done it for the crickets at least once, and I have a lot of respect for Tucker. (Abhay's work I don't know well.) But I enjoy these reviews often without reading, or having the faintest clue about, the books under review.
And I don't consider Jog's reviews performance. Though Internet writings are only as permanent as your latest database backup, which is why I have a dozen Armenian monks copying my posts onto sheepskin.
Another standard for whether comics crit is healthy: does it keep critics around long enough to develop a viewpoint, a body of work, a book? For example, there are a number of very good critics (Christopher Brayshaw was my favorite) who stopped writing about comics, for whatever reason. Another way of putting it: what's the end goal? I would say a book, to crystalize thought and make a mark for people to react to.
Yet the only worthy books of criticism are by Bob Levin, whom I read enthusiastically without really liking a lot of his subjects. Wolk's book left me cold. Regardless of whether I agree with his critical choices, it suffers for having originated in glib general-interest magazines.
And Noah, if you keep slagging Dead Man, I'm quitting the blog. I like Rosenbaum a lot, if not lachrymally. Lewis Hyde's description of Pound in the military prison in The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property tore me to shreds. Certain dense passages in Raul Ruiz and Gilberto Perez on certain films– I find that cinema has access to a lot of very moving metaphors. Joseph Brodsky on certain poets, Flannery O'Connor in Mystery and Manners on the humility of fiction's task… the last crit I read that wasn't on architecture or art was Deleuze & Guattari's Kafka. No more tears.
Noah:"I don't think this is true. TCJ articles are still quite long, as far as I can tell, and they've always focused heavily on interviews."
TCJ has always focused on interviews but never at the expense of the articles/review/news analysis. The latest TCJ (#299) was really atypical wouldn't you say?
"I'm torn about Jonathan Rosenbaum. He's a good writer, and has some smart things to say. He's also an insufferable moral climber, and pretty much everything from him comes through that lens…I guess he's fun to argue with, which is maybe the all you're saying. But if you point to him and say — "more comics reviewers like Jonathan Rosenbaum" — I don't know. That's not a battle-cry I can get excited about, necessarily."
As for Jonathan Rosenbaum, I disagree with many of his views on what's good and what's not. But that's not my criteria for liking/disliking a reviewer. I'm not asking for more reviewers with views like those of Rosenbaum but for more reviewers who can bring that level of knowledge, insight and experience – even if I totally disagree with them.
""The comics are getting better but the writing and attention paid to them is not"
I would disagree with you here. I don't think the comics are getting better overall."
Oh bloody hell – and they call me "hard to please"…
"Suat, you can certainly argue that comics criticism should be better, or even that it sucks, but I don't see how you can argue that it has fallen off from some golden age. If there's a golden age of comics criticism, this is it, for better or for worse."
Good god – definitely not a "golden age"- anything but that. Maybe the "kindergarten age" or something but not a golden age. Maybe comics criticism has moved to the elementary school level but I still don't see a significant improvement in quality for any one book. Obviously, since there's so many more alternative/"serious" comics coming out nowadays, there would be some quantitative increase in serious criticism but my feeling is that the proportion of quality writing remains low.
"I have to say…I found the bits of Wolk's article on Grant Morrison I read mostly tedious, wrong-headed, and hagiographic. And, in addition, I really have little desire to read anything in particular on Love and Rockets or Chris Ware, and no desire to read anything on Dan Clowes or Kevin Huizenga. On the other hand…Matt Thorn writing a book-length work on Dame Darcy? Yes please."
And yet it might still be the most detailed and “best” thing written about “The Invisibles” and “Seven Soldiers”. Wolk is in love with Morrison’s work and it really shows in the article (and explains why that article stands out from the rest that I’ve read) – he can’t help himself. Is it flattery if it comes from the heart? And you failed to mention whether you even liked anything in Wolk’s book at all.
I would also like just one detailed/convincing article on the merits of Jeffrey Brown (re: Clumsy/Unlikely). I think he’s a “false god” so I want someone to tell me precisely why he is so wonderful.
Tucker: You may well be right with regards the sameness of the old TCJs – especially since you’re reading them right now. But I never said (or didn’t mean to imply) that the reviews today are worse than those of yesteryear. Just not much better or not much improved. Back in the “old” days I would probably be able to find one good review/article (often none) of a significant but not massively popular comic – probably in TCJ. It’s no different today despite the proliferation of reviews on-line. The lack of quality reviews surrounding Acme (or Love and Rockets) is a perennial problem. They’ve become part of the landscape – considered stale fruit of little interest to the masses or maybe just too challenging to get a grasp on.
Bill: Jog recommends Archive.org for accessing downed sites – I have never tried it myself. And congratulations on being one of the few (?only) prominent critics to publicly express dissatisfaction with Wolk’s book. Me? I’m reserving judgement until I actually finish reading the thing but there’s way too much basic/introductory material (not to mention comics advocacy) in it for my liking. But it’s very likely that I’m not the intended audience. I’ll have to look out for those Ruiz and Perez articles.
Bill, no number of charmingly elliptical autobiographical confessions and/o erudite recommended reading lists are going to make me like Deadman. How can you not see the clear superiority of Suriyaki Western Django?
Suat; I don't have to agree with a critic, and Rosenbaum is knowledgeable…but also sometimes witheringly stupid and predictable. If I'm going to go to that neck of the woods, I'd prefer Robin Wood overall.
I don't think I'm especially hard to please. Comics just kind of suck. There's a back and forth there with criticism, I think, at least in the sense that, to me, the canon as it is currently established critically lauds work that is really not especially impressive and tends to ignore the stuff that seems most worthwhile to me (Art Young and Marston/Peter being the two big examples of artists who are at the top of my personal canon and virtually ignored critically, as far as I can tell.) Again, it's probably a function of the size of the audience in some sense. I mean, I'd write books on both Young and Marston and, hell, a separate one on Peter too if somebody wanted to pay me. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
I think it's interesting that the other in this discussion is so clearly film criticism. There are other models — music criticism being the first that leaps to mind. Much less academic, more performative in general, with a lot of it available, for better or worse. I think I might prefer film criticism too, overall, but there are other models.
I'm dubious about the attempted analogue with film and literature. I think some of the discrepency between the quality of reviews in your two cited examples (BBB and Inherent Vice) can be reduced to a numbers game. Pynchon has a long-established career, print runs (I speculate) in the tens, possibly hundreds of thousands, works in a medium with centuries of critical legitimacy on its side …. as for Shaw? BBB is his first major work, but I doubt its printing could be more than a few thousand, and comics medium, at least in the English-speaking world, has only really gained cultural legitimacy of any significant kind in the last few decades.
I hesitantly share your opinion that dross is more likely to be found than insight, but I think that's just a reflection of how small a pool, especially in terms of readers (those with critical insight or otherwise), that one has to draw on. Comics criticism (and, in fact, comics themselves) still feel like they are in their adolescence to me. Give it a decade or two more, perhaps, when young artists and readers have the sophistication to digest what is currently happening in the medium, and audiences have continued to grow (though obviously neither of these are guranteed), and things may improve for the better.
I don't normally get too personally aggrieved when it comes to critical debates, but to thump this point once again – Jesus, Pynchon and Shaw as a sensible point of comparison for critical responses? Come on! That itself is lazy criticism, won't you admit?
It would be if I was comparing the artistic merits of Shaw and Pynchon but I’m not. I’m just assessing the ability of the comics critical community to respond to one of their so-called “books of the year”. But perhaps you’re saying that it’s unfair to compare the critical juices present in a small, impoverished, adolescent artistic medium to that in other major art forms? To which I would have to say, who cares about fair (for the record, I think Jimmy Corrigan is a way better read than Inherent Vice so it's not as if comics is *that* far behind)? Haven’t we basically come to the same conclusion that comics criticism at this point in time is pretty damned poor by comparison. Would it be too much to ask for at least 5 substantial reviews of any particular work of note in comics? There *are* people capable of doing this out there – they just aren’t particularly interested at this point in time.
I'll just say that some academics (like Charles Hatfield) can write English sentences. In fact, my bet is that most of them CAN, but usually don't, because of the publications and audiences for which they are writing (other academics with graduate training). This is, to some degree, a problem, obviously…since it might be nice to have a wider audience…On the other hand, this "other language" functions as a useful shorthand, since you don't have to redefine terms over and over again that have long been defined elsewhere. And by using specialized terms, you can be more precise. In either case, something like Hatfield's book, Alternative Comics, is way better than Wolk's _Reading Comics_, since it is not trying to really have things both ways. Instead, it really is in-depth and insightful comics criticism (esp. to my mind, the chapters on Gilbert Hernandez). AND, I think Hatfield can be read by the layperson. I usually write in that weird other language myself, but think I can manage some English from time to time. The thing I wrote on Alan Moore for Noah's Gay Utopia is an example.
I think Bill dismisses this academic stuff too easily…If one really wants "criticism" as opposed to "reviews," academic(s) work is often the place to go.
"his 'other language' functions as a useful shorthand, since you don't have to redefine terms over and over again that have long been defined elsewhere. And by using specialized terms, you can be more precise."
I can believe that — jargon comes in v. handy for tech discussions.
Newbie question: where's a good place to find all the terms defined?
I don't think I agree with the defining terms bit. Yes, in the sciences or math there is technical terminology and so forth…but in the humanities? The reason to write like that has a lot more to do with professionalization and maintaining elite status than it does with actual usefulness, in my view.
Which isn't to damn all academic criticism. Eve Sedgwick just died, god bless her; one of my favorite critics — she wasn't a dazzling prose stylist or anything, but she could certainly communicate lots of brilliant ideas clearly.
Thanks for this post Suat, I entirely agree with your disaffection for what passes as comics criticism in this otherwise pretty golden age for the medium.
I'm not so sure, however, that things were ever any better. Sure, Gary Groth and R. Fiore only rarely write anything these days, but then we have Bob Levin who just keeps getting better. My point, I guess, is that good comics criticism has always been scarce. But let's hope that, and let's do ours to improve the discipline in the future.
As for good comics critics right now, I'd add Bart Beaty — although he doesn't write as much as he used to — and Craig Fisher too. Jog is pretty consistently excellent, if somewhat gassy at times and Douglas Wolk has his moments — his review of Asterios Polyp for the New York Times was pretty good (and yes, I agree that his Morrison piece is his best).
And I don't intend to flatter too much, but I always find what Bill writes well worth the read, and Tom has had some great pieces in the Journal these last few years (I particularly liked the Mort Weisinger essay) — by the way, what happened to your column?
In France there are people like Christian Rosset, JC Menu and — when he doesn't go too far overboard, Pacôme Thiellement.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I wrote a short blog entry on BBB too:
http://www.metabunker.dk/?p=1456
Cheers,
Matthias
I personally do tend to like to define my terms in my work, imagining a wider audience than I could be said to actually have..and I often get comments back from readers (peer reviewers) that I'm spending too much time and space on this kind of thing. So my meager efforts to be more accessible have been thwarted at times.
Peer review is a problematic (maybe even broken) tradition…but inertia makes it unlikely that it will change in the immediate future.
Given the words used on this site to "verify" our participation, it's hard to believe there are vocabulary complaints at play.
There was more to my message defending the use of academic-ese (to a point). Apparently, I deleted it and am too lazy to retype…
I did recommend the Bedford Glossary of Literary and Critical Terms to Tom though…I'll let that stand
Speaking as a non-educated, amateur critical-type person, I'm pretty happy with the criticism that I read, but I generally tend to avoid the "consumer review" style of reviews and focus on the conversation that can be found around certain works. And there's a lot of that online, even if it isn't necessarily all high-minded and academic. Give me Jog, Tucker, Abhay, David Brothers, Wolk, Sean Collins, Comics Comics, Caleb Mozzocco, Dick Hyacinth (if he ever bothers to post again), John Jakala, Shaenon Garrity, Jason Thompson, David Welsh, ADD, and, yes, the various Utilitarians, and I'm pretty damn happy.
And I hope I can be included among that number, if not as one of the lofty intellectuals hoped for (and I say that not as an anti-intellectual, but one who recognizes that I'm not smart enough to join those ranks nor do I really enjoy the academic stuff, which can get too dry for me), then at least as an entertaining writer who attempts to discuss comics intelligently. I don't know if that is enough to fit the stated criteria, but I do try to analyze what I read, pointing out its merits and/or deficiencies, and figuring out what exactly I like or dislike about it and why. It works for me, and I hope for others; I doubt it will stand the test of time or anything though…
Anyway, that's my bit of self-promotion and vague attempt to join the discussion. If you're interested, here's my review of BBB. If it sucks, feel free to say so.
And by the way, Sukiyaki Western Django is awesome, but I'll take Dead Man over it any day. Jarmusch!
I hope that comment didn't come off as dickish or anything. I was trying to be self-deprecating; I'm fairly uneducated, at least in English, and as an amateur critic, I feel like I'll never be able to meet the standards of the intellectual, educational establishment, or whatever you want to call those types. Take that as you will.
You don't sound dickish; maybe a little cranky, but that's hardly cause for censure around these parts.
Your attitude towards academic prose is why academic prose pisses me off. There's no reason intelligent, interested folks should feel alienated from it as you clearly do. And I think that's the fault of the writing, not of you.
I think that's what I was trying to get at; that sort of academic jargon can seem elitist and closed off to all but those who have completed a masters degree in English or something. I think there's a hell of a lot of good discussion that can be done about comics (or any medium for that matter, except maybe music; I can barely stomach any music criticism at all, from anybody, although I acknowledge that that's my fault rather than that of any critic) without having to edge into that territory. And there is a good bit of criticism that does stay within the bounds of actual English sentences, as Eric calls them (if I'm understanding him correctly).
Oh, and I should have included Charles Hatfield and Craig Fischer in my list of online critics that I really like; their site is great, and I wish they would write more often.
"Embryonic antagonism."
Ouch.
Matthias: I never had a column in TCJ – I've just written the occasional review for them since the early 90s. I liked your article in TCJ #299 – an extension of the controversy you created in your blog entry a while back? Almost all the "old-timers" have stopped writing for TCJ. Fiore, Harvey, Levin and Kreiner still send in stuff of course but who else on a regular basis? Lots of turnover – have no idea whether this has an effect on the state of comics criticism.
Inkwell: It wasn't meant as an insult.
"by the way, what happened to your column?"
Hi, Metabunker — Thanks for asking, I switched to doing research for a novel I want to finish. I have a column in TCJ 300 calling Alan Moore a geek, and with luck I'll have a couple of other things about him over the next year.
hi, Mathew _- I agree w/ Noah about your comments. Seems all fair to me, though I wouldn't mind learning more about what the academic lit people are saying, just to see what's up.
erik b — thanks for the Bedford recc, I'll track that down
Suat, as is probably evident I was referring to Tom's column (looking forward to your piece in #300, Tom!).
That being said, I've greatly enjoyed your contributions to the Journal as well, from the Cages essay way back when to your recent piece on Sekikawa and Taniguchi's Botchan (I reviewed the first book once, and realised how much I was missing by not having read the authors involved — it's great to see that you actually went and did that, and that it yielded such interesting insights).
Oh, and thanks for your kind words about my inaugural Journal column, Suat — it does indeed express some of the same concerns as my essay of a few years back, but I hope it doesn't just come off as repetition. In #299, btw, I have a piece on Angoulême, while in #300 I will have an essay on the current, late resurgence of Moebius.
As to why there's such a lack of good criticism, I think it's a natural result of the fact that there has been so little institutional interest in comics throughout most of the medium's history. Even in France and Belgium, where comics enjoy cultural recognition beyond anything we could dream of elsewhere, there isn't much of a critical tradition. Which just goes to show how strong comics' identity as a childrens' medium at best, and disposable trash at worst, remains.
That's changing now, of course, but it's probably not surprising that criticism is lagging behind the developments in the art form itself. I'm pretty confident that we'll see much more good writing on comics in the (near) future.
"Even in France and Belgium, where comics enjoy cultural recognition beyond anything we could dream of elsewhere, there isn't much of a critical tradition."
I'm working my way thru Thierry Groensteen's book, and he references a good number of works on comics theory, all of them in French. So it seems like there are people over there doing some thinking on paper about the medium.
Oh, absolutely — academic study of comics is more advanced, and has a longer history, there than in the English-speaking world, but even so there is less of it than one might think.
And when it comes to aesthetic criticism, rather than more scholarly, theoretical studies, there really isn't much that's any good, as far as I've been able to ascertain.
Fair enough. btw what do you think of the Groensteen book?
It's been a while since I read it, but I remember finding the long introduction, where he defines his field of study, a great, clear, almost equilibrist performance and worth the cover price alone.
His structural analysis, i.e. the main part of the text, however, I found unnecessarily ponderous. He weaves a very complicated analytical web on the basis of what seems to me a rather arbitrary basic 'unit' — the comics panel — and while he does a good, thorough job of it, I didn't find it particularly helpful in my own reading or analysis of comics. Also, his basic terms, eg. 'arthrology', are just impossibly opaque.
I dunno, I admire Groensteen's later work (this was his PhD thesis) a lot, and besides obviously being one of the medium's preeminent scholars, I also regard him as a great critic, but that book struck me as too insular. But maybe I should read it again…
" a rather arbitrary basic 'unit' — the comics panel"
yes, in reading the book I find I agree w/ him about the panel being the basic unit but that I can't find any real reasons as to why I agree w/ him. He doesn't give any and I don't have any myself.
"I admire Groensteen's later work (this was his PhD thesis) a lot, "
This was his thesis? I had no idea.
Okay, I'm halfway done w/ the book, so onward.
Is this "System of Comics"? I like that book–Although it's not exactly a page-turner, it does give a lot to think about and uses some useful terminology. I think Groensteen actually rejects the notion of a "minimal unit" (like the panel) in comics…He insists on seeing it all as interrelated…and is very interested in page and panel (and double-page) as units.
There are some cool examples in there too. The Bill Griffith "Plot Thickens" thing is my favorite.
Oh, just realised I'd forgotten about Jeet Heer, who I think is about the most consistently good comics critic out there these days. His latest review of Crumb's Genesis on Bookforum is solid, well-written and well-considered. (Dan Nadel's on Asterios Polyp is sadly disappointing, however).
Other great if frustratingly seldom writers comics are Seth (his John Stanley and Chris Reynolds pieces in TCJ were ace!) and Paul Karasik (boy am I looking forward to that How to Read Nancy book).