Suat pointed me to the Comics Reporter, where Tom Spurgeon interviews Ben Schwartz about his new book Best American Comics Criticism.
I’m hoping to do a review of the book itself at some point in the medium term, so I don’t want to shoot my mouth off too much. But I did want to highlight this interesting exchange:
SPURGEON: You touch on Europe’s concurrent literary comics movement through a few piece, but the pieces that engage manga are limited to I think a single interview with Yoshihiro Tatsumi and I didn’t see anything that dealt with an on-line comic. Do you think that’s a weakness of the book? Was that about the kind of work or about the writing you encountered? How would you describe their omission to someone who really values those kinds of work and thinks they’re as much a part of the modern comics movement as anything? Is there something qualitatively different about the writing done on those works?
SCHWARTZ: It’s not an omission. It’s just not the book they want to read. Tatsumi is not there to represent manga, but gekiga, the Japanese version of lit comics. His choice to break with manga is as big as Eisner’s in splitting with the superheroes, so that’s why he’s in it. I’m going by his definition there. As for on-line comics, I never came across a piece or interview about them that stood out like that. Do you feel, between 2000-2008, that a great piece of writing was done on on-line lit comics that I missed? Lit comics and it’s post 2000 arrival in the mainstream lit world is what the book covers. I just didn’t find anything on them that relates to the book — or 2000-2008 Marvel, DC, Dark Horse, etc. So, it’s not a weakness of the book. It’s the point of the book. I’m a huge BPRD fan, but that’s not in here. Except for Pete Bagge on Ditko’s Spider-Man and John Hodgman on Kirby or Gerard Jones on Siegel and Shuster and the first wave of fans — not much.
Schwartz is clear about this in his introduction too — his book is focused specifically on the rise of literary comics between 2000-2008. That’s his topic. He has a strong narrative, focusing on the emergence of literary comics, and he chose pieces based on how well they fit into that narrative. The best piece of criticism ever may have been about manga, or on-line comics, or mainstream comics, or may have been written, for that matter, in 1968 — but none of those pieces are eligible to go in this book, because this book focuses on criticism about literary comics between 2000-2008.
Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m not a fan of the literary end of comics, as regular readers will know, but I have no objection to someone who is a fan putting together a book to cover the phenomena. It’s obviously a big deal over the last decade. I don’t think it’s unworthy of attention.
My one objection, though, is…well the title of the book. Here’s the cover.
If you’ll look closely, you’ll see it’s not called, “Literary Comics, Literary Criticism, 2000-2008.” Hell, it’s not even called, “Best American Comics Criticism, 2000-2008.” It’s called, and I quote, “Best American Comics Criticism.” Period. No dates. No caveats. Just “Best American Comics Criticism.”
Now, if you title a book “Best American Comics Criticism,” I think your readers are entitled to assume that it is a book comprising the best comics criticism written in america. Not the best comics criticism written about the comics you happen to think are important. Not the best comics criticism written between 2000-2008. Just the best american comics criticism. Because that’s what it says on the title, you know?
Of course, I understand how these things happen. Schwartz and/or Fanta wanted to create a book focusing on the lit comics revolution they care about, without having to think about manga or on-line comics or random comics criticism written 50 years ago by god knows who and lord knows who holds the rights. But they figured that a book called “Literary Comics, Literary Criticism, 2000-2008” would sound like it was created by a bunch of boring, insular stuffed shirts who rarely peer over the towering castle walls of the luxurious Fanta compound. So they figured, “you know, if we call this Best American Comics,” it’ll sound like all those other “Best American” books, and people will buy it because they like Best American things — and, what the hell, literary comics are the best anyway, and only the best people write about them, so it isn’t like we’re lying really.”
I mean, I don’t begrudge Schwartz and Fantagraphics trying to sell books. Capitalism is capitalism, and you do what you have to. But given Gary’s longstanding insistence that commercial crap is evil because it is commercial, and his further longstanding belief that literary comics are the antidote to said commercial crap, the fact that this valedictory love letter to all things Grothian is making its way into the world festooned with the most cynical brand of marketing doubletalk is pretty amusing. If one were as uncharitable as Gary can be about such things, you might even call it contemptible.
______________________
Update: Speaking of marketing, Fanta apparently has a big 30-50% off sale on TCJ back issues. So check it out and maybe support the company that supports us (even if they occasionally regret it.)
——————-
Noah Berlatsky:
Now, if you title a book “Best American Comics Criticism,” I think your readers are entitled to assume that it is a book comprising the best comics criticism written in america. Not the best comics criticism written about the comics you happen to think are important. Not the best comics criticism written between 2000-2008. Just the best American comics criticism. Because that’s what it says on the title, you know?
——————-
Indeed so!
One could argue that it takes a worthy subject to bump up criticism to a higher level (John Simon on Ingmar Bergman is certainly more richly illuminating than Simon frothing about some Hollywood drek*), but there’s a lot more to the comics medium than the proportionately tiny, relatively recent offshoot of “literary comics.”
As the “New York Review of Books” critiques are also highly informative of the subjects covered by the books under review, to feature critical essays spanning the range of the comics art form would give readers a better understanding of its many facets.
But then again, maybe the idea that someone not well-informed about comics in the first place, or who doesn’t consider superhero comics irredeemable drek, would be remotely interested in purchasing “The Best American Comics Criticism” was considered too…unlikely?
*And it’d be painful for a scribe to try and find profundity in, say, “The Meaning of Silence in the Graphic novels of Frank Miller.”
I was disappointed in reading that interview to learn of the narrow focus of the book, contrary to what I expected from the title. I thought it would be more historical in range. Alas… I’ll still read it.
Mike, I feel like the solid ground has collapsed under my feet. You need to start disagreeing with me again, damn it.
Derik, the decision not to make the dates clearer is really baffling. I can see why explaining that it’s only lit comics on the cover could be complicated and uncomfortable — but how hard would it be to say “2000-2008”?
I keep wondering if Fantagraphics is going to attract a lawsuit from Houghton Mifflin, which I believe owns a trademark on the “Best American” title as part of the Best American series.
Huh. Well, here’s a page with trademark info. It looks like they trademark individual titles (Best American Essays) and the logo. It’s possible trademarking a generic term like “Best American” isn’t possible, though. I’m no lawyer though, obviously. Maybe if Pallas happens to check this he’ll chime in….
There’s two publishers besides Houghton Mifflin using the Best American tag as well, so Fanta is probably safe.
Ah, thanks Tucker. It must not be trademarkable then….
I thought the part in the interview where he admits that he “missed” Abhay Khosla or felt that online critics like Jog weren’t applicable to his focus reminded me of how Groth once said there was no one place to “find” regular online criticism. It’s a weird blindspot for the, uh, old guard.
‘hehe’
Hey Frank! Nice to see you stop by.
Abhay and Jog are both very idiosyncratic, in tone and interests, in a way that I think would definitely stick out in the collection (at least from my quick look through the contents — haven’t read it yet.)
Ben’s not that old, I don’t think, and he certainly knew who Abhay and Jog were. He’s obviously got a particular vision of what’s important about comics and how they should be approached though.
I am curious to read the Amazon back and forth about Joe Matt, since that seems like the most left field entry he’s got….
Well, I meant “old guard” also in the sense that the interweb is off limits to some when compiling these kinds of books. It’s a weird fault line. no? This distinction between print and online, especially in criticism which is often understood as an additive process of reading opinions change “in time” over weeks. For example, my opinion of “Wilson” has changed as I read others opinions on the web over the last couple weeks. I dunno if that makes sense but that’s what I’m thinking about in terms of the blindspot.
Sorry, Ben, I didn’t mean to call you old. I’m old guard too, haha.
——————–
Noah Berlatsky says:
Mike, I feel like the solid ground has collapsed under my feet. You need to start disagreeing with me again, damn it.
——————–
Heh! Just you wait a bit…
——————-
Derik, the decision not to make the dates clearer is really baffling. I can see why explaining that it’s only lit comics on the cover could be complicated and uncomfortable — but how hard would it be to say “2000-2008??
——————-
Not to mention, including that dating creates the groundwork for “The Best American Comics Criticism: 2009 – 2012.” (The shorter timespan due to my hopeful conjecture that good comics criticism will increase.) They could’ve stuck it in a little banner, in smallish type…
Oh, hell; must Photoshop!
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2213/5597453369b.jpg
(Kind’a helps that those old timey-looking type designs revel in “clutteredness”…)
——————-
Greg McElhatton says:
I keep wondering if Fantagraphics is going to attract a lawsuit from Houghton Mifflin, which I believe owns a trademark on the “Best American” title as part of the Best American series.
——————–
Maybe I’ve been reading too many comics, but “Best American” sounds like a spiffy name for a superhero…
Too bad. I was thinking of getting this so I’d be more up on comic criticism, but I don’t care about lit comics that much.
Pity there isn’t a collection for the capes and manga crowd.
It’s actually just bizarre to split it up like this. Best Music Writing doesn’t separate it into “best writing on r &b” and “best writing on classical music”. It’s just best writing about music.
But I guess the financial incentives are different maybe….
It’s very weird. I’d much rather read something that collected criticism on all the different comic types, capes, lit, manga… Online and in print, whoever is best.
Oh well.
He seem to me to clearly suggest he focused on the quality of the critics, not the quality of the comics. The part Noah excerpted is admittedly incoherent.
He does say he looked at the quality of the criticism…but only if that criticism was about lit comics. Starting with “we will only discuss lit comics” seems like a fairly major claim that those comics are the only ones worth discussing, especially given the title….
Fanta has the contents and intro online
http://www.fantagraphics.com/images/stories/previews/bamcom-preview.pdf
Noah, as much as I might agree with the general gist of your argument, it seems to me you’re jumping to conclusions here — as far as I can tell from the interview, there are pieces on superheroes and classic strips in there, so it’s not all ‘lit comics’, whatever the hell that means.
That Fanta has decided to call it ‘the Best American Comics Criticism’ doesn’t bother me much — it seems to me that it does include a good amount of topnotch writing on comics, however inclusive it is, and I think that’s pretty much all one can hope for in a book like that. To hope for universality in an anthology like that seems to me illusory, and to call the decision on its title ‘contemptible’ is pretty asinine.
That being said, Schwarz’ rationale for the inclusion of what I assume to be Gary’s uncharacteristically dull TCJ-interview with Tatsumi seems rather sophomoric to me — better leave out the manga altogether if that’s all you’re going to do to represent the tradition.
Ah, well — you say contemptible, I say asinine.
Ben says repeatedly that he’s looking to demonstrate the rise of lit comics from 2000-2008. When Tom S. asked him why there wasn’t more about online comics, he says, well there wasn’t much on lit comics there. When Tom S. asks him why there wasn’t more about manga, he says, well, that’s not about lit comics.
The stuff on superheroes and classic strips seems to be contextualized as things which influenced lit comics.
Of course, any book of best american anything is going to be limited. However, you expect a good faith attempt. Said good faith attempt would include, for example, not, as editor, including one of your own pieces, and possibly not including three pieces by your publisher. If it’s a juried best of (which is what it says on the tin) you make some effort to be impartial, because that’s the game you claim to be playing.
As I said, I don’t think that it’s wrong to have a book focused on criticism of lit comics. But I think the title is transparently deceptive about the scope of the book and its aims. That deception seems aimed primarily at selling more copies of the book. I actually don’t necessarily see that as contemptible — but I’d think Gary Groth would.
Or rather, you say asinine, I say contemptible! Got confused as to which of us was which!
Ah, now I’ve downloaded that table of contents, and it does seem to me to represent a fairly wide gamut of comics genres, although you’re probably right about the contextualization. That’s totally fine with me — the rise of comics for grownups that fall outside the traditional genres is a pretty major development in Western comics of the last 20 years and certainly deserving of this kind of treatment.
The other great development, of course, is the arrival in force of Asian comics, with digital comics running a distant, but increasingly significant third. I would love to see an anthology of criticism that renders all of those trends justice simultaneously and still coheres, but we may have to wait a few years for that to happen.
(I for one still don’t think there’s been that much American manga criticism worthy of inclusion yet, but I realize that such assertions are accidents waiting to happen around these parts, so I’ll refrain from pursuing that argument further :) )
Anyway, your point is well taken — I just thought you were making a mountain out of a molehill here. The has good number of excellent pieces in it and that’s what really matters, ain’t it?
Maybe! I haven’t read most (or any) of the entries, so I”m not sure what I’ll think about it as a whole…but hopefully I’ll find out in the not too distant future….
“…this valedictory love letter to all things Grothian is making its way into the world festooned with the most cynical brand of marketing doubletalk…”
You may be exaggerating things a tad here.
Pingback: Press review fumettologica -2 « Fumettologicamente
Pingback: Madinkbeard » Best American Comics Criticism?