The Best American Comics 2018

This collection was surprisingly difficult to write a review for. I liked very little of it, on either a personal or artistic level, yet couldn’t get away from the feeling that that reaction had to be unfair. After all, Bill Kartalopoulos (series editor for The Best American Comics) seems to have practically anticipated it. He introduces the book by thoughtfully acknowledging that it is, inevitably, a work of criticism, and emphasizes that good criticism depends on humility:

Like anyone else, I have opinions: I have tastes, I have preferences, I have aesthetic biases. Like any critic, I believe that my opinions are informed: I believe that even my reflexive opinions—my gut reactions—are informed by a valid point of view based on years of engagement with comics…But engaging work critically requires one to be aware of one’s predispositions, and, crucially, to be willing to put them aside, to question them, and to revise them. A critic needs to be humble enough to acknowledge that they may not have totally understood a work the first time.

But how to humbly express your suspicion that something wasn’t very good? I read The Best American Comics 2018 hyper-aware that my own gut reactions were not informed by the years of comic-reading and making that Kartalopoulos and editor Phoebe Gloeckner have. Nor have I read any comics published between September 1, 2016 and August 31 2017, other than the ones in this book. In other words, I have no honest way to judge, based on either the editors’ criteria or my own, whether these selections really are the best that American comics had to offer last year. It would be disingenuous to try. I can only grope at the bit of elephant in front of me, and think about what it means that someone might call it “best.”

There are two obvious bents in The Best American Comics 2018. First, towards the auto and semi-autobiographical (nearly half of the 33 comics fall into this category). Second, towards the non-narrative, or otherwise “art”-y and experimental. Those are perfectly fine genres, and there’s no reason that they couldn’t happen to comprise the plurality of the year’s best comics, but the fact that their exemplars were simultaneously overrepresented and underwhelming left me with the distinct feeling of bias.

It’s the only way that I can explain the inclusion of five different comics about an author’s art education or early comic-making years, none of which give the reader a compelling reason to care about those stories. (Even one of the strongest ones, Playground of My Mind, Julia Jacquette’s “graphic reminiscence” of New York City’s modernist playgrounds, left me confused as to why I should be interested in how the playgrounds affected Julia Jacquette in particular. She makes an effort to make the playgrounds seem interesting, but doesn’t similarly justify herself.) In fact, because the collection contains so many of these comics-about-making-comics, the impact of each one, the sense that it is a uniquely important idea, becomes progressively diluted.

The thing about bias, and the reason critics mention it, is that it means an artist has to work less hard to create effects in its audience. They don’t have to refine quite so much. They don’t have to seduce. They don’t, in other words, have to do quite so much art.

Here’s a good place to compare. Take the three different comics in this collection that deal, broadly, with the feminine grotesque (ie, general coping with being embodied, from a female perspective), and their three different tacks. How To Be Alive (Tara Booth) is a series of wry, visual caricatures of the author’s more undignified moments. Angloid, Part 2 (Alex Graham) sticks to narrative, relating mildly surreal interludes in the life of the artist, in that way I associate with TV shows like Girls. UGLY (Chloë Perkis), on the other other hand, goes entirely figurative. And of the three, I found it was the one I respected most. While the other two linger on the sort of self-deprecation that mostly ends up coming off as self-absorbed, UGLY barrels past it to look at self-hatred for the cartoonish thing it is. It doesn’t bother to be cute. It’s simply absurd, and, well--ugly. The comic is entirely about the author’s feelings, but crucially, it digests them for the reader. It doesn’t merely represent. It plays. It contextualizes. It pushes. And I appreciate that.

[compare: three approaches to menstruation]

Or compare that expressiveness to Things More Likely to Kill You Than… (Laura Pallmall) a piece of political pamphleteering about as ideological as Socialist Realism. The comic is a series of images of red-culture Americana, each of which is, unsurprisingly, more likely to kill the average American than ISIS. Whether or not I agree with the politics behind it doesn’t even matter. As art it is insultingly literal. At least Banksy makes you make pleasant mental leaps. Hell, even someone as kitsch as Pawel Kuczynski has a grasp of imagery and figuration.

Or take “Sam’s Story,” an excerpt from Rolling Blackouts, Sarah Glidden’s journalistic account of media interactions with locals in Syria and Iraq. It’s a fascinating project, and easy to respect the effort behind it, but the execution is so wordy, and so visually flat that it practically dares you to pay attention to it. It looks like a court illustration, or a wikihow article. (Which okay, could be cool, in theory). Is this simply the artist’s style? Were they afraid that any hint of entertainment would profane the gravity of its subject matter? Would distract?

It’s not that I wish “Sam’s Story” had been entertaining in some lurid, adolescent way. But if we’re talking bias, my bias is to think it’s an artist’s responsibility to interest its audience, to make it notice what they want it to notice, and feel what they want it to feel. And somehow I don’t think that Glidden wants the audience to feel nothing.

Hostage (Guy Delisle) has a similar problem, though I wouldn’t call it flat. Visually, it’s more like Hostage is...chaste. Nearly cute. A peculiar choice for a true war hostage story, and one that doesn’t seem entirely purposeful (what it does seem to be going for is a sort of Trümmerliteratur brutalism). With both of these works, I left confused as to why the story had been rendered into a comics format in the first place. If an author isn’t interested in making the most of what visual art can add to a narrative, why bother with it?

[pictured: faces and squares]

The works that made the biggest impression were the ones that made full use of the medium. Works like The Shaolin Cowboy: Who’ll Stop The Reign (Geoff Darrow), a comic-booky yarn about a pig on a mission of vengeance, with a visual style reminiscent of early Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The Shaolin Cowboy is strong not because it looks “professional” or “mainstream,” or even because it tells a story. It’s strong because it feels complete. I could react to it as a “done” artistic entity. There is a security in that, in knowing that the artist is in control of what they’re doing. Whether or not the reader likes the work, they at least come away with some clarity about what they’ve experienced. Echoes Into Eternity (D. J. Bryant) felt similarly in control of its gender-bending, Cortázar-ish story. It’s a bit simplistic, idea-wise, but it takes those ideas to completion, building up a rich, geometric visual language where curves and angles subtly switch places as the story progresses. Yazar and Arkadas (Lale Westvind), just has a refreshingly strong sense of visual storytelling, managing to be clean and dynamic, while still maintaining an individual, original style.

[pictured: geometric motifs in Echoes Into Eternity, vivid action in Yazar and Arkadas]

The real problem with The Best American Comics 2018 is not actually the comics themselves, I’ve realized. The collection does, at the end of the day, contain a respectable variety of comics, most of which I can tilt my head and understand the merit of. The problem is the lack of editorializing. Truly, I wanted to read it in the spirit of Kartalopoulos’s introduction. I wanted to set aside my biases. I wanted to be wrong. Mostly, I wanted to know why I was reading these comics and not others. I wanted to be convinced. But no one was doing any convincing. If this were any other comic-reading experience, that decision would make sense. Certainly if one picks up a graphic novel, one doesn’t expect it to include authorial asides telling the reader what to think of it. But this is not a graphic novel. The editors acknowledge that it’s a critical enterprise, albeit one influenced by personal taste. It definitely doesn’t feel like a coherent reading experience, given that the comics are organized alphabetically--rather than in some more directed manner--and are often decontextualized excerpts*. Not to mention the unadorned list of also-rans in the back. How does one read that?

*(Take, for example, the excerpt chosen from Sunburning, in which author Keiler Roberts documents her daily family life. Sunburning is introduced merely as an autobiographical comic, and the section included gives the impression that it’s about as substantial as a long-winded Family Circus. I had no idea that the comic was actually about Roberts’ diagnosis of MS, which, while that doesn’t necessarily make the depiction of domestic life more interesting, it at least gives it some purpose.)

Perhaps it’s silly to take issue with the format of a long-running series, and perhaps I wouldn’t care if I liked more of the comics myself, but without editorial guidance, what makes this book more than an expensive listicle? It feels like a bait and switch, to pick up an evaluation that then fails to evaluate. If anything, fittingly, the book as a whole reminded me of the comics themselves. A bizarre combination of being opinionated, and being averse to one of the most fundamental aspects of artfulness: persuasion.


24 Responses to The Best American Comics 2018

  1. Evan says:

    TBAC has been a punching bag for cartoonists for awhile now, and this review proves that it makes even less sense to a wider audience. I personally think TBAC should change it’s format a bit and try to be an educational tool for classrooms, which is the way other lit anthologies usually find a proper home. It simply doesn’t appeal to people who are already “tuned in,” and it’s a disorienting entry point for those that are curious, so its best bet is as an annual “textbook” that offers context and analogs for people learning about storytelling/literature/art/etc. I’m glad something like this exists, but at a certain point you gotta ask, “why?”

  2. Yes, when I read Angloid I too think of the tv show GIRLS because…uh, there are characters that are women! HW Thurston, bringing that deep cultural knowledge!

  3. Artist says:

    This review sucks, you suck, and you are a heartless ghoul. I hope you lose sleep over how callously you brushed over the hard work of dozens of artists like they were the Sunday comic section in the back of a newspaper. Fuck you

  4. Art Speigelman says:

    I’m a contributor to BAC 2018 and completely biased, but I just wanted to share my opinion that while the book may have flaws, it was still more fun to read than this irrelevant snoozefest review that was written by some egghead nobody that I hope I never get stuck in conversation with at a party. Thanks again tcj for sucking the fun out of something comics-related! I’ve always enjoyed these books as a fun visual mixtape curated by the guest editor. I hope H.W. passes their copy along to someone who might enjoy it!

  5. Alex says:

    If these books didn’t exist, Art Spiegelman would never read cartoonists under 50. We need them now, more than ever.

  6. Antek says:

    Can anyone tell me who is H. W. THURSTON ? clicking on the name at the top of the article brings up an error message entering the name into this site’s search field only brings up yesterdays blog entry and searching on google is another dead end.
    Also is there anyway to confirm if the comment from Nov 7th 10:24 is actually from Art Speigelman?

  7. Erik Nebel says:

    i’m going to venture a guess that the person in this discussion who identifies themself as “Artist” and “Art Speigelman” is actually an internet prankster.

  8. Tucker Stone says:

    I’m pretty sure Art would know how to spell his own name, but it has been a while since I read Maus.

  9. Erik Nebel says:

    i had the same question as Antek: who is HW Thurston?
    according to Tucker Stone, he is an “arts critic.”
    pretty vague. no evidence online as to their supposed background as an arts critic.

  10. Alex says:
  11. Erik Nebel says:

    thank you, Richard, looks like you have found an article by Thurston.
    Alex, that link might not be the same Thurston.
    if she is Haley Thurston, here is her site:

  12. Dustin Cahill says:

    I’ll get the tinder, you bring the ropes. Did this to themselves, the nervy critic!

  13. Is this a doxing campaign or something?

    Anyway, I like the anthology series just fine, despite usually having read substantial parts of it before. It’s a mixtape.

    (The only year I hadn’t read a lot of it before was the year they had some mainstream guy as the guest editor, and most of the work was from Dark Horse Presents, it felt like. That was a hard slog to get through.)

  14. Alex says:

    Oh, I was kidding. I don’t think that random book is by this person. Not trying to dig up anything!

  15. Erik Nebel says:

    Lars and Dustin, the reason why i was curious to know who is HW Thurston was definitely not part of a doxing campaign.
    i wanted to get a better picture of where she’s coming from, why she didn’t like the book, beyond what she says in the article.
    i like her writing; she has some interesting things to say about art.

  16. I thought the review was interesting, too, but I haven’t read this year’s book yet, so I don’t know whether I agree with it or not.

    But it made me wonder what kind of status the series has in comic book creator circles. Does it pay well? Are people who aren’t picked resentful towards it? Are artists that are picked one year, and then not the next year angry? Does the “official” nature of the series piss off other critics? Or do people just not care a lot about it? I haven’t really read many reactions to it before, so it’s interesting to see at least this take.

    I picked up some of the first editions earlier this year, and it works pretty well as a snapshot of generally what’s happening in any year, and as such it seems useful, perhaps?

  17. Matt Seneca says:

    I thought this was good writing from a valuable perspective we don’t often get exposed to; a “good review”.

  18. K. Croup says:

    I agree with Matt Seneca about the valuable perspective. I was surprised to read that the reviewer hadn’t “read any comics published between September 1, 2016 and August 31 2017, other than the ones in this book”, but really, isn’t that the main (only?) audience for this book? If the series is intended to function as a primer/introduction for uninitiated people who are curious about the impenetrably obscure world of indy comics (which I think most of us would agree would be a pretty valuable service to provide), then this is exactly the sort of feedback we should be interested in (and I found myself agreeing that more editorializing could be really helpful). If you’re already here on TCJ, you’re probably not the actual audience for this book, you’re more likely (as evinced by the defensive replies in the comments section from contributors and their friends) an artist who benefits, directly or indirectly, from the service this book provides, and don’t need to be informed that Tara Booth is a major talent, etc etc.

  19. Mastodont says:

    I always find it encouraging to read a review of a comic book anthology that 1. complains that there aren’t a series of text pieces explaining each comic, 2. notes that the reviewer hasn’t read any comics from that year, 3. doesn’t comment on the art at all. I’m guessing TCJ is pulling random names out of a hat to review shit at this point, and hey, it’s your site and your money, do whatever with it, guys.

  20. Ant says:

    That Lale Westvind cover is absolutely fckn dope, though

  21. Adam says:

    That the author would compare the comics of working-class women to a television show like “Girls” speaks to a level of misapprehension that I doubt any amount of “editorial guidance” is going to overcome.

  22. Evan says:

    The amount of ire in these comments toward the reviewer personally really makes you realize that it doesn’t matter if you read Kramers Ergot or Walking Dead, comics fan HATE when anyone dares have a critical opinion about something they personally like.

  23. Late to the party, but this review jibes with my experience of earlier volumes. I gave up hope the series would ever improve somewhere in the middle of Obama’s presidency.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *