COLUMNS

This Week in Comics This Week in Comics

THIS WEEK IN COMICS! (2/18/15 – Logographic Devil History)

BestCover0001_zpssmeujks5Yesterday, Guardian columnist Jonathan Jones lamented the “studied banality” of contemporary graphic novels, declaring the ranks of bookshelves — one presumes those of generalist booksellers, which immediately introduces unacknowledged economic factors into the mix — redolent with “variations on a reductive graphic style designed to communicate information and signify simple emotions, but never to take the risk of showing a genuinely new, genuinely personal and daring perception of reality.” Some consternation erupted online, fueled by Jones’ favorable citations to such age-old fan favorites (by which I mean “favorites of age-old fans”) as Robert Crumb and Alan Moore, the latter amusingly invoked without reference to any of the collaborators who’d actually draw ‘his’ comics, although I suppose we could be dealing with a Maxwell the Magic Cat fanatic.

Me, I could only chuckle. I’d just slapped down ten bucks for the item on your left, the first of two 1990 hardcover anthologies, their contents “[s]elected by the editors of The Comics Journal” (i.e. Gary Groth, Kim Thompson & Robert Boyd) – and wouldn’t you know it, the heart of Jones’ argument is affirmed by Messrs. Groth & Thompson in their opening editorial, celebrating “serious, dedicated artists whose single imperative was to express an uncompromising, personal vision.” Jones merely presses harder on the visual element as the core of said vision: “A real comic artist is someone who uses drawing as self-expression instead of as a narrative machine.” But Groth & Thompson also anticipate Jones’ critical error – viewing ‘graphic novels’ as a simple genre of novels, which limits the possibilities of the art to what book publishers deem salable. “The best comics in the ’80s were scattered throughout a handful of formats and media,” note Groth & Thompson, referencing the contemporaneous scrum of magazines, periodicals and low print run comic books vs. the more popular franchise titles; just as ‘comics’ then were not only the wares of DC and Marvel, so too should “the comic-book universe,” per the Guardian headline, not be encircled by a newer commercial fence.

Which begs the question: what sort of comics did the Journal editors favor those many decades ago? Do these older cartoonists put “meaning and feeling into each line,” as Jones demands? Indulge me this selection of five interesting panels.

1. “How Can I Write A Story About Fashion, Now That My Toy Boy Is Gone?” – Melinda Gebbie (from Wimmen’s Comix #11, 1987)

Best10001_zpsyuuyol1i

Naturally, a personal and daring perception of reality is itself the communication of information, and I don’t feel an emphasis on the former needs circumvent the narrative values of the latter. Take this drawing by Gebbie, a veteran of several underground anthologies, whose entire story is a riot of conflicting signals: images range from scribbled studies of messy beds to stippled realist faces, with dialogue often recounted via phonetic dialect, to better evoke the artist’s experience as a US expat in the UK. It’s an account of a prolonged fling, with the above panel serving as climax – having been left by her gormless lover for basically no reason, Gebbie immortalizes him in an erotic/grotesque tableaux set within the yet-more grotesque tableaux that is the scene itself. You will be forgiven for confusing the actual ex-lover and his irate family (on the left) with those on the canvas (to the right, note the dotted background); Gebbie puts both planes of existence into parity as a means of demonstrating her emotional distance from one and her artistic detachment from the other, both contra the detail with which a very satisfied Melinda Gebbie herself is drawn. In this way, Gebbie’s perception of the scene is communicated by dint of drawing; it’s not just a depiction of a subjective point of view, but a summary of the story’s interpersonal conflict, as well as the culmination of the heroine’s character arc. Gebbie is well-suited to a collection like this, as she’s only ever released one solo comic: 1977’s Fresca Zizis, which can still be ordered from her fellow underground survivors at Last Gasp.

2. “Daily Strip” – Bill Griffith (from Weirdo #24, 1989)

Best20001_zpsuwv5n8xq

This one reminds me of the time the Canadian cartoonist Seth observed that Bill Watterson’s works “didn’t mean anything to me” during an interview at the AV Club; from some of the reactions in the comments you’d swear he’d burned the American flag. And yet Watterson commands great institutional respect as a classicist, a quality entertainer – and who’s to say Bill Griffith hews to the same opinions he had 26 years ago? Still, I’m pretty delighted with “chortling softly,” an utterly perfect backhanded assumption as to how the romping sentimentality of Calvin and Hobbes is probably received, from the perspective of someone who doesn’t *really* care but has wriggled just far enough through the door to scope out the room. Griffith narrates his estrangement from mainstream expectations cleanly and with little fuss, as you’d expect from the creator of a successful newspaper strip who can work the mechanics pretty good but knows damn well that his particular interests will keep him away from too much of the cultural penetration that both tantalizes and disgusts him. The quintessential ambivalence of the alternative comics generation, age and career trajectory notwithstanding.

3. “In Pictopia!” – Alan Moore, Donald Simpson, Peter Poplaski, Mike Kazaleh & Eric Vincent (from Anything Goes! #2, 1986)

Best30001_zpsocnik1c9

Groth & Thompson also declare genre fiction “intrinsically inferior to work of a more personal nature” – which needn’t foreclose on a more comics-centered ambivalence. Flash of lightning! Peal of thunder! ENTER: Alan Moore! Of anything on this page, you’ve most likely heard of “In Pictopia!” – it holds a special place in the Moore catalog, pairing him with a crew of Kitchen Sink Press regulars to parody both the domination of superhero comics on the popular funnybook landscape, as well as the darkening of superheroes themselves. Given that Moore & Dave Gibbons were not halfway through their inescapable Watchmen at the time, there is also a distinct element of confession. This panel, I think, is the lodestone. I mean, why is the dark, nasty, cruel modern superhero in the foreground Judge Dredd, who’d been a going concern since 1977? I think it’s not really Dredd, but what he represents: the spread of talent out of rougher forums like 2000 AD, and into the heartland of pop comics. Standing behind Dredd is Vigilante, an increasingly violent ski-masked revival of an old cowboy hero which Moore had scripted for two issues the year prior; clearly this writer’s hands are not clean, and he is staring at the blood wondering if all the sorting of entrails he’s done has really accomplished much of anything. But it wasn’t too far into the ’90s that Moore’s self-publishing ventures failed and he was collaborating with a lot of the tougher superhero guys who’d split to form Image – that’s commerce.

4. “Cynicism” – Paul Ollswang (from Prime Cuts #7, 1988)

Best40001_zpspujhtyfx

Let’s get back to drawing. Personal visions don’t get much more personal than those of Paul Ollswang, an Oregon cartoonist whose works all but hummed with diverse and archaic influences. His story is a comics biography of the Greek philosopher Diogenes of Sinope, best known early adherent of the Cynic philosophy, but it’s not at all like the educational comics you’ll find on most bookshelves right now – Ollswang instead sharply divides his words and pictures in a manner less reminiscent of RAW than Punch, leaning heavily on detailed caricature and minutely assembled calligraphy. Try to read those words, however (or just read the whole story here) – the humor doesn’t just come from his subject, but his narrative disposition, flouting the authority of his sources to substitute more interesting avenues for drawing. It’s like a vaudeville lecture, a chalk talk far too laborious to be performed live, but somehow carrying the sense of reckless improvisation. Ollswang did two issues of a series titled Dreams of a Dog (1990-91) at Rip Off Press, and the magnificent one-off SF satire Doofer: Pathway to McEarth (1992) with Taft Chatham & James Carpenter at Fantagraphics. He died in 1996.

5. “American Splendor Assaults the Media” – Harvey Pekar & Robert Crumb (from American Splendor #8, 1983)

87b77e4b-804b-4536-a460-f770aa7af2fa_zpsynl1njk7

There’s more than one way to lecture, though. You could always just put word after word in a big, fat bubble up over your narrating head. Now that I look at it, maybe a single panel doesn’t do this justice. Let me expand this to a whole page:

Best50001_zpsskmqk1hj

Every page is like this, all four of them – all of them comprised of nothing but Harvey Pekar talking, sometimes positioned in the past, sometimes barking from the present (these are the bits with the undershirts with holes). Occasionally another character appears in the panel, like a second actor walking briefly onto the stage, but often you’re only seeing Pekar, courtesy of the famous draughtsman Robert Crumb, who does a pretty good job of spacing all of these images so they don’t simply suffocate from the verbiage. This is not typically how you make for a comic, although I can think of reasons why you’d include it in a book like this: it’s a writer talking intimately about rather mundane business concerns, which (Bill Griffith supra aside) was certainly not so common a thing to see in a comic itself, particularly given the legacy of exploitative business practices in the commercial sectors of the industry; and it’s also, by its unusual makeup, sort of an argument that comics can, in fact, be whatever sort of vision or communication you desire, even if you suspect the ideal medium for such work may now be Facebook. Pekar even states his rationale at the close of the story: “That’s about what I can do when things bother me – write stories about them…”

And anyway, if you don’t like the text, I guess you can always disassociate Crumb’s drawings or something. “Fourteen Views on Harvey Pekar’s Face” – hang it in a gallery, it’s art!

***

PLEASE NOTE: What follows is not a series of capsule reviews but an annotated selection of items listed by Diamond Comic Distributors for release to comic book retailers in North America on the particular Wednesday identified in the column title above. Be aware that some of these comics may be published by Fantagraphics Books, the entity which also administers the posting of this column. Not every listed item will necessarily arrive at every comic book retailer, in that some items may be delayed and ordered quantities will vary. I have in all likelihood not read any of the comics listed below, in that they are not yet released as of the writing of this column, nor will I necessarily read or purchase every item identified; THIS WEEK IN COMICS! reflects only what I find to be potentially interesting.

***

SPOTLIGHT PICKS!

YoCover

Yo, Miss: A Graphic Look at High School: Lisa Wilde has been putting together small zines fictionalizing her experiences teaching at a “second chance” high school in Brooklyn for a little while, and this 160-page, 6″ x 9″ Microcosm edition looks to be a collection of everything. I’m totally unfamiliar with the work, but it’s being distributed via Diamond now, and the official site has many samples to sift through; $14.95.

BarbCover_zpshwifmpsf

Barbarella and the Wrath of the Minute-Eater: Both a reissue and a continuation of Humanoids’ effort at returning Jean-Claude Forest’s trend-setting space strip to print, insofar as the original 1964 album is now being paired with its 1974 sequel in an 8.5″ x 11″ hardcover, 152 pages in total. The art also appears to be in b&w, as opposed to the duotone of the publisher’s much larger deluxe edition of just the ’64 stuff from last year. Forest wrote and drew a third Barbarella album in ’77 (this is the one Heavy Metal translated as Barbarella: The Moon Child), then collaborated with artist Daniel Billon on a fourth in ’82. As before, the English adaptation is by Kelly Sue DeConnick. Samples; $34.95.

PLUS!

The Walking Man: 10th Anniversary Edition: Okay, I think I’m on the right footing here, but – if I’m reading the Fanfare/Ponont Mon catalog correctly, this is basically a reissue of the publishers’ earlier English translation of Jirō Taniguchi’s early ’90s classic of not a damn thing happening – it’s just an average man taking a series of walks, albeit drawn with the crystal-clear cartoon realist precision of a post-Ōtomo seinen epic that nonetheless steadfastly refuses to start a plot. It’s fantastic, although be aware that Taniguchi later added about 100 pages of stuff to a 2010 edition which just saw French translation via Casterman. I *think* this expanded version is also going to be released in English at some point, although it is not the edition available here; $25.00.

Ariol Vol. 6: A Nasty Cat (&) The Cisco Kid Volume 2: 1953-1956: Two continuing efforts, both in and of themselves and as parts of individual publishing missions. Ariol is NBM/Papercutz, presenting both domestic and European kids comics in translation, here from Emmanuel Guibert & Marc Boutavant. The Cisco Kid is the latest softcover from the well-regarded Classic Comics Press, packaging 232 pages of cowboy daily strips from Argentinian artist José Luis Salinas, collaborating with writer Rod Reed. An introduction by Don McGregor is also promised; $12.99 (Ariol), $24.95 (Cisco).

Mandrake the Magician #1: The protagonist of In Pictopia!, incidentally, was a parodic variant on Lee Falk’s early syndicated adventure strip hero Mandrake the Magician. I can only presume Dynamite is being a bit more straightforward in its new effort at reviving various King Features characters, and this one is of particular interest due to the presence of writer Roger Langridge, who tends to bring a strong sense of personality to licensed series such as this. The artist is Jeremy Treece. Preview; $3.99.

The Multiversity: Mastermen: Being writer Grant Morrison’s latest alternate dimension superhero frolic, this time working with penciller Jim Lee and inker Scott Williams, who basically set down the plans for how a a good number of artists work the superhero aesthetic – interesting that they’re tasked here with detailing a world in which Nazi rule has transitioned into a seeming utopia, possibly stemming from Hitler’s reading too many comic books and formulating a means by which to make his superhero ideals dominant. Can a scrappy grip of Quality Comics acquisitions inspire a more righteous praxis? There’s two more of these to come, including a ‘real world’ issue with Doug Mahnke and a concluding bookend with Ivan Reis & Joe Prado of The Multiversity #1. Preview; $4.99.

Dark Horse Presents #7: You know what else old souls love? Legacy numbering. Dark Horse is certainly aware of the appeal, as it has made sure to note that its on-and-off house anthology has now reached issue #200 in aggregate, which is why this particular issue is 80 pages in length. Among the promised features is a piece from Gone Girl author Gillian Flynn, teaming with no less a pro than UK comics laureate Dave Gibbons – I’m presuming it’s a print version of their webcomic from last year. There’s also original stuff from reliable series like Hellboy and Groo, among other new and continuing works. Samples; $4.99.

Plunder #1 (&) Ei8ht #1: Finally, I’ll list a pair of new comic book debuts, since it’s not an overwhelmingly crowded week. Plunder is technically a BOOM! release, although it’s under the auspices of Archaia, which specialized in visually lavish genre comics for much of its independent period. It’s about modern piracy and terror on the high seas. The artist is the Philadelphia-based Skuds McKinley, and the writer is one Jonathan “Swifty” Lang. Ei8ht, meanwhile, is I think a retitled Dark Horse print edition of an adventuresome SF webcomic from Brazilian artist Rafael Albuquerque, who’s worked on some mainline American comics projects like American Vampire with Scott Snyder. Here he’s joined by co-writer Mike Johnson. Plunder preview, Ei8ht preview; $3.99 (Plunder), $3.50 (Ei8ht).

FILED UNDER: , , , , , , , , ,

23 Responses to THIS WEEK IN COMICS! (2/18/15 – Logographic Devil History)

  1. That was a fun project to edit. Melinda Gebbie was one of my choice-s-I quite liked that she didn’t force herself to draw in one style.

    In retrospect, the collection feels a bit parochial. But I make no apologies. The “mainstream” had a strong grip on the comics world at the time, and we felt like we were fighting a desperate fight for comics as art against a comics world that seemed to loathe art.

    The funny thing is that no one would consider doing a book like these two volumes today because trying to pick the best comics of the past decade would be impossible–there are so many great comics to choose from. The annual Best American Comics Anthologies each have just as many pages as The Best Comics of the Decade did, and as good as they are, no one considers them truly complete. The 80s feels like an especially consequential decade in the history of comics (Love & Rockets, Weirdo, Raw, American Splendor, Maus, Watchmen, etc.), but to me, it feels like the golden age is right now.

  2. Oliver says:

    Very sorry to hear about Ewins, an eye-catching artist and much-plagued man. I was looking at one of his ‘Bad Company’ trade paperbacks just last week.

  3. Over a brief time Brett Ewins did a lot of cool stuff.

    Deadline, for the years he (and Steve Dillon) ran it, was editorial genius. We kids really had it good for a while there.
    His own comics art – always evolving – was playful, fresh, distinctly textured and dynamically composed, occasionally vertiginous but still balanced. From his early, pulpy sci-fi style to his pared down, pastel coloured late-80s cover art, you could never mistake him for another art-droid. One of those who you, even at a young age, could tell was giving more than he was obliged to – like the whole relationship between artist, medium, and audience might actually be there for the sake of enjoyment.

    It also seems, from various anecdotes I’ve heard over the years and the couple of brief times I met him, that he was a decent bloke, very generous of spirit. Many currently working artists speak gratefully of the unhesitating help and encouragement he gave them when they were just starting out.

  4. “I mean, why is the dark, nasty, cruel modern superhero in the foreground Judge Dredd, who’d been a going concern since 1977? I think it’s not really Dredd, but what he represents: the spread of talent out of rougher forums like 2000 AD, and into the heartland of pop comics. ”

    Don’t forget:
    1, JD had changed a lot since 1977: not as funny; a lot more muscular and butch; less likely to need looking after by Maria,his landlady, after FAINTING; generally more rational and classical lookin etc cos of Bollandisation.
    2, JD was basically the mainstream, crowd-pulling aspect of 2000AD. We tolerated that feature’s dominance of the comic because we understood it’s function, but it was rarely the best thing in there.
    3, Alan Moore’s stuff in 2000AD was not that sort of thing at all. Skizz, Halo Jones, Time Twisters. Those stories could almost be taken as a willful push against Dredd, Stronty & Rogue Trooper.
    4, Alan Moore innit.

  5. But yeah, what you said as well.

  6. Kit says:

    The funny thing is that no one would consider doing a book like these two volumes today because trying to pick the best comics of the past decade would be impossible

    Kim Thompson was duly delighted to make this argument (HERE ON THIS VERY WEBSITE) back when people were requesting a Best Comics Of The ’90s volume. Or at least that, given the flowering of alternative comics, it couldn’t be summed up in the two-volume page count. Despite the low-cost / wide-distribution nature of that market being extinguished, it indeed is both remarkable and wonderful that the Best American volumes feel so inadequate at even covering a year.

  7. You couldn’t have a ‘best of comics of the decade’ these days cos there’s so much good stuff around?
    So, does this mean that the 80s Fanta books are unanimously, uncontravertibly accepted as containing all of the definitively best comics of the 1980s? Of course not. So, if anything, what’s the real reason for rejecting the idea of a decade-based selection?

    Is it impossible to make a compilation tape now because so much music exists? The quantity reached critical mass some time ago and now it’s simply impossible to choose a finite duration out of all the music that’s ever been recorded.

    It’s just a title for an anthology. There were some comics that came out in the 80s that were ‘better’ than some comics in that presentation. Was anyone sued or struck by lightning for that reason? Maybe, I don’t know.

    Those current ‘Best’ American books are generally uninspiring, hampered as they are by a normative remit and heavy-handed series editorship that renders the nominal volume editors as glorified celebrity endorsements – but they can call the series what they like because we’re all used to such empty, meaningless claims being made for all kinds of products.

    Curation is a well appreciated practise and it’s understood to be regulated by subjectivity. Calling your selection ‘The Best’ is just unimaginative hype – but perhaps a useful fiction, an idealised goal for the project, but so obviously not a designation that presents anything evaluable in terms of truth.

    I think the problem with attempting to name a book like that now is the increased pluralism in the market(s), which is so well recognised that claims of ‘best’ just sound silly, perhaps anachronistic, certainly incredible, not really as attractive as they were in less panoramic times.
    Maybe ‘Now, That’s What I Call Comics!’ would be better.

    Anyway, I think these kind of anthologies are great. Their kind of functions are not served by the prestigious completist libraries that seem to dominate the reprint shelves at the moment. So let’s have more best ofs, hooray, and no-one needs to suffer any disenchantment or cognitive dissonance when it occurs to them that even their favourite publishers and editors are individuals with their own perspectives, priorities and budgets.

  8. Calling our two-volume collection “The Best Comics of the Decade” perhaps does sound anachronistic. But we published this book 23 years ago, so maybe that’s OK.

  9. R. Fiore says:

    I was actually the one who suggested doing the Best Comics of the 80s anthology, though I didn’t have anything to do with editing it. It was just at the end of my tenure when I suggested it, and I was gone by the time it was being put together. Honestly if it were my call I would have had a less inclusive anthology with longer selections. The problem In Those Days was that you thought you couldn’t exceed a particular price point, and that limited the number of pages. That was the very dawn of Amazon (I remember some of their earliest Help Wanted ads), so everybody paid cover price. Thus you have the breakdown into two volumes. If you did something like that today you would probably do it in 350 or even 500 pages. A Best of the 80s anthology was a natural idea because it was such a watershed period, and it might be worthwhile revisiting the concept today.

  10. “Calling our two-volume collection “The Best Comics of the Decade” perhaps does sound anachronistic. But we published this book 23 years ago, so maybe that’s OK.”

    Of course.
    I was talking about the difference between then and now (as according to my own personal instincts).
    “I think the problem with attempting to name a book like that now is the increased pluralism in the market(s), which is so well recognised that claims of ‘best’ just sound silly, perhaps anachronistic, [… etc etc]”

    And those books would be a primo compendium even if the title was something far less applicable.

  11. Jeet Heer says:

    I kind of think Joe is misreading “American Splendor Assaults the Media.” By his account, Crumb’s drawings are mere illustrations: “Occasionally another character appears in the panel, like a second actor walking briefly onto the stage, but often you’re only seeing Pekar, courtesy of the famous draughtsman Robert Crumb, who does a pretty good job of spacing all of these images so they don’t simply suffocate from the verbiage. ” The thing is, if you actually look at the pictures, you see that Crumb is not just illustrating Pekar’s rant but also providing a counterpoint to it. Wild-eyed and super-shlubby, Crumb’s Pekar looks like the type of frothing psycho we’d cross the street to avoid, so the images serve as a ironic comment on Pekar’s words. It’s a great comic.

  12. Ralphe Ostrander says:

    “The problem In Those Days was that you thought you couldn’t exceed a particular price point, and that limited the number of pages”

    I don’t know, there was also a book called “The New Comics” (isbn 0020093616) which I think was about the size of the two FBI volumes together.

  13. BPP says:

    The Best volumes were actually precursors to the way the market was to in that they were lyotardian objects of desire. Regardless of content these were beautifully designed oversized objects that stood out on the early 90s LCBS shelf like nothing else. Coming around the same time as Comics Book Confidential and with many of the same names brandished on the cover… Goddam these were a thing to want even if the interior was going to challenge. Sad to see them at $10 man, no doubt some godawful Spawn comic from the same year is going for a massive multiplier of that.

    Off to dig out Dreams of A Dog from a long box.. Such a beautiful draftsman. He knew how to draw a dog with a banjo..

  14. Ralphe Ostrander says:

    “lyotardian”

    I beg your pardon

  15. The New Comics had a mainstream publisher with deeper pockets than Fantagraphics. I would have preferred one volume, but we just didn’t publish thick books back then. When I see the formats being employed by publishers now (lots of full-color work, hard-covers, tons of pages, unusual and oversized trim sizes), I’m envious.

    We felt really constrained by what we thought comic book stores would and could rack at the time. We assumed that anything out of the ordinary would get a short shrift. Our caution in that regard was probably unwarranted (after all, RAW had survived quite well in two unusual formats), but that was a financially fragile period for the company (and for “alternative” comics as a whole), so we tended to err on the side of caution with our formats. That’s why both Hate and Eightball were done in standard comics trim size as opposed to the magazine trim-size that had been employed for Neat Stuff and Love & Rockets. (There was also a preference by Pete Bagge for an old-fashioned comic book format.)

  16. BPP says:

    A central thesis of The Postmodern Condition is that as digital culture and intangibles grow in importance so too will ‘deluxe’ editions and formats more desirous than existed prior. The fetishisation of the object as a limited consumer good. Which is exactly what has happened with Comics from the time of writing (1978) thru Best Comics of The Decade to today’s proliferation of deluxe editions.

  17. R. Fiore says:

    I was thinking of the first iteration of Pogo, which put me in mind of John Cleese in his French waiter accent: “It’s only waffer-thin.” Kept the cover price to $9.95.

  18. Joe McCulloch says:

    Jeet – Was it Hope Davis as Joyce Brabner in the American Splendor movie who said that Crumb drew Pekar like he was Brando? I don’t see Crumb’s art as counterpoint to Pekar’s text so much as intensifying it: creating *passion* by having Harvey grip his head, raging… Acting, as in projecting his monologue out past the cheap seats. I see this as inherent to Crumb’s approach to adaptation – I just read his “Nausea” piece from Hup the other week (month?), and he uses much the same vivifying, caricatural technique… adjunct to his self-mocking self-portrayals, but never really as intense, perhaps from lacking Crumb’s own narration. This, I suppose, circles back to Mr. Jones’ point about ‘real’ art (or whatever) conveying a unique perspective, but anyway I didn’t see an adversarial approach (collegial as it may be) occurring so much as Crumb selling the emotions in his particular way… but then, your reading might benefit from the context of a comic book with lots of non-Crumb artists working with Pekar in addition to Crumb himself.

  19. I always thought it was an interesting idea, in the abstract, that some of the same people that pooh-poohed Hal Foster as illustration rather than comics might also happen to be American Splendor readers. I can understand some of the appeal of Harvey Pekar as writer, or Harvey Pekar as entertainer, but the idea of American Splendor as good comics always boggled my mind. Not that Crumb doesn’t lend some weight here…

  20. I do appreciate it when a cartoonist gets their ideas across using mainly cartoony means, but it strikes me that ‘medium essentialists’ are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
    A good comic is good. You might say that it’s good because you enjoy it, it’s useful, informative, beautiful, well crafted, clever, stupid, engaging, edifying, comforting, sells well, or any number of reasons according to what you get from it or what you think someone else might get from it.
    To insist that a comic can only be good if it comes very close to an idealisation of the form which most readily distinguishes it from all others seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
    The most essentially ‘comicky’ comic in the world could also be the worst if it’s really terrible; and so on.
    Then there’s the problem of who, or what, defines the essence (and boundaries) of what any given medium even is. Should it be down to statistical analysis? Precedence? Most stentorian pundit? Best looking pundit? Some normative/teleological purpose or ideology?
    Does the medium of comics really have fixed boundaries or a precise beginning? Is it one single medium or several in corroboration?
    Most of all I wonder what it is in us that finds medium essentialism an attractive tool for reckoning. Is it the desire to seperate things cleanly and into discrete categories – hygiene compulsion extended into the realm of concepts about artistic technicalities? Part of the urge to simplify the world into something more cognitively managable?
    I dunno (obvs).
    But I’m very sure that saying something isn’t good comics purely because it isn’t sufficiently near some culturally contingent centre-point of the form’s characteristics doesn’t convince me much at all.

    Maybe, heh, medium is performative.

  21. Jack says:

    I agree with Jeet that it’s a great comic. By showing Harvey completely boxed in and dwarfed by his own words, the art emphasized the obsessiveness, helplessness, and frustration inherent in what he was saying. I’m not sure about the counter-narrative thing, though; I don’t think Crumb was saying, “The Village Voice is ignoring Harvey for one reason and one reason only: He’s a fucking lunatic.” My guess is that Crumb was basically sympathetic to Pekar’s point of view about the paper and his inability to get media attention. But Pekar did write other stories about how his aggressiveness as a freelance writer could turn editors off, and I guess that’s kind of implicit in the comic.

  22. mckracken says:

    80ies Superheroes were the most juvenile – especially the one’s from Moore.
    I mean the very idea to rape Billy Batson on paper…How radical….(roll’s eyes to the moon)

Leave a Reply

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