It’s that time of the year again and here at HU we’re looking back on the year in online comics criticism.
The choices made by our panel of judges will be revealed tomorrow. Today, I’m taking a look at some of the reviews and essays which, for one reason or another, didn’t make the cut. I should add that this has no bearing on the actual quality of the articles in question. The important thing to remember is that the process was “democratic”. In other words, if you’re lucky you just might get Abraham Lincoln. If not, you might have to settle for George W. Bush (who was indeed loved and remains loved by many Americans).
The 7 articles which did make the final list represent a compromise arrived at by the imperfect tastes of 7 judges. The most interesting thing about such lists is how often they get it completely wrong, the bastard child of individual purity and the god damned evils of collective reasoning.
We started out with 8 judges at the beginning of 2010, each of whom submitted individual reading lists of worthy nominees each quarter. Sadly, one of the judges had to drop out due to a heavy workload but I believe the remaining judges present a reasonably broad spectrum of interest and taste in both comics and criticism.
The judges this year were Derik Badman, Melinda Beasi, Johanna Draper Carlson, Shaenon K. Garrity, Tim Hodler, Chris Mautner and Bill Randall. None of the judges were eligible for the final vote. They were also forbidden from voting for writing which appeared on their own blogs (or group blogs). My role in this process was largely as a non-voting organizer (i.e. clerical assistant) and my purpose today is to emphasize the positive as far as the final choices (and runners-up) are concerned. I would, however, encourage readers to disagree vehemently with the final choices if they so wish. If there’s any type of writing which should not be spared reproach or negativity, this would be it.
You have to be pretty stupid to write at length about comics online. With a bit of luck, comics scripting can be turned into a lucrative career; writing about comics online, hardly ever. The best criticism takes time and frequently pays next to nothing. In other words, comics criticism requires a special kind of insanity, a recessive trait found found in certain species of determined hobbyists. One of the judges, Bill Randall, has likened it to digging a ditch and singing for the crickets and he’s not far off in this description. No surprise then that the attrition rate has been heavy. It wouldn’t take too long to name the various comics critics who began their “careers” in the 80s and who remain active in the field today. The history of comics criticism is littered with the corpses of writers who used to write about comics. The resultant toll on experience has had a damaging impact on the art form.
Nonetheless, 2010 was a reasonable year as far as comics criticism is concerned. Coverage remains sparse for newly released works with little long form criticism addressing the major works in any one year. In this, comics criticism remains the poor cousin of most other art forms. It should be noted that this kind of neglect is hardly unique to comics. Consider the somewhat uninspired English language criticism devoted to Michael Haneke’s The White Ribbon for example. Of the marquee books, two in particular received solid coverage. These were Daniel Clowes’ Wilson and Robert Crumb’s The Book of Genesis Illustrated. Others like Love and Rockets: New Stories #3, Charles Burns’ X’ed Out and Chris Ware’s Lint received only a smattering of worthy reviews.
Largely absent from the long list was criticism focused on new manga releases (here arbitrarily defined as the 2009-10 period; 3 articles in total). This may have been due to the consolidation of votes secondary to the judging process, the preference of the judges or the nature of manga criticism in general. Two votes were received for Nicole Rudick’s article on Moto Hagio’s A Drunken Dream but, as is typical of comics criticism, it wasn’t the kind of extended piece which Rudick can afford to do for her paid work.
Here are some other pieces of criticism which achieved a total of 2 votes from our jurors:
- Brian Chippendale on the Avengers
- Sarah Boxer on Lynd Ward
- Karen Green on Pushwagners Soft City
- Tim Kreider on Al Columbia’s Pim and Francie
- Illogical Volume on Eddie Campbell and Big Numbers
- Peter Sattler on Robert Crumb’s The Book of Genesis Illustrated
- Chris Sims on Life with Archie
- Tucker Stone and Michael Fiffe on Love and Rockets Vol. 3
- AXed: Twitter extended short-form criticism Part 1 and 2
I’ll reserve comment on most of these articles but will say that the piece I was least enamored with was the “AXed Twitter extended short form criticism”. This has everything to do with my preference for writing of a more “finished” nature; my idea that the best criticism should be more than a place where information, opinions and ideas are exchanged; that, at its best, it should be a place where ideas are developed upon to their fullest extent and where there is a certain beauty of language and structure.
Here are a few other omissions.
HU editor, Noah Berlatsky, has advised me that one of his favorite pieces of the year was Shaenon K Garrity’s essay on Cathy at Comixology. Her article on Scott Pilgrim gives that article a good run for its money. Two jurors also showed a preference for a pair of articles by Matthias Wivel; one titled Hergé and the Order of Things, the other on Robert Crumb’s The Book of Genesis Illustrated. No consensus was arrived at to push either of these article into the final list.
One surprising absence from the runners-up list is Matt Seneca who writes at Death to the Universe. News of his articles reached the collective reading list early in the year and interest was shown in his articles on Roy Crane and his extended discussion with Jog on Jim Steranko’s Outland and Jack Kirby’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Seneca, who started blogging in December 2009, would probably be a shoo-in for “best newcomer” in some quarters. He’s fast, disciplined and dedicated, and his blog shows 198 entries in 2010, many of which are long form articles. He shares many traits with his co-writer on the Steranko-Kirby discussion. Both are deeply passionate about comics, devote considerable acreage and brain cells to more commercial publications (from the present and days of yore; it should be noted that the interest is far from exclusive), and might be said to be stylists and close readers. Seneca has established a reputation as an astute surveyor of mark making, something to which he brings considerable emotional investment. The word of mouth is that he’s the Luke Skywalker of comics criticism.
One characteristic of such devoted writers is that they have little time to expend on works deemed of lesser quality. Which brings me to a final observation. Of particular note this year is the absence of negative criticism on the final list (one article sits comfortably on the fence). In fact, I count only 2 articles (out of nearly 60 nominations) in the long list which could be characterized as being negative in nature. The final list for 2009 contained 2 (maybe 3) articles which could be construed as being “unhappy”. There may be a number of reasons for this. Firstly, we should put aside the idea that negative criticism is inherently inferior to positive criticism. We would not need to look very hard to find quality writing in a negative vein, and I have read a number of book reviews in the past year that are of an unaffirmative nature which are the equal of any of the writing on the final list.
From my travels through the interwebs, it is my experience that most readers and comics critics actually prefer critical writing which is positive in nature. It is a preference which I’ve seen voiced intermittently both by readers and critics alike. It should come as no surprise then that the vast majority of substantive comics criticism online is positive in nature.
It may be that good negative criticism is far more difficult to write than good positive criticism. This may simply be due to the fact that a writer with a low opinion of a particular comic is high unlikely to devote a huge amount of time and energy to an in-depth appraisal. It’s an old chestnut to be sure but one not excessively burdened with cobwebs since it’s been regularly dusted-off by practitioners of the form. Whatever the reasons, comics critics should take note that if the appreciation of your readers and peers is of any importance to you, then an antagonistic article may not be the best approach.
TOMORROW: The 7 “best” pieces of comics criticism of 2010
Update by Noah: The final list is now online.
I’d like to say for the record that I was incredibly sad when I discovered that Shaenon was on the list of judges. She’s one of my favorite writers and it was painful not to be able to submit any of her her work for the list.
Haven’t read all the runners-up yet, but Tim Kreider’s Pim and Francie review is great. And I’m also a big fan of Peter Saddler’s Genesis review and of the Chris Sims Archie piece.
Suat: “The history of comics criticism is littered with the corpses of writers who used to write about comics.”
…And writers who used to write comics scripts… And artists who used to draw comics…
“It may be that good negative criticism is far more difficult to write than good positive criticism.”
Lots of people claim the exact opposite! Snark is supposed to be easy and shallow; sincere appreciation difficult, etc….
I don’t know that I really find one more difficult than the other myself….both negative and positive criticism are enjoyable to write in their own ways….
Pingback: Tweets that mention Best Online Comics Criticism 2010: Introduction and Runners-Up « The Hooded Utilitarian -- Topsy.com
I think it’s probably that it’s harder to write negative criticism that makes people feel enriched. A negative essay either pisses you off because you disagree or it gives this schadenfreude-ish pleasure — “someone else hates it too, ha!” — that probably doesn’t stick with people as long.
Meaningful negative criticism has to have some surprising insight, and I think that’s legitimately harder than describing what’s wrong with something, even if that description is particularly eloquent.
Ah well…I guess it depends on what you’re looking for…
I mean, will a positive piece enrich you if there aren’t interesting insights? I kind of feel like it won’t. On the other hand, I don’t feel like enrichment is all there is…I think eloquence is often it’s own reward, whether it’s directed towards praise or towards a good slagging….
You asking about my personal standards or my general impression of readers collectively overall?
I do also seek the insights in positive criticism, as you say. I generally seek the insights rather than the positive or negative. (This is that debate over whether criticism has to be evaluative…)
But I think in general, the experience of collective bonding over shared enthusiasm is more psychologically powerful, enriching, rewarding, etc., than schadenfreude. It takes a little more effort to be enriched by something destructive, and it helps if there’s a meaningful insight.
Personally, for me, eloquence is rarely its own reward. On the scale of valuable compositions (critical and creative) I’d rank insightful and well written first, followed by just insightful, followed by just well-written. There are just too many things in the first category to bother with the things in the last (or things that are none of the above).
“The important thing to remember is that the process was ‘democratic’. In other words, if you’re lucky you just might get Abraham Lincoln. If not, you might have to settle for George W. Bush (who was indeed loved and remains loved by many Americans).”
How do you end up with Lee Kuan Yew? He would have kicked Twitter criticism off the island, me waving by the Durian.
And Matt Seneca, while no LKW, piqued my interest with a few pieces, but unable to pick one I picked none. The two-sentence blurb for Driven by Lemons kind of settled it. But I like that he has range, and writes intelligently about those books I don’t get; I like his more recent pieces (the year-end “sans genre” pieces) more than earlier ones. Still, I think a lot of prolific writers keep the beast fed, which you have to do to get a readership online, but at some cost to the depth of the work. “Feed the beast and lose the feast”? I should make no blurbs.
He’s singular, though, unlike Sarah Boxer on Ward or Art Spiegelman on same, two pieces I felt suffered from having to get a general audience up to speed and then having nothing left over for the rest of us. Film criticism in such places, with a writer chasing certain rabbits across multiple weekly reviews, seems a lot richer than one-off comics pieces.
Pingback: Best Comics Criticism 2010, Preamble ~ billrandall.net
Bill: I felt the same way about the Boxer/Spiegelman… and Seneca for that matter (though I did vote for his Roy Crane/Captain Easy piece).
As to the negative criticism issue, personally I prefer criticism that makes me want to read or reread a work, so I tend to go for the positive. Thus went my voting.
I’m not really an “online comics critic,” but I have written some online criticism on occasion… I’m wondering if you saw the series I did in early 2010 on Ditko/Miller/abstraction–most easily accessible as the top four posts here:
http://abstractcomics.blogspot.com/search?q=ditko
I never completed it, as I was convinced to turn it into a book, which won’t be out for a year or two. But, reading back through them, I’m quite happy with what I did post.
I’m only bringing this up as I suspect more occasional comics criticism can elude the compilers of a list such as this.
I don’t think well-written is as common as you’re claiming, Caro. Also…not to steal Domingos’ thunder, but I often don’t feel like form and function can be separated that way. How you say it is what you’re saying, and vice versa, to no small extent. Part of the well written is that there’s something to say, and part of having something to say is writing it well.
I’ll stick up for Matt; I haven’t read a ton of his stuff, but I think he’s a fine writer and often has really interesting insights (as I said, I think the two go together!) I’m going to talk about one of his pieces more in a post I’ve got upcoming, so I’ll leave it at that for now….
…and maybe I’ll stick up for Sarah Boxer too? I chuckled at a couple of points in her review, anyway, which I always appreciate. It does kind of fizzle out at the end, I’ll admit…
You know, that piece is actually one that I think might have been better if she’d been willing to go negative. I got the sense that she wasn’t really that into it, but was unwilling to own it because of the historical importance. Or maybe I’m just projecting — I don’t like Ward very much. But it certainly didn’t have the passion you get, one way or the other, in the Sims piece for example….
cough syrup award for conceptual trolling hosted by cough syrup goes to cough syrup (it wasn’t even a contest…competition was weak as hell)
Andrei: Your article on Ditko and Abstraction was on the reading list. It was picked up by a few of the link blogs so it wasn’t particularly obscure. If memory serves, at least one of the judges picked your article for their final 10. Sometimes, it’s the person who picks you that matters…We’ll find out for sure in the coming days when the judges post their choices.
I’m with Caro when she states the importance of “enrichment” (and meaningful insight) in the practice of negative criticism.
Bill: You land up with Lee Kuan Yew when everybody is too busy making money. Contrary to popular belief, the Singapore blogs are filled with some pretty virulent criticism of the regime. I don’t know how long this will last though.
And, yes, I think Matt Seneca does bring something new to the table. But I’m wondering whether he will expand his range as far as his writing style is concerned.
One way of keeping the “beast” fed is joining a group blog where some members don’t mind sticking their arms into the cage on a regular basis. Or is that carrying the metaphor too far.
Sarah Boxer had the same problem with her piece on George Herriman in the NYRoB (reprinted in the Best American Comics Criticism). She managed to tie that one up more neatly because she was also alloted more space.
Allow me to second Melinda Beasi: Shaenon Garrity is a brilliant comics critic, and regardless of whatever winds up on the final list, its authority will surely be diminished by the lack of examples from her work in 2010.
Maybe we should form a shadow committee and select the “Best Online Comics Criticism by the Judges of the Best Online Comics Criticism”.
If that’s the case, then Garrity’s essay on CATHY — a strip that I should note that I despise — would be in serious competition for Best Essay of the Year.
Andrei, I read and reread your piece and quite liked it– but in the end it felt like walking in on a conversation rather than a finished piece. I’ll look forward to the book. And you can be an “Online Comics Academic” if you like.
Me, I wish I was Cough Syrup.
You aren’t?
“You have to be pretty stupid to write at length about comics online.”
I just wanted to chime in (hopefully not too shamelessly) and say I am one of these stupid people! I have been writing about Tintin as a colonial text over on tumblr for the last six months and will continue to do that as long as I receive grant money for my travels.
I’ve found it’s easy to chug along with my own thoughts instead of thinking of comics’ critics as a community (like I experience when I write about music). I’m glad you put together this feature so I can promptly update my rss feed and feel slightly less stupid.
Dirk, I love that Cathy essay too.
Pingback: Best Online Comics Criticism 2010
Pingback: Madinkbeard » Best Online Comics Criticism 2010: Derik’s List
Pingback: Best Online Comics Criticism 2010 » Comics Worth Reading
Nadim Damluji:
Have you read my posts on Tintin and racism here?
https://hoodedutilitarian.com/tag/tintin-in-otherland/
I seem to recall you have… at any rate, I’d be very interested in reading your own findings, if you would post a link.
Alex: Yes I have read those articles and they were wonderful! I was really inspired by how you mixed elements of the personal with the larger problematic pieces of Tintin, which I think too much criticism shies away from. I was truthfully surprised the Otherland series didn’t up in the final’s list that was posted yesterday.
In terms of links, I’ll point you towards a few pieces I wrote and would love to get your feedback.
Here is one I wrote about the American edits/translation into Arabic of Crab With The Golden Claws: http://tintintravels.tumblr.com/post/2134243800/the-case-of-the-arab-henchman
Here is one I wrote about the Congo’s legacy in Belgium (in which you get a shout out!): http://tintintravels.tumblr.com/post/1497579906/king-leopolds-specter
And most recently, here is a (slightly off topic) piece I wrote about Superman’s translation into Arabic: http://tintintravels.tumblr.com/post/2809429019/waiting-for-nabil-fawzi
If any of those pique your interest feel free to poke around on my site for more Tintin writing.
Thanks, Nadim! Yes, I realised that a critic can’t honestly separate himself from the object of his criticism…
Just read your posts, Nadim. Excellent work! For those of you who read my series on Tintin, Nadim covers the same ground in far greater detail and excels at putting it in context. I urge you all to follow up those links!
Pingback: Mindless Ones » Blog Archive » Short and to the Pointless #1: The Like Trap!
Pingback: Il prezzo della critica fumettistica | Conversazioni sul Fumetto