Utilitarian Review 10/24/15

News

I’m running a Patreon in the hopes of creating a weekly column focusing on stuff I don’t get to write about in mainstream venues. So, if you like my writing, consider contributing.

On HU

Featured Archive Post: Meg Worley on Wilfred Santiago.

Chris Gavaler on George W. Bush’s favorite cowboy artist.

I started a Patreon.

Kim O’Connor on Adrian Tomine’s poor record on female characters.

Me on Watchmen, Daredevil, and using crime grit to validate superheroes.

Robert Stanley Martin with on sale dates of comics from mid 1949.
 
Utilitarians Everywhere

My first piece for Pitchfork! I wrote about Tarantino, Johnny Cash, and the white fantasy of the black outlaw.

At Playboy I wrote about why James Bond’s violence is more troubling than Quentin Tarantino’s.

At Quarts I wrote about how remembering the Holocaust is used to justify violence.

At the Guardian I wrote about the limitations of Star Wars diversity.

At the Chicago Reader I had brief reviews of

—pop math rock trio Tricot

—weirdo death metal grandpas Autopsy.

At Splice Today I wrote about

—why America should admit it doesn’t care about AFghanistan

—the heartbreak of not writing that Back to the Future thinkpiece.

Other Links

The greatest moment in comics history.

Yasmin Nair on why Clinton won’t reign in Wall Street.

Selena Kitt on Amazon’s efforts to make writers of self-published erotica miserable.

Ted Gioia on the case for musical universality.
 

bond_2312061b

21 thoughts on “Utilitarian Review 10/24/15

  1. Thanks for pointing me in Tricot’s direction. They remind me a lot of The Dismemberment Plan.

  2. Maybe instead of “Kim O’Connor on Adrian Tomine’s poor record on female characters” you could say something like “on women in Killing and Dying” or “finds his female characters lacking” so as not to make it sound like something that’s been established. Kim expressed an opinion based on one book. You most likely have no idea.

  3. She talked about killing and dying, but also about his female characters more generally.

    It’s clear it’s her opinion. Sorry if you don’t like what she wrote, but I have little interest in tailoring my blurbs to spare the feelings of anonymous internet commenters.

  4. She only read killing and dying and some new yorker covers. My point is your blurb makes it sound as if it’s not just her opinion. It’s just a pet peeve I have with your writing, one of your friends announces something and you run with it as if it’s the world now.

  5. ??? I identify her as the writer. I say what she wrote about. I really have difficulty believing anyone is going to read it and think she’s somehow mathematically established Tomine’s attitude towards women.

    If you think my headlines are sensational, it seems like you probably haven’t read anything else on the web ever.

  6. Well, I provided examples of ways you could say it that wouldn’t suggest

    a) you agree with her

    b) it’s a widely held opinion

    c) it’s got anything to do with his record and not one book. It’s not his record if she’s only read one book.

    In other words, you wrote a blurb promoting an article on your site in such a way as to suggest that a real human being has a well-known history of problems writing women. Not everybody who reads your headline is going to follow through and read her review, or read it carefully. You think that’s trivial, I don’t. And if it’s trivial, why get bent out of shape over my little comment?

  7. I do agree with her.

    I don’t think it’s trivial. I think you’re wrong, and ridiculous. I am mildly annoyed because you keep showing up in my inbox. That’s it.

  8. Nope. But don’t need to read something to have an opinion on it. I’d recommend you look at Pierre Bayard’s How to Talk About Books You Haven’t Read.

    Of course, if you agree that you can talk about books without reading them, you can respond by saying you don’t agree with Bayard and reject the argument. If, as you seem to, you think you must read books before discussing them, then you’re going to have to read the book first before you comment here again.

  9. Skullnick, when a critic writes about a work it is a given that the writing embodies a subjective opinion. Otherwise the critique would be worthless. If you disagree with Kim O’Connor’s opinion, then the proper place to express that disagreement is in the comments section of her post — not here scolding the editor for an accurate blurb.

    Nor does Noah have to have read the book, as you seem to think. O’Connor has posted a good deal on this site, so Noah must feel he can trust her judgment. That’s what an editor does.

  10. I don’t know – it might be an interesting exercise to write criticism that doesn’t contain a single opinion that you actually hold.

  11. Graham, I was talking to someone who said they’d basically done that, but I can’t remember who it was…

    I don’t think I could quite bring myself to do it, but I can certainly see it being worthwhile/entertaining.

  12. Baldanders, the trouble is the blurb isn’t accurate, just like “Kim O’Connor gives her subjective opinion on Adrian Tomine’s poor record on female characters” wouldn’t be accurate.

    Noah, I never said you couldn’t express an opinion about a book you hadn’t read, sidestepping your sophomoric binary. But this is the way I remember you arguing about comics, so I don’t see a need to continue. I got you to admit you were agreeing with her and that you don’t know what you’re talking about. If you’re annoyed by comments showing up in your inbox maybe this site is not for you.

  13. Nope, you didn’t sidestep the binary. You just went on rambling without doing the reading, which would explain to you that commenting on a book you haven’t read doesn’t mean you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    I do agree with her. But the blurb doesn’t say I do. It states her position.

    I guess you triggered an interesting conversation elsewhere on the thread, which is nice. Still, glad to hear you’re going elsewhere. Don’t rush back.

  14. I never issued a categorical statement that a person can express no valid opinion on a book he/she hasn’t read. I said your statement that Tomine has a poor record on female characters — you made it, you agreed with it — comes from a position of ignorance because it’s derived from one opinion piece that doesn’t even cover that. I’m glad you’re looking forward to my exit. Maybe that means you’ll stop engaging me sometime soon. You don’t handle criticism very well.

  15. I didn’t make that statement, for fuck’s sake. I said that that was what Kim’s piece was about.

    My interest in engaging in stupid trivial bickering with people who can’t read is limited. This is a stupid conversation, and I suspect you’re someone I’ve already banned. Go away.

  16. Graham,
    I’ll share it if it’s any good. I’m going to try to do it in earnest, so it might end up dull.

Comments are closed.