Comics Journal…with Crippen and Berlatsky!

TCJ #293 is (more or less) out. I’ve got a couple of long reviews (of Alan Moore’s Wildstorm comics and Hideo Azuma’s Disappearance Diary) and a couple of short reviews (of the shojo title Nightmares for Sale and Kyle Baker’s Nat Turner. I believe that’s a four-for-four negative review ration there, so check it out if snark is what you want.

Also, and more productively, HU’s own Tom Crippen has a lengthy interview with Alex Robinson. So go forth and purchase, or at least browse in a store near you. (And TCJ is now available in at least some bookstores, for those of you who don’t want to darken the Direct Market’s door….)

The Man Who Will Save Comics!

Well, maybe not quite, but I’m now definitely a fan of Jeff Parker. I got the next issue of Spider-Man Magazine for my son, and Parker had another story in it; this one an Avengers tale. Not sure exactly what title it’s reprinted from, or how this fits in continuity — it seems to be a recent iteration of the team (Cap, Iron Man, Giant-Girl, Spiderman, Storm, Hulk, Wolverine), but it’s clearly for kids. Could it be Ultimate Avengers or something like that? I just don’t follow this stuff closely enough anymore…

In any case, the point is that this is just way, way better written than I’ve grown to expect from my mainstream titles. Parker’s dialogue is crisp and witty, and he’s got an idiosyncratically charming sense of pacing. Basically, there’s very little in the way of traditional suspense or cliff-hangers; villains and heroes all chat with each other, and, instead of panicked melodrama you get crisis which unfold with a friendly leisure. In the initial sequence, for instance, the heroes fly to a prison to stop a jailbreak by the Abomination, whom they defeat with anticlimactic ease — the cheerful warden’s threat to have them stay for lunch generates more real worry than the battle itself. (Also, they keep referring to the Abomination by his real name (Emil, I believe) which is just exceedingly cute.) Later, the Avengers are captured by a consortium of super-villains, and there’s a long discussion between Ultron, the Leader, et. al., about what they should do with the heroes — if we take out Storm’s brains will her powers still work? They eventually all decide that, even if the other heroes might be useful, Spider-Man is really completely useless. Spidey himself takes this conclusion in remarkably good stride. Eventually, of course, the villains end up bickering and the heroes escape — all except Wolverine, who has to get the others to free him after the baddies have all been disposed of (a pretty darn funny conclusion if you’ve read any of those old Claremont X-Men where it’s always the super-tough, super-male Wolverine who resists and breaks free to save the day.)

I mean, I’m not claiming that this is a staggering work of genius or anything. But it is smart and winning, and it manages the neat trick of creating a story that’s appealing to both kids and adults — and which relies on comics history, but seems like it would be quite accessible to new readers. The banter, the goofiness, and the relaxed nuttiness remind me a little of Ranma 1/2 or other manga, actually. Even the art isn’t that bad –it’s not good, or anything, but it’s clear and not offensively ugly. Basically, this just doesn’t give off the whiff of decadence that you get from Frank Miller, or all those horrible crossover titles, or even from Grant Morrison’s efforts to revive a sense of nostalgic wonder. Marvel’s to be commended for finding this guy and giving him a platform. I hope he’s around for a good long while.

David Heatley and New Graphics Revival

I’ve got a new column up at Comixology about David Heatley. One of the books I talk about is a little known anthology he edited (and which I participated in.) Comixology has a couple images from that book, but I thought I’d add a few more here for those who are interested:

by and ©Patrick Dunne

by and ©Michael Heatley

by and ©Juan Eclarinal

by and ©Donei Ebenezer

More About Oliphant

I did a post a couple days ago about what I dislike regarding this cartoon by Pat Oliphant. A few people have commented by this point. One fellow, anonymous, argues that the cartoon’s slobby Joe Sixpack isn’t workers in general, just the workers that Sarah Palin is aiming at. I don’t know, maybe. Isn’t that kind of idea specific enough that it would be indicated by some modification of Joe Sixpack? Or maybe only condescending Republican sleaze artists would use the “Joe Sixpack” phrase in the first place, and thus the six beers show we’re dealing with a GOP concept, not with workers in general. 

On the whole I doubt anonymous’s interpretation, just because the Oliphant cartoons I’ve seen don’t go in for nuance and have no problem with contempt. He strikes me as someone who could very easily talk about “Joe Sixpack.” But here I’m arguing a general impression as support for a particular impression. So either I can line up the evidence or say who knows.

Something I have to admit: at the top of my first post on Oliphant, I should have said his basic gifts are brilliant. Oliphant’s been around so long that his drawing skills are easy to take for granted, meaning I take them for granted; what stands out for me is his oafishness, which is persistent and extreme. But he’s still very talented. Look at his Palin. Instead of drawing stinky feet, he draws a particularized character, her tiny head spinning with vainglory. She’s lithe and full of energy, and her being such a vivid little wire simply highlights her vacancy. (Also check out his McCain, a frustrated stubby doll that’s got its face creased up for a slow burn.)

 From what I’ve seen of his late stuff, the Palin cartoon is a bit of a switch. What we have here is a good cartoon with a gigantic blotch. Most often, late-O material showcases its blotch, with the central fault being either stinky-feet attacks or weird opacity or a combination of the two. The good stuff is pushed to the sides; it doesn’t have a place. It becomes a sort of reverse blotch, the thing that doesn’t belong. 

On the other hand, that McCain cartoon is good.

Noah Hates Your Criticism

As seems to happen every week or so, there’s some wailing and gnashing of teeth going on about the state of comics criticism. Tucker Stone has this to say in a very entertaining interview on Newsarama:

I just wish people had thicker skin. That’s main thing with comics. There’s all this stuff recently about critics versus creators. Come on. Pauline Kael and the people from Cahiers du Cinema, they brought their art forward. They made films better, just by existing and pushing people to ask for more, to expect more. Or even the people who work on the Onion’s AV club, they make movies a better experience. They introduce you to stuff you’d never find on your own. But in comics it’s “Well how dare he say Alex Ross is a bad painter! I like Alex Ross!” Look, if you’re love of Alex Ross gets all fucked up because some dude you don’t know, who doesn’t share your taste, because that guy said Alex Ross sucks ass and should have his fingers broken, that’s your problem. Tons of people hate the shit I like, especially music, even my wife. Big deal. Doesn’t mean anything. If somebody else’s opinion on culture messes with yours so much it makes you want to cry, then you probably had started wondering whether you liked it that much to begin with.

Tom Spurgeon gets at the same point, more or less, saying if he ruled the comics world he would decree that “We criticize and receive criticism without reactionary defensiveness and accept others’ ability to do the same with respect for their doing so rather than as an opportunity to press our agenda that much further.”

And Dick Hyacinth joins in here making more or less the same point — as he says, “I’ve seen too many creators freaking out in public over honest (if not always thoughtful) criticism.”

So, basically, artists need thicker skins and then critics will save comics.

I’m sorry, but — much as I admire Tucker, Tom S, and Dick — that’s just ridiculous. In the first place, virtually nobody, in any medium, likes to have their work criticized. Artists have whined about criticism all through the ages. It’s what artists do. And furthermore, critics do it as well. In fact, when critics say things like “artists should have thicker skins”, what they tend to mean is, “artists should appreciate me more and not say that I suck when I criticize their work.” Not to say I’m exempt or anything; it really irritates me when people don’t like my stuff as much as they should, goldarnit. It’s natural. When you’re attacked, you get defensive. And, yes, attacking someone’s aesthetics is an attack on them — on their cultural position, their taste, their identity. Certainly there’s a line between attacking someone personally and attacking what they read…but it’s a line, not a wall. If you write harsh criticism, people are very likely going to get upset. In fact, getting people upset is kind of the point, right? I know it is for me; when I write, I’m writing in part out of anger (at sloppiness, at thoughtlessness, at ugliness, at moral turpitude (though I blush to admit the last)), and the intention is at least in part to irritate the people I’m angry at. Given that, it seems silly to turn around and complain if those people are in fact angry. (Though I do thoroughly admire people like Kim Deitch, with rhino hides and hearts of gold.)

And as for saving comics or improving comics or moving comics forward…I’ve really gotta say, my response is, fuck comics. I’m not writing to help comics. I’m writing for the same reason artists create art — which is either because (if you’re a romantic) I want to create something beautiful or (if you’re a realist) because I like to hear myself talk. I’m certainly more than happy to help particular comics artists whom I admire by giving them what publicity I can, but the medium as a whole — like all mediums, or like art itself, or like any other soulless cultural agglomeration — is worthy of neither love nor respect.

Not that there aren’t things wrong with comics in particular. There are, and I talk about them frequently. But I don’t know that the point is really to improve anything. It’s more about me thinking through what I like about art, and how that relates to other things (politics, morality, toilet humor, whatever.) It’s for me and my (admittedly limited) audience, not for a utopian future of better comics.