Reviewing the Reviews: Likewise

This week, HU is going to do a roundtable on Ariel Schrag’s Likewise. We’ll have guest posts by Jason Thompson, one of my favorite comics critics…and by Ariel Schrag herself, who has kindly agreed to weigh in at the end.

So, in preparation for that, I thought I’d look at what’s been written about Likewise thus far on the old internets. A little while back Suat looked at the extant reviews of Dash Shaw’s Bottomless Belly Button and found them wanting. Likewise was considerably lower profile…but nonetheless, I was surprised to find how little had been written about it. I was certain, for example, that the folks at Comics Worth Reading would have something to say about it…but nope. Nothing at Comics Reporter either, which has run reviews of Schrag in the past (I know…I wrote one of them!) Nor did the Comics Journal review it…though, given the lag time with the magazine, it’s possible that something is still in the works, I suppose.

Schrag conveniently lists a number of shorter reviews on her website, though these are mostly of the quick descriptive sort that Suat dismisses rather roughly in his post. I’m not the completist (and/or masochist) Suat is, so I can’t say I read them all closely, but they’re basically (to paraphrase Suat) more interested in giving you a sense of whether you want to buy the thing, rather than in trying to analyze it.

The Kirkus Reviews blurb is a good example — traumas are listed (parent’s divorce, struggles with homosexual identity, conflicted relationship with straight girlfriend); literary references are cited (Ulysses, Brothers Karamazov); metatextual aspects are briefly touched on; the varied art styles are highlighted, and the whole thing summed up positively as “A big leap of artistic ambition and self-discovery; Schrag saved the best for last.”

The best of these buyer’s guide efforts may be Shauna Miller at NPR who bases her piece upon the assumption that Schrag wrote Likewise a decade after the events depicted…a perfect peg for the piece, save for the one unfortunate fact that it happens to be false. (Schrag wrote and drew the entire book in the year following her graduation from high school; it just took her a decade to ink and publish it.)

I did manage to find three substantial reviews of Likewise.

The first is by tcj.com stalwart, Rob Clough Clough’s review is more a series of impressions than a sustained single argument. He does make several nice points: I liked his take on the very end as an anticlimax. As he puts it, “The book ends on a goofy, self-effacing note, deflating both the expectations of senior year of high school and her own obsessions.”

Still, overall, the review felt to me like Clough had trouble coming to grips with the (admittedly difficult) book. He notes the connection to Ulysses, mentions Ariel’s obsessive disorder, talks about her focus on school science subjects, notes that the book gets faster as it approaches the end…and finally throws up his hands, resting his assessment not on the work, but on his vision of the author’s strength of character. Or, as he puts it “Reading LIKEWISE is frequently a rocky and frustrating experience, but Schrag’s sheer ambition and drive behind this comic is so compelling that one can’t help but get swept along.”

The second long review I found is by Kristian Williams. Like Rob Clough’s review, this one is frustrating, though for somewhat different reasons. To me, a big part of the interest of Likewise is the way the book shifts between different styles for different scenes, trying to match visual and emotional content. Instead of trying to engage with this variation, Williams just punts and declares it chaos:

The best thing that can be said about Likewise is it shows Schrag’s expanding range as an artist. Unfortunately, where her earlier volumes used changes in style and technique sparingly to create mood or convey information about the character’s subjective experience, here the style changes frequently, sometimes for no apparent reason. It feels like Schrag just periodically got bored with what she was doing, and decided to try something else, often mid-page. In fact, dozens of pages are left un-done, with polished panels appearing alongside sketches of barely-humanoid blobs with speech balloons tacked to them.

The unwillingness to entertain the idea that Schrag might actually know what she’s doing is especially irritating because Williams is in some ways an astute reader. He notes, for example, that one of the effects of Schrag’s style towards the end of the book is that “Without time, causation and character development become impossibilities as well” — which is surely what Schrag is aiming for. He adds “The border between the story and the life blurs, producing a confused life and a confused story. And given the nature of autobiography, Ariel — writing the story of a relationship that’s still somewhere in the process of collapsing — ends up living a lot in the past.” But instead of trying to see how this works out in specifics, he simply dismisses it because “it still reads like somebody knocked the manuscript off the desk, and just didn’t bother to get the pages back into the right order.”

In short, Williams recognizes that Schrag is working in a modernist idiom, where form follows function. He finds this alienating. He recognizes that the alienation is a deliberate artistic decision. And he responds by…sneering at Schrag for successfully alienating him when she should be writing entertaining, unambitious anecdotes, since that is what high-school girls do best.

The saddest part about that is, with a devoted editor and 200 fewer pages, Likewise could have been a pretty good book. Schrag just needed to go back to the format of Awkward. The story of Likewise is not well suited to the novel form; it would work better as a loose series of vignettes that show us pieces of the life of a young girl, without any grand claims about Life, Love, Art, and the rest of it. Perhaps Schrag wanted to push her talents to the limit. The problem is, she found it.

I mean, if you don’t like highbrow modernism, go after highbrow modernism. It’s a worthy target; I’ve been known to take shots at it myself. But the recognition, on the one hand, of the successful fusing of form and content, the refusal to figure out why you find that fusion alienating, and the conclusion that the alienation has something to do with the fact that a high school girl has gotten too big for her britches — to me that all seems profoundly condescending. Williams would rather dismiss the book altogether than treat a high-school girl as a potential equal — someone who could, and in fact did, write a book that is too highbrow for his tastes.

The last substantial review is by the Inkwell Bookstore and is easily my favorite of the bunch. It’s true that it’s short, and not especially detailed. But in its limited space, it very thoughtfully compares Schrag’s work to that of Dash Shaw and Alison Bechdel, arguing that Schrag is better than either of them at using structural elements of her comic to emotional effect:

With Likewise, Schrag has crafted a comic that is as structurally daring as it is emotionally affecting. Every time she plays with panel layouts or switches art styles or f**ks up her fonts, she is intentionally entrancing the reader with an explicit expressionistic effect. Sometimes it’s giddy, drunken glee, sometimes it’s the harrowing disorientation of a recurring heartbreak, but there’s always an extra layer of emotional imbalance being added.

The review also notes that Schrag’s Joycean monologue sometimes reads as a “slam poetry parody of Ulysses, which is a palpable hit (though I think the effect may be somewhat more intentional than the review suggests.)

Also Inkwell credits my interview with Schrag for pushing him to read the book. So that obviously proves his superior taste.

Despite Inkwell’s review, though, I was overall quite disappointed Schrag’s book is a lengthy, ambitious, complicated, long-awaited work by a well know creator. And the critical response to it has been, for the most part, indifference, dismissive praise, and confusion.

Admittedly, Likewise isn’t an easy book, and our roundtable next week may well not get to grips with it either. We’ll give it a try, though, starting tomorrow.

_____________

Update: You can see all posts in the roundtable here.

Update 2: Kristian Williams defends himself here.

Update 3: Ed Howard has an interesting short take on Likewise in his round up of the decades best comics.

Utilitarian Review 2/19/10

TCJ.com/fail

Much of the blogging this week was devoted to sneering and snarking at our host, TCJ.com. I started things off by noting that, after two months, the site still sucks. Suat concurred, only moreso. In comments, former TCJ editor Robert Boyd also agreed. Bill Randall, somewhat despite himself, did a guest post offering tcj.com his professional advice as a web marketer.

A number of folks also weighed in from around the blogosphere, including Johanna Draper Carlson, Heidi at the Beat (Update: and Heidi again, even nastier this time) and Sean Colllins.

In coincidental eat-your-hear-out-news, Comics Comics got a lovely redesign and Fantagraphics publisher had a major article analyzing the direct market and book market which he wrote for…the Comics Reporter. (Both links and schadenfreude courtesy of that Sean Collins link above.)

And also coincidentally — while we were all sneering, tcj.com had what was probably it’s best week thus far, at least in terms of content. They posted a brand spanking new knock down drag out Kevin O’Neil interview conducted by Douglas Wolk; a monumental three part history of the Direct Market from the archives courtesy of Michael, Dirk, and Gary; a short but very good essay by Dirk about the shake-up at DC; and a timely essay on the Captain America vs. tea partiers brou-ha-ha, which even energized the comments for a moment there.

On the one hand, this hits a lot of the things I said I’d like to see more of on tcj.com: interviews, a greater presence from editorial; and more creative use of the archives (I don’t know if I said that last one, but I should have.)

On the other hand…it’s when the content is going great guns that you really feel the crappiness of the site design. The direct market essays have already disappeared down the pooper shoot. Sticking the O’Neill interview to the top of the page seems like a good move given the options — but it still looks amateurish, and results in everything else essentially being invisible for the entire week. And there are still those what-the-fuck moments, this week provided by Ken Smith, who, love him or hate him, needs to be moved to his own blog.

Still, improvement is improvement. I feel more hopeful about tcj.com’s future than I did when I wrote my post at the beginning of the week, and I am duly grateful.

Update: Gary Groth responds with a bunch of good news, including a new staffer, plans for a news feed, and plans to do some more redesign. All of which makes me cautiously optimistic that this may be the last edition of tcj.com/fail.

Also on HU

Our new blogger Caroline Small (better known as Caro if you read our comments sections) started out with a bang, reviewing The Bun Field and discussing copyright and free culture.

Richard Cook reviewed the Planet Hulk DVD.

And I did a short review of the comic about copyright, “Bound By Law?”

Also, inspired by all the web design talk, I added a couple of features to the sidebar there, including a search function and a Recent Comments section. Let me know if the changes work for you all, or if there’s something else I should try to put over there. My wordpress skills are pretty lame…but I can always give it a try.

And no download this week…because I’m busy working on my essay for our Ariel Schrag roundtable, which will start tomorrow. We are focusing on her last book, Likewise, and Ariel herself is going to guest post (probably at the end of the week.) Critic Jason Thompson is also going to do a guest post, so there’ll be a lot of activity here. We’re starting tomorrow, so click back.

Utilitarians Everywhere

At Splice Today I explained why indie rockers Untied States can’t get out of the avant garde alive:

Not that Untied States has just one influence. “Not Fences, Mere Masks,” has a few bars lifted from the Beatles to break up the Sonic Youth. “These Dead Birds” sounds like Sonic Youth pretending to be the Beatles until it shifts into just sounding like Sonic Youth. And “Grey Tangerines” sounds like Robyn Hitchcock fronting Sonic Youth.

Other Links

I liked this discussion of the politics of yaoi.

I liked these awesome Japanese gag cartoons.

And though I maligned him earlier in the week, I nonetheless liked this essay on abstract comics by Kent Worcester.

Bound By Law

Since we’ve been talking a little on the blog about copyright law and fair use, I thought I’d post this old review from TCJ that somehow never got posted to the blog.
_______________________

Keith Aoki, James Boyle, and Jennifer Jenkins
Bound By Law?
Duke Center for the Study of the Public Domain
B&W/ 74 pages
$5.95
ISBN: 0974155314

Is it legal to include a copyrighted character — say, the Silver Surfer — in your own comic? Can you mimic someone else’s layout? Can you include someone’s photographed image? Can you quote song lyrics? Use a film still? Draw your own version of a Dali canvas?

Corporations and media conglomerates have taken some pains to make you believe that the answer to all of these questions is “no.” Artists own their work as absolutely as you own your wallet, we are told; if you share files online, or use a quote from J.D. Salinger on your website, that’s theft, and should be punished as such.

As *Bound By Law?* demonstrates, this is nonsense. Written by three intellectual property lawyers, this essay in comics form features copyrighted characters, photographs, song lyrics, and more — all without permission or fear of being sued. These inclusions are possible because, as the writers explain, the purpose of property law is not to protect artists from theft. Instead, copyright law is intended to promote artistic expression. It does this in part by protecting artists’ rights to control their own work. But an equally important function is to *limit* artists’ control. This is the idea of “fair use” — anyone has the right to use anyone else’s art in certain ways and in certain situations without asking for permission. As the authors demonstrate, fair use is vital for artistic creation: artists need the ability to respond to, and be influenced by, one another.

*Bound By Law?* is primarily concerned with the application of copyright law to documentary film, but the points it raises are general, and are presented so clearly and with so many fascinating examples that the material is useful to artists in any medium. I have only one caveat: the book is unbearably ugly. Even for a law professor, Ken Aoki is a lousy illustrator, and the semi-fictional narrative is disastrously clumsy — the whole manages to be both amateur and charmless, like the drawings you might see on some hideous corporate intra-office puff piece. Still, if you can stand the embarrassment of having such an aesthetic disaster around the house, this is a must read. And if you can’t — well, you can always just view it online: http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/digital.html

Bill Randall Provides Free Professional Advice for TCJ.com

I still haven’t reconciled myself to Bill Randall’s departure from this blog…so I’m going to pretend he’s still here by stealing his comment from an earlier thread and making it into a post against his will.

Especially since I occasionally hope that someone form tcj.com reads this site, and I wanted to put this where they’d see it, just in case.

So here’s Bill:

My quips aside, here’s an online marketer’s perspective, since I do that in real life. And I am snowbound & procrastinating, unlike Vancouver.

(My first draft turned into an online business plan. Split-testing, Crazy Egg, conversions. Madness! If you’re interested, drop me a line and I’ll have you selling acai berry in an hour.)

Short version: the design gaffes suck, mainly for framing the launch as TCJ/Fail. Yet they can be fixed… install the Disqus comments manager here, move the RSS feed to the top there. “Continuous muddling” becomes “continuous improvement,” as Toyota would have it.

The big problem?

The “interminable stream of content” favors clicks, while TCJ is (and should be) written for readers.

For clicks, sell ad space. Split articles up over multiple pages. Tell advertisers you get X unique visitors and X^2 pageviews. Put the ads in the hotspots for ads.

For readers, find out what they want, watch what they do. Give them free stuff (essays, TCJ-Date, Krypto-Revolution of the Age with tween trolling & RickRolling in the comments) and they give you time & attention, eventually as a reflex. Everyone reading this has sites you check 5 times a day, and TCJ’s main page is not one of them. HU might be.

Right now TCJ’s design favors clicks over readers. Johanna Draper has pointed out it needs just a few small fixes– the commenting thing is the main one, easily fixed with a plugin like Commentluv or Disqus. Read her post, though, for her accurate take on the mismatch in Gary Groth’s opening shot and the reality of the site’s execution.

One of the biggest things I’ve learned since Noah invited me to HU, since I left, and from hanging out, is the very real degree to which the internet is about conversation. Its whole damn architecture favors conversation. Whoever fosters that will thrive, whoever stomps it out or ignores it will fade. Noah’s very, very good at fostering it. TCJ was when people wrote letters. If it can translate the spirit of the old Blood & Thunder into curated blog comments, six months from now everyone will be reading it first thing in the morning for the spit & gristle.

And buying acai berry from their email list.

And here’s a question: what are some sites to model?

PS
I left out the best thing.

__________

Update: And while we’re on the subject: why the hell is Eric Reynolds writing this for the Comics Reporter rather than TCJ.com? (Link by Sean Collins.

Update 2: Just to be clear; there’s nothing against Eric. It’s a fascinating essay, and Tom’s to be congratulated for getting it and putting it up. But it just seems like gross negligence that tcj.com can’t even get important news features and scoops from Fantagraphics own publishers.

TCJ.com/fail/Update

It’s been more than two months since I wrote this post discussing some of the problems on TCJ.com. I wanted to do another go round — though I think this time there’ll be a good bit less fire and brimstone. In part that’s because there have been improvements to the site. Mostly, though, it’s because my initial disbelief and panic has largely given way to resignation. This is the tcj.com we’re going to have; best to get used to it.

Let’s start with the positive though. The site design has been improved. Clear visual boundaries have been added at the bottom of each post, and the “Read More” links have been made clearer and more attractive. Some (though not all) posts now have brief summaries on the main page rather than just starting in with text, so the posts no longer ends in the middle of a sentence. The Comments links on individual posts are also easier to find. And helpful blue tags (“Review” “News” “Blog” etc.) have been added to each post. All of this may seem like small beer, but the cumulative effect is noticeable. The site still isn’t particularly appealing, and the flashing ads on the side remain distracting and ugly. But it’s no longer a chore just to look at the content.

TCJ has also added a box of links to “Top TCJ” stories in the sidebar. Again, it’s not a huge change, but it’s definitely a good idea — and will hopefully give new users a good introduction to recent content. Individual posts now have social networking links available, which seems like a good move. And the link to the message board is now better marked, which is helpful (though it may be too little too late at this point.) Finally, TCJ is now down with those newfangled social networking sites. (Though one of the first Twitter posts is a Ken Smith link? Why?)

So that’s the good.

The bad is that TCJ’s content has been unsettlingly erratic, to put it mildly. There remains a lot of good writing, from Shaenon Garrity, Matthias Wivel, Tom Crippen, and many others.

But there’s also been David Ritchie posting random tchotchkes, Dave Pifer posting even more random snapshots and
Kent Worcester posting his course syllabus, complete with advice on writing style quoted from Strunk and White. And while these are particularly egregious examples, they aren’t aberrations. You don’t get through a week on tcj.com without at least a post or two that makes you think, “what the fuck?” And not in a good way.

The problem here isn’t that posting random photos or random crap or your syllabus is necessarily wrong. My very strong preference would be not to look at any of those things…but probably someone out there is interested, and what the hell…more power to them. I mean, I keep posting these music downloads even though it’s fairly clear nobody really wants them. But, damn it, it’s my blog, and my readers can l scroll past it once a week if they want to get to the comics criticism.

That’s kind of the thing though; it’s my blog. With tcj, it often feels like there’s nobody at the helm. To pick on poor Dave Pifer again — who is he? Why am I looking at this snapshot he posted, anyway? TCJ.com has managed to get a blog’s randomness without the blog’s personal touch. Thus, for example, R. Fiore’s one-liners come across not as charming eccentricities, but as half-assed fuck-yous by somebody who’s posting because he’s supposed to, rather than because he’s actually committed to being there.

The sense that no one gives a crap is only accentuated by the fact that so many of the supposedly regular bloggers are already AWOL. Where did Anne Ishii go? Eric Millikan, one of the most interesting promised bloggers, barely even got started. There are some constants; Shaenon has been a rock; R.C. Harvey pops up consistently to talk about the comics pages; Rob Clough has been blogging his heart out. But overall…well, on February 10, there were 7 posts, one of which was an HU link, and one of which was Journalista. So you’ve got like 20 writers listed on the side there and effectively five posts. One of which, as it happens, was a review by me.

Meanwhile, on the same day, Tom Spurgeon had 17 posts. Sure, some of them are just individual images…but many of them were substantial. With its layout problems, the one thing tcj.com had going for it was the promise of constant, high-quality content…and yet its team of dozens is getting its ass kicked by one guy. Because that one guy actually cares. And caring, as it turns out, really matters.

I’m being somewhat inconsistent here; in my earlier post I said there was too much content; now I’m saying there’s too little. But, alas, I think the site has managed to have both problems at once. Because there’s no sense of why what’s being posted is being posted, the site feels both overwhelming and insubstantial. The whole thing has an air of despairing malaise — the toilet paper spools and spools, and you can hear the creaking and the distant flush. Who are we talking to? Do they want to hear tit jokes? Do they care what happens at the Hooded Utilitarian, and if so do they really want those damned desperately “controversial” updates every day? The comments sections positively echo; the message board has been rendered almost mute; it’s like everyone’s sitting around with their mouths slowly sagging, waiting for the drool to plop out and ruin their laptop so they can get up and burn their longboxes in despair .

I’ve made suggestions before about what the site should do, and I guess I still have ideas about what I’d change if I were king of the world. But at this point it mostly feels like rearranging the deck chairs, etc. — or, to pick a more poignant metaphor, like adjusting the format of your magazine for the fifth time while the industry goes belly-up. I think tcj.com’s main problem is simple, and perhaps unfixable — there’s no sense of editorial guidance. I have the highest regard for Gary, Michael Dean, Kristy Valenti, and Dirk. Individually and together, they know a ton about the industry, a ton about the internet, and a ton about putting a magazine together. For whatever reason, though, all that talent, knowledge, and dedication has so far added up to a site which seems to be running on autopilot. I mean…why not have themed weeks? Why not have roundtables? Why not have new interviews, for god’s sake — that’s what the Journal is known for, right? (And when you do have an interview why not include a paragraph or two of introduction so that people who don’t already know the interview subjects have some incentive to wade into the four part video?) Why not have Gary dive into that rolodex and get some creators to write pieces? Why not do something to make it seem like the energy that went into so many issues of the journal is being put into tcj.com? Everybody involved knows that a successful magazine needs enthusiasm, heart, and genius if anyone is going to want to read it, but nobody seems to have noticed that a successful website needs the same thing. The cosmetic changes are helpful and appreciated, but until and unless someone decides to treat this site as a personal labor of love, it’s not going to be worth the bytes it’s printed on. And bytes aren’t worth a hell of a lot.

_______________

Update: Suat has an even more brutal take here

Update 2: And Johanna Draper Carlson weighs in.

Just in case anyone thinks that this particular snarkfest brings me joy, I thought I’d mention that reading Suat and Johanna on tcj.com, as well as many of the comments here, makes me feel vaguely sick. I would like tcj.com to succeed anyway, but having tied my fortune to their wagon…well, let’s just say I keep hoping that things aren’t as bad as I think they are. Being continually disabused of that hope by a long line of folks whose opinion I value is not especially pleasant.

Update: And Heidi weighs in.

Caroline Small Joins the Hooded Utilitarian

I’m very pleased to announce that Caroline Small (better known to our comments readers as Caro) is going to be joining the Hooded Utilitarian as a regular blogger. In her day job, Caro runs the Flebus Project, a digital humanities collective that preserves mid-20th-century visual culture. She’ll be starting in with the blogging either this week or next, so say hello when you see her.

Utilitarian Review 2/13/10

On HU

We started out this week with me explaining why R. Fiore is wrong about the Watchmen. A lot of comments, some of them even about Watchmen.

I posted my report on a panel on Gender and Cartooning in Chicago.

Richard reviewed the first volume of Parasyte.

Suat discussed a classic comics adaptation of the Chinese novel Dream of the Red Chamber.

I reviewed Manhwa 100, a catalog of Korean comics.

And this week’s download featured Beethoven, prog, and other things.

Utilitarians Everywhere

In my monthly Comixology column I review Craig Yoe’s recent collection of Joe Shuster’s fetish comics.

So Shuster was into kink, then? Yoe does manage to uncover some evidence that the artist had an eye for chorus girls and the female form. But while that’s interesting, it’s not really the main issue. The point here isn’t that this or that creator had a personal thing for spanking or sadism or masochism. Rather, the point is that as a genre superhero comics simply aren’t that far removed from the kind of pulp fetish porn that Shuster retailed in Nights of Horror. Read through Yoe’s plot synopses of the sixteen plus issues that Shuster illustrated and you’ll get a definite feeling of déjà vu. Damsels in distress, evil hooligans, manly private dicks, and fiendish torture devices — didn’t Shuster illustrate all of this somewhere before? You’ve even got a fair number of men getting shown up just like that milquetoast Clark Kent…though, admittedly, Kent’s humiliation didn’t usually involve a French maid.

On tcj.com I sneered mean-spiritedly at kid’s manga Dinosaur King.

Also on tcj.com, also sneering, my review of the shojo title Book of Friends.

On Metropulse I review Sade’s new album.

And on Splice Today I talked about why John Le Carre’s famous novel, The Spy Who Came In From the Cold, is an idiotic, melodramatic piece of horse dung.

Other Links

I enjoyed this mean-spirited manga review by Erica Friedman.

Shaenon defeats Captain America.

And Matt Yglesias
makes with the Watchmen reference.