Star Trek into Zero Darkness Thirty

Benedict_Cumberbatch_blows_up_the_Gherkin_in_new_Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_poster

J. J. Abrams is not bashful about 9/11. He blew up the Vulcan home world in his 2009 Stark Trek reboot and said afterwards he was aiming for the World Trade Center. The sequel, Stark Trek Into Darkness, literally spells it out with a 9/11 dedication in the ending credits. Not that anyone was going to miss the parallels. An enormous, hijacked spaceship takes a suicidal plunge into a 20th century-looking cityscape and levels a block of skyscrapers? I think we’ve seen this episode before.

I admit I was startled, teetering on repulsed, to see such extreme 9/11 imagery employed for mere box office fun.  And the movie really is fun. Osama Bin Laden is played by Stark Trek uber-villain Khan, who’s played by—no, not the Corinthian leather guy in the white, Fantasy Island suit, but Benedict Cumberbatch, who BBC fans already adore as their most recent Sherlock (in addition to commandeering a starship, Benedict dethroned Basil Rathbone for most flamboyantly named Holmes actor).

Cumberbatch also plays Adolf Hitler. In Star Trek mythology, Khan is the abortive product of the so-called Eugenics Wars of the 1990s. Here on our Earth, we call that World War II. The Nazis were exterminating unfit races in the service of a cleaner, ubermensch-friendly gene pool. Cumberbatch’s Khan even boasts a strain of Dalek (a latent BBC gene presumably) and so wants to expand his extermination program to a universal scale.

I’ve written elsewhere (“Heirs of Slytherin the Virginia State House”) how eugenics keeps providing Hollywood with 21st century supervillains, including most recently Voldemort, Magneto, Red Skull, and the Lizard. In my theater, Khan was scheming a room over from Iron Man 3, where evil genius Aldrich Killian upgrades himself and his minions into the “new iteration of human evolution.” But Abrams is less interested in the war of the fittest than the War on Terror.

It turns out our C.I.A. drones are fueled, literally, by more of those evil supermen. The military brass want Kirk to fire them at a targeted terrorist. No trial, no jury, just a remote control execution, what the U.S. authorizes daily in the Middle East.  Obviously Spock objects. And soon we learn a rogue admiral is undermining the very principles that America—I mean, the Federation—was founded on.

The Enterprise was always a Cold War vehicle, so there’s some whiplash in the political retooling. The admiral is Peter Frederick Weller, reprising his equally treasonous role from season five of 24 (a franchise Fox is planning to reboot too). Weller wants to safeguard us against wars to come, but the real threat is the lure of vengeance. Even a liberal-blooded half-Vulcan can long to beat the murderer of his best friend into uber-pulp. But that won’t bring him back to life. Only the DNA-fit blood of a still-living superman can do that. So listen to your girlfriend, and keep your phasers on stun.

Despite the striking plot parallels, I doubt Star Trek Into Darkness is going to stir the same waters as Zero Dark Thirty. Which is too bad. More people have already seen it. Science fiction is an especially apt vehicle for allegory—though also one easily ignored (I’m still astonished how season 3 of Battlestar Galactica, an overt representation of the U.S. occupation of Iraq told from the sympathetic POV of human suicide bombers against their literally inhuman oppressors, all but escaped political analysis). American consumers prefer their entertainment entertaining, not thought-provoking. A fact Mr. Abrams fully embraces. His Star Treks are satisfying romps, spiced with just enough current events to create a pleasing patina of relevance.

The reboot of Khan is first and foremost a reboot of Khan. It even prompted my wife and son and I to look up the original episode on Hulu. For all its talk of selective breeding, the 1967 “Space Seed” is, I was surprised to find, anything but eugenically correct. Ricardo Montalbán is Mexican, a mixed ethnicity any self-respecting eugenicists would have stamped as unfit. And he plays an Indian, the warlord of a continent far far below the standards of Aryan supremacy. Eugenicists wanted to weed out not just the East, but Eastern Europe, those migrating degenerates endangering the genes that produce the likes of, say, Benedict Cumberbatch.

I don’t object to Gene Roddenberry scrambling the history books, not any more than I do Mr. Cumberbatch finding lucrative employment (Sherlock Holmes was exterminated after The Hobbit abducted his Watson, Martin Freeman). He and Zachary Quinot’s Spock (remember his villainous days on Heroes?) are ideal opponents, two super-muscled brainiacs ready to kill each other for their loved ones. Nimoy’s Spock makes a cameo too (Abrams, thankfully, does not re-explain the not-quite-a-reboot reboot premise), reminding us that noble principles (I vow never to interfere with your timeline) are plot fodder when it’s William Shatner’s doppelganger on the line.

So, yes, vanquish the supermen of evils past, put the pesky military in its Constitutional place, and let’s get this five-year mission underway. To boldly go (fifty years later, and we’re still splitting that damn infinitive) where we apparently can’t help ourselves from going again and again and again.

Utilitarian Review 5/25/13

News

Last week in Paris, disparate Utilitarians united.

-1

That’s Sean Michael Robinson and Alex Buchet, no doubt discussing comics.

Along those lines; I’m going to be in San Francisco in a couple weeks; if any Utilitarian folks live out that way, let me know….
 
On HU

Featured Archive Post: Deb Aoki with a fan letter to Jaime Hernandez.

Vom Marlowe reviews Elementary.

Me on the incompetent venality of Bluewater’s Oprah bio comic.

Jog on the nameless assistants who worked on Misturu Adachi’s Cross Game.

I interview Bee Ridgway on her novel The River of No Return, history, romance, genre, queerness, and more.

Michael Arthur on Madoka Magica, and young girls who suffer for us all.

Chris Gavaler on the retconning of dinosaurs, superheroes, and Mormons.

Richard Cook reviews the film Les Miserables.

Me on how country music has gotten more racist since Jimmie Rodgers’ day.
 
Utilitarians Everywhere

At the Atlantic I wrote about:

how the gender-role revolution didn’t start with millenials.

Wonder Woman, Cimorene, and more princesses for everybody.

the non-democratic closing of Chicago’s public schools

At Splice I wrote about how Rahm and Obama learned to be dictators in Chicago.

&nbsp
Other Links

Nanette Fondas on how parents read more to their daughters than to their sons.

Jessica Hopper from a bit back on Kid Sister.

How Country Music Got More Racist

This first appeared on Splice Today.
___________

Brad Paisley’s new song “Accidental Racist” is a sodden, self-pitying slog. Over surging, hookless country radio gush, Paisley’s anonymous vocals blandly wail about how he’s caught between southern pride and southern blame because the folks at the Starbucks don’t appreciate his Confederate flag T-shirt.  “I’m a white man/living in the Southland/just like you I’m more than what you see/I’m proud of where I’m from/but not everything I’ve done,” he declaims, then mumbles about how Reconstruction was bad (for who, exactly?) and how we can’t rewrite history so we might as well celebrate the symbols of slavery?  Then LL Cool J comes on and starts to bargain: “If you don’t judge my gold chains/I’ll forget the iron chains.” Hey, if you don’t judge my big schnozz, I’ll forget the Holocaust.  Can’t we all just get along?

Pretty much everybody has already weighed in on what a piece of shit this song is. But I think to really appreciate its badness fully, it might be helpful to listen to an earlier country music take on race.

 

That’s Jimmie Rodgers, the father of country music, and the genre’s first major star, with Blue Yodel #9 from 1930. The piano player is Lil Hardin; the trumpeter is her husband, Louis Armstrong.

Rodgers doesn’t mention the Confederacy or race. Still, with Louis Armstrong standing beside him, the opening lyrics seem fairly pointed:

Standing on the corner, I didn’t mean no harm

Along came the police, he took me by the arm

It was down in Memphis, corner of Beale and Maine

He said, big boy, you’ll have to tell me your name,

I said, you’ll find my name on the tail of my shirt,

I’m a Tennessee hustler, I don’t have to work.

In “Accidental Racist,” Paisley sings ” I try to put myself in your shoes and that’s a good place to begin/it ain’t like I can walk a mile in someone else’s skin”  — a couplet that seems half lament and half excuse.  Rodgers, on the other hand, and with much less fuss, demonstrates that hillbillies and black folk have plenty of common ground. A half century before hip hop, this is, after all, a song about police harassment.  Rodgers could be speaking for a young Louis Armstrong, out there on the streets of Memphis — though Armstrong didn’t usually yodel.

Armstrong gets to speak for himself, too — and, to no one’s surprise, his trumpet is considerably more eloquent than LL Cool J’s lyrics. The song, in fact, is a conversation, with Rodgers throwing out a line and Armstrong’s horn answering with its mix of jaunty assurance and melancholy. The two performers couldn’t be much more simpatico; both are completely comfortable with the blues and the raggy swing of Hardin’s piano accompaniment.

“Accidental Racist” is an ostentatious declaration of difference and tolerance; you’ve got your traditions, I’ve got mine, but we can still tolerate each other. Rodgers and Armstrong, though, aren’t tolerating each other’s differences, because they aren’t that different. Their musical traditions and influences, and even, the song suggests, their life experiences are congruent — almost as if they come from the same country.

That country is not the one that flies the Confederate flag.  Paisley builds his marginal Southern identity on the symbols of slavery, identifying with a tradition of oppression. Rodgers builds his on the experience of being a hobo and a drifter on the butt end of the law. Paisley declares his Southern individuality by perpetuating completely anonymous country radio dreck. Rodgers declares his by demonstrating his links with the quintessentially Southern music of Memphis. “Accidental Racist” sees the south as white and the north as black; Rodgers and Armstrong, though, know their home, and their music, is integrated.

We tend to think about race relations in terms of progress. Once, we were benighted, but slowly we have crawled into the light.  And it’s certainly true that things have gotten better in some ways since 1930; we’ve gotten rid of Jim Crow, we’ve elected a black President.  But Paisley’s crappy track is a reminder that later isn’t always better. Once upon a time, there was room for a rural white identity which defined itself not in opposition to, but in continuity with, the black experience. Paisley’s track is a depressing reminder of how thoroughly Lynyrd Skynrd has replaced Jimmie Rodgers for contemporary country — and of how thoroughly that is a change for the worse.
 

large_rsz_brad-paisley-accidental-racist

The Miserables

Les-miserables-movie-poster1

Les Miserables
Directed by Tom Hooper

I read Les Miserables during a study abroad program in Paris, but I had never seen the musical before watching the 2012 film a few weeks ago. The experience was an interesting one, mostly because I would have never believed Victor Hugo’s novel to be ideal for adaptation, and especially not into a musical. There are countless asides, mini-treatises, and lengthy tangents, like the chapter devoted to the Battle of Waterloo. The musical throws all of that out and focuses on the plot and the central characters.

The end result is a mixed bag. Part of me is happy that I didn’t have to sit through the musical riff of Victor Hugo describing the sewers of Paris. On the other hand, removing all those asides made the musical feel less rooted, less historical, and above all less French. The novel is about Fantine and Marius and Jean Valjean obviously, but it’s also about French history, geography, revolutions, Catholicism, and Hugo’s efforts to bind it all together.  The musical is draped in the tricolor, and the religious and revolutionary themes are still there, but they felt cursory and disconnected in comparison to the book. And when there’s nothing to distract you from the main plot, it’s hard to ignore the many contrivances, or Hugo’s less than progressive attitude towards women.

This particular version of Les Miserables has its own share of problems. Director Tom Hooper was way too fond of close-ups, the editing was a mess during the group songs, and the actors were hit or miss in their musical performances. But for all my complaints, I found it to be a reasonably enjoyable way to fill some time. It helped that I saw it with someone who’s very enthusiastic about the musical, and I’ll admit that several of the songs are catchy. And since I’ve never seen (and still haven’t seen) the musical, my expectations were about as low as can be.

What follows are my thoughts on the singer/actors:

Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean: I always imagined Jean Valjean as a big, stocky man, so Hugh Jackman would not have been my first choice for the role. But he’s a decent singer (if a bit too much warbling), and his acting performance was solid. And I’ll admit there’s something inherently awesome in seeing Wolverine in a musical.

Anne Hathaway as Fantine: Hathaway received a lot of praise (and an Oscar) for her performance.  As much as I would like to be the contrarian, most of the praise is deserved. As Fantine, Hathaway had one of the most demanding songs, “I Dreamed a Dream.” It requires a powerful voice, and Hathaway’s version is rather weak when you listen to it as a single. Having now heard several other singers tackle it (including Susan Boyle), I wouldn’t rank Hathaway anywhere near the top. But within the context of the film, her version is excellent. The song occurs right after Fantine’s first night as a prostitute. Hathaway’s voice breaks, she fails to hit the right notes, yet the song feels perfect in the moment. A more polished, “ready for the album” version would have actually been strange and discordant. So by emphasizing Fantine’s despair and downplaying the show-stopper nature of “I Dreamed a Dream,” Hathaway actually made the most of her singing limitations.

Russell Crowe as Inspector Javert: Crowe had the same problem as Anne Hathaway. He has a VERY limited range as a singer but his role includes the song “Stars,” which requires a broad range and a booming voice. And Crowe just blows it. You can tell he’s trying his hardest, but he’s horribly outmatched by the song and what’s required of him. Crowe’s not much better in the rest of the movie, but at least he only has to “sing-talk” his lines.  Tom Hooper probably cast Crowe because he’s a big star and headlines a rock band called The Ordinary Fear of God.  After listening to a few of their singles (each one more horrible than the last),  I’m left with only one conclusion: Hooper must be a fan of actors with vanity bands. Maybe his next movie will have Keanu Reeves. Or Kevin Bacon!

Amanda Seyfried as Cossette: Cossette is a thankless role. She has nothing to do and is barely even in the movie. The men in her life obsess over her, but the audience is never given any reason to care. I’d feel sorry for Seyfried, but she doesn’t help matters. Seyfried seems to think that she can make up for the paucity in her role by singing every line at the highest register, so we’ll remember the character after our ears stop ringing. She butchers her duet with Marius (Eddie Redmayne) and is generally unpleasant to hear.

Samantha Barks as Eponine: Pretty much steals the show. She’s one of the best singers in the cast and completely nails her big number, “On My Own.” To be fair, Barks is a ringer, having already played Eponine on the stage. And Eponine is among the most complex and sympathetic characters in Les Miserables, despite being a side character who gets passed over for the irresistible Cossette. But there is an odd problem with the casting. Victor Hugo described Eponine as gaunt and boyish, a product of poverty and malnutrition.  It’s easy to understand why Marius would be oblivious to her affections. But Samantha Barks isn’t gaunt; she’s a knockout. And that means it’s hard to believe that Marius, or any straight man with working eyes, would be indifferent to her flirting. Suspension of disbelief only goes so far.

Sacha Baron Cohen as M. Thenardier: I understand why Sacha Baron Cohen was cast. He’s goofy looking, and the Thenardiers are the comic relief. What I don’t get is why Sacha Baron Cohen has a mock-French accent in the first half of the movie and a bad Cockney accent in the second half. I’ve been told that some stage versions of Thenardier use the mock-French accent, so maybe Cohen is simply following the example set by other performers. But it isn’t funny, partly because it doesn’t make sense that only one character sounds vaguely French while everyone else speaks with an English accent. Or maybe I don’t think it’s funny because I don’t think Sacha Baron Cohen is particularly funny.

Eddie Redmayne as Marius: quite good in his performance. The character of Marius annoys the hell out of me, but Redmayne does a great job and is a fantastic singer.

Dinosaurs vs. Superheroes vs. Mormons

lost_world

The past is a work-in-progress.

Look at dinosaurs. When I was kid, brontosaurus was a lethargic lizard so obese it wallowed in swamps to support its weight. Read Lost World—Conan Doyle’s, not Michael Crichton’s—and T Rex is an enormous bullfrog. Nowadays sauropods are lithe warm-bloods with whip-action tails, and the former King of the Dinosaurs is a queen of scavengers.

It’s sad to see the old guys go, but a revisable history is a good thing. It’s evolution in action. Old paradigms die out as newer, fitter interpretations replace them. And no one knows that better than the comic book industry. Back in the early 80s, DC was so bogged down in lost worlds—Earth 2, Earth 32, Earth 387, Earths A, B, C and C-, Earth Prime, Earth X, Earth Quality—their writers couldn’t move under the weight of the multiverse. Something had to give.

crisis-1

Enter Crisis on Infinite Earth, king of all scavengers. The 1985-6 maxi-series chomped through decades of DC history, swallowing the Golden, Silver, and Bronze Ages and spitting them back out as one shiny new Earth called, well, New Earth.

It was more than just a reboot. DC had already done that in the late 50s, evolving its old guys into new costumes and origins. But their new New Earth arrived with a whole history. Literally. I bought a copy from my college comics shop. Suddenly I was being told that characters I’d never heard of—the Question, Captain Atom, Peacemaker, Blue Beetle—had always been around, paling with the usual Justice Leaguers.

I thought: Captain who?

250px-Captain_Atom_01

The answer was simple. He and his friends were the scavenged imports from Charlton Comics, DC’s latest business acquisition. But instead of setting the new roster up on their own multiverse planet—Earth Charlton—they wove them in post-Crisis. And readers just had to swallow them.

And keep swallowing. Because Crisis was just a gateway drug. Soon DC was rewriting its past every decade or so, constantly reimagining character histories with forward-looking updates to satisfy new fans. But to get the old high—that euphoric sales boost—the dose kept climbing. So for their 2012 re-write, the newest of the New Earths restarted its titles on the rock bottom foundation of “No.1.” But not its history. That’s still a shifting swamp.

Maybe it’s the influence of comic books on larger culture trends, or maybe comics make explicit a process that might otherwise go less noticed, but superhero history is not the only history in crisis.

After a landslide election in Japan last December, New York Times commentator Paul Krugman wrote: “In Japan governments come and governments go, but nothing ever seems to change — indeed, Shinzo Abe, the new prime minister, has had the job before, and his party’s victory was widely seen as the return of the ‘dinosaurs’ who misruled the country for decades.”

But this time the dinosaur king returns with a revisionist pen. Prime Minister Abe wants to replace Japan’s 1995 apology for the suffering it caused in Asia during World War II with a “forward-looking statement that is appropriate for the 21st century.”

Birthright01cover

That’s the assignment DC gave Mark Waid in 2002: “reimagining Superman for the 21st century.” But the secret mission behind Superman: Birthright was to align DC’s comic book continuity with the popular TV show Smallville. The same way Abe wants to align his nation’s apology—issued by a Socialist Party Prime Minster—with his newly repopularized brand of hawkish conservativism.

When Abe was Prime Minster in 2006, he revised an education law to “restore patriotism” in schools. That’s the same year China started writing Mao out of their own school texts. The Marxist template that dominated Chinese history since the 50s had grown too obese to support—and, frankly, a little embarrassing. Like Superman’s pet super-monkey from the 50s. Better if he’d never been there in the first place. Mao who?

U.S. textbooks are no different. Look at Texas. In 2009, their state board approved a science curriculum championed by a chair who said “evolution is hooey.” Their 2010 Social Studies guidelines were guided by a board-appointed consultant who opposed income taxes because they violate Scriptures. Every state in the country fights some version of these battles, with every subject in perpetual flux. Curricula keep evolving. They always have. Go back to the 30s, and most Biology and Social Studies textbooks preached eugenics, a fact conveniently missing from, say, my kids’ middle school and high school history books.

And, what the hell, Scriptures are revisable too. In March, the Mormon Church issued a new and improved edition of its book of Doctrine and Covenants. Turns out the ban on black priests wasn’t the will of God but a human misstep. Ditto for multiple wives, since monogamy is now God’s standard for marriage. It’s not exactly a reboot (Bingham who?), but certainly a refresh. The Mormon Church, like DC, is aligning itself with the 21st century. You could say it’s just another business decision, a way of grounding a fan base, but I wish the Catholic Church would revise a few scriptures too. Polygamy and racism aren’t the only dinosaurs that need to die out.

“What we’re seeing with these changes,” according to religion professor Terryl Givens, “is the privileging of history over theology. It’s a kind of acknowledgement that the Mormon Church is rooted in a past that is replete with historical claims.”

That means multiple and contradictory claims, a bog of them. Comic books are rooted in the same muck, but since all those histories are overtly make-believe, only fans feel it when the foundation shifts. But that’s useful training. Out here on the non-spandex-wearing Earth, we have pastquakes all the time. Our multiverse is pocked with lost worlds.

If we’re going to keep rebooting, we should be as upfront about it as DC and the Mormon Church. Change what you like, but don’t pretend you’re getting away with anything. And don’t forget the next breed of writers is waiting behind you, their whip-action pens uncapped.

“That Damn Mob of Scribbling Women!” — An Interview With Bee Ridgway

imageBee Ridgway is the author of The River of No Return, a romance/fantasy/time-travel/historical fiction adventure hybrid which has gotten lovely reviews in places like The Washington Post.

Bee Ridgeway also happens to be the pen name of Bethany Schneider, an English professor at Bryn Mawr and an old, old friend of mine from way back when we were both in creative writing courses at Oberlin. Bethany agreed to do an interview with me about her book and genre and romance and queerness and history and whatever else crossed our minds.
___________

Noah Berlatsky: You’ve said that this book, which is a time-travel adventure romance, is inspired in part by 18th/19th century adventure narratives, which you said had a lot of genre mixing. Could you talk about what books you’re or stories you’re thinking about specifically?

Bee Ridgeway: Genre is, of course, historical – what we think of as the genres haven’t always existed. Romance, mystery, etc. And when you look back at the invention of genres, you’re looking at moments where literature has been policed, where rules have been enforced. Often these are about who gets to write and read what. So one famous moment is when Hawthorne gets really mad about women readers and writers who are cornering the market in the mid 19th century in America. He has a hissy fit about it and he says something like, “oh that damn mob of scribbling women!” He is condemning women’s reading and writing practices as a kind of fictional style that he wants to distinguish from his own. And so he throws down a gauntlet in the history of English literature, one that helps invent and enforce the idea of “women’s fiction” as a genre.

N: So was Hawthorne complaining about people like the Brontes?

B: He’s complaining about what’s happening in American literature. He’s complaining about people like Harriet Beecher Stowe. American literature is busting at the seams at that point in the 19th century – it’s a very exciting time. He wants more readers, he wants more money – which is fair enough. And don’t get me wrong – Hawthorne is amazing. But it’s not so cool to blame women – for whom writing was one of the only ways they could make respectable money. But when I say that I learned about genre from fiction I teach in the 18th and 19th century, I mean that you can really see in those novels – Hawthorne’s and Stowe’s and all of them – the tangled roots of what for us is a much more divided world of literature. We think we really know what a romance novel is. But that’s only because of the history of publishing and because of how that category has been policed. Back in the day, it’s not so much that novelists were genre mixing, as that they were writing out of a much more fluid set of possibilities. So Hawthorne’s writing romance, he’s writing sentiment. It was much less obvious what’s verboten for the so-called “literary.” They were fighting over what was great literature and what wasn’t. And one of the big battlegrounds they were fighting over was gender. I think it’s actually all much more firmly gendered now. More restrictive.

When you go back to those novels, what’s curious is that from a distance they look a lot more alike to us than they did to readers back them. Crazy-assed shit happens in Hawthorne, and crazy-assed shit happens in E.D.E.N. Southworth – but teaching them side by side, you’re pitting what history has deemed “high” against what it has deemed “low.”

N: Who is E.D.E.N. Southworth? I don’t even know who that is?

B: Oh, E.D.E.N. Southworth, she is amazing. You should read her. She wrote this novel called The Hidden Hand and it was the Harry Potter of its day. It was a blockbuster beyond all blockbusters. People in France were naming their children after Capitola, its main character. It’s a completely balls-out adventure, it’s insane. And awesome, and terrible. The Hidden Hand is a really good example of how mixed up genre could be — it has a love story, it has a war story, it has a transgender heroine, it has horrifying racist caricatures, it has sentiment, it has Gothic madwomen locked up in attics, it has homoeroticism dripping from every page, it has everything. It’s all tossed in there together. You would find it hard today to say which genre it belongs to. And I think publishing right now is dealing with the fact that people want that, they don’t want to have these completely separated genres. They’re trying to undo some of the policing they’ve done across the last century.

N: Yeah, one of the things about genres it seems like is that genres always mean genre mixing. Because I know a lot of romance novels today are mysteries. People love to have both. Like Janet Evanovich.

B: Sure. And they always have been, but only in small doses. Agatha Christie always has a romance in her novels, but it’s probably five sentences worth of the prose. Because there was a real desire on the part of publishing to understand the audience and divide and conquer it.

N: Right.

So, I’ve talked to you before a bit about the fact that the academy can be
leery of romance novels, or unsupportive of scholarship about romance
novels. I’m wondering if you might talk about that a little? How did
your academic interests and position play into writing the book, or
alternately how did they hinder writing the book? And was the
academic/romance tension part of the reason you’ve chosen to write
under a pseudonym?

B: The pseudonym is kind of hard to understand for me too. I had just finished up a really intense writing project – I was writing an essay on Abraham Lincoln and the Black Hawk War that had been very difficult to write, and led me down various wormholes. I really enjoy my academic writing and I think I’m good at it. I like to build these very complicated readings where everything has to bind together for it to work. Which is obviously how everybody does it, but it’s a very acrobatic writing style — you have to keep everything balanced, and the Lincoln piece left me really exhausted. I found myself wanting to do something completely different, to get my mojo back. What I didn’t know was that I had this huge adventure novel trapped in there, just waiting to come out. I didn’t understand that about myself.

N: Have you written fiction since college?

B: I hadn’t done it since. So it had been 20 years.

Academia is a really privileged world. I’m so lucky to have a job where I have tenure and I teach a relatively light teaching load, and I teach what I want to teach — I teach directly out of my research, it’s amazing. Bryn Mawr is great that way, wonderful to teach there. It’s incredibly generous and upholding of an intellectual life. But there’s no doubt that academia polices the boundaries, it’s about policing the boundaries of what is culturally acceptable. So when I started writing this novel I opened a weird trapdoor in my head and fell into it. It was only when I’d finished the first draft and gotten an agent that I really started thinking that I was going to have to account for what I had done, and that it was going to change my academic life.

N: People have written scholarly book about romance fiction, right?

B: Yes, but there’s a difference between writing a scholarly book about romance fiction and writing the fiction itself. Anything can come under the lens of the scholar and be halfway acceptable as an object of study. But writing the books . . . that’s a bit different. There’s the issue of getting respect from the academy, but more importantly for me is the question of where the two types of writing come from, internally. Because the experience of being a critic distances you from the pleasures of creating the thing that you study. I love criticism, I love academic writing and thinking. This isn’t some sort of salvation narrative where I’m like “oh, now I get to do the thing I love and not the thing I hate.” Not at all. But they are very, very different. So the first thing I did was I wrote the pseudonym before I wrote the first sentence, and then I wrote the novel really quickly, and I sent it to an agent, and her first question was “Tell me about the pseudonym.” And I said, “Well, I don’t really know. It was the first thing I wrote …” And she said, “Well if you did that, then you needed the pseudonym to write the book.” Apparently that’s really common. It’s not about shame, it’s not about trying to hide anything, it’s just that I needed a different personality for writing the book. A personality, a self, that was different than my academic self.

N: I know that your scholarly writing is focused in part on queer
issues. There’s a mention of a lesbian relationship in passing, if I
remember right, but for the most part, the book is focused on the
heterosexual romance between Nick and Julia. Still…the book is also
about people who discover that despite appearing normal, they’re
different than those around them — and with Julia especially, much of
the action in her plotline involves her concealing her difference from
her threatening relations. So I guess the question is — were you
thinking in part of the romance as in some ways a queer romance? And
if so, why not just have a queer romance at the center of the novel,
rather than a displaced one?

B: The novel is a straight romance novel. So the simple answer to that question is, why shouldn’t it be that? Because I’m gay? Your homosexuals have written your straight romances for thousands of years. Maybe we’re better at it than straight people! (laughs)

But to answer you seriously, yes, the novel is enormously influenced by my scholarship – not just the gender scholarship, but all of it. It’s all in there, just dressed up in fancy clothes and having fun. The thing that’s most influenced in the novel by gender and sexuality studies, is actually the concepts of time and emotion. There’s been this movement in queer studies away from an identitarian model of who’s having sex with whom, and more towards the ways in which queer relations mess with forward-moving teleologies. The traditional family produces time as a progressive – “straight” – narrative, but queer theory has done a lot of work to torque our understanding of temporality. A lot of my thinking about the movement through time and emotion comes out of queer affect studies. I’m thinking of books like Beth Freeman’s Time Binds and Jack Halberstam’s In a Queer Time and Place.

N: Does Heather Love talk about that as well?

B: Yeah, she blurbs the book, actually! Her book Feeling Backward is very important to me…I mean, I make a lot of jokes about “feeling backward” in the book – specially for her!

N: Could you just state quickly what her thesis is?

B: That book is about how so much of queer studies has been about a drive towards us feeling better; like the “It Gets Better” campaign, for example. And Heather’s saying instead of “moving forward,” there might be a lot to say for feeling backward — and of course that’s a play on both feeling backward in time and feeling backwardly, or feeling wrong and feeling bad. It’s a beautiful book.

N: I was wondering if there’s something campy about romance novels.

B: (laughs) It’s certainly true that romance-reading – or my romance-reading, anyway – is a secret pleasure, a perverse joy, which lends it a campy quality. And the community of romance readers is built around the idea that you’ll seek out your pleasure no matter what. That you will even overlook whether a book is good or bad. I mean, obviously everyone loves a really well-written romance novel. And like in any other literary form, some are better than others. But because you love it, because you love the story, you will search far and wide for it. It’s like any other fan culture. And I love that about it. I love people’s passion for it.

N: So it’s fan culture as queer culture, or as an alternate queer culture, arguably.

B: Sure. And also, you know, there’s a really interesting essay by Jayne Anne Krentz – it’s an introduction to an anthology called Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women – it’s an essay about romance readers, and she says that a lot of women come to the romance genre when they hit the glass ceiling. They’re professional women – and they hit or recognize the limits of what they will be allowed to achieve, and that’s when they start reading romance. There’s a stereotype of the romance reader as a woman without professional aspirations who sits at home reading. But the truth is that a lot of people, across a huge spectrum of readership, men and women, read romance. And Krentz was saying it’s often a kind of feminist awakening which brings women to romance. This is something that’s really misunderstood among people who don’t read romance or who revile it. But the romance genre imagines an alternate universe of relations between men and women that are tender and are, on some level, equitable. Romance is speculative feminist fiction.

N: Do you feel that that was the case…I mean it sounds like you were at a moment of professional…

B: Yes, absolutely. My romance novel reading began in just exactly such a moment in graduate school, where I was in a class that was really complicated and bad in a lot of ways, and everyone in the class was sort of losing their minds, and I was thinking, why am I in this profession, what is this choice I have made? I was feeling really stuck. And a friend of mine brought over a copy of a Georgette Heyer novel, who I had never heard of before, and I read it and I was instantly hooked. It was completely weird, because I’m a 19th century Americanist with a focus in Native American studies, and here I was suddenly obsessed with Regency Romance.

But again, this is why your question has to be, not “why didn’t you put a gay couple in your book?” but rather, “what is your sideways pleasure in these stories that are patently not about you?” I mean, you could say, “I’m not a time traveler and I don’t live in the 19th century” — these kinds of affiliations between reader and genre are not always obvious….

N: Yeah, I think that’s really interesting. The question of why stories about lesbians are so appealing to straight men. Cross identification is pretty interesting, to me.

B: It’s so against the notion that memoir is the only way to talk about the self. When we start asking what are our pleasures in romance, and how they map back onto the way we live our lives, you’re always going to be looking in a bit of a funhouse mirror. I think that’s really cool, and it brings us back again to the question of camp or drag. These kinds of performances free us. Why would a woman who feels stuck professionally feel a balm from reading historical romances about women who don’t even have to have professions? There are ways of thinking about that as something other than a retrograde wish to not have to work.

N: I mean, a wish to not work seems very reasonable to me.

B: (laughs) Yeah.

N: Not retrograde at all.

So obviously you’ve been talking about being a fan of Regency romances and historical romances. So I’m curious; why not just write a historical romance rather than a time travel novel? And how does being self-reflective about that affect the novel?

B: I guess the simple answer is that it was always what the story wanted to be about. The first scene that came to me was about this man who is dislocated in time, and how he negotiates that. The character just arrived in my head with his problem fully developed. But I think time-travel interests me in part because I am a scholar of 18th and 19th century literature. My job is to inveigle students into reading it and finding it interesting. I’m pretty good at it. And I really enjoy teaching students about this moment in history because I’m asking students to think about the emotional history of their national feeling. And to inhabit it in a self-conscious way, stories that are trying to make you feel emotional. The sentimental tradition is all about trying to make you cry. So how do you get a bunch of 21st century young women (I teach at a women’s college) to go back to the literature of 1850’s young women and feel it?

Of course you can’t actually do that, thank God — it would be a little disturbing if you could. You know, one book I teach is…I teach a class called “American Girl,” and I teach the novel Little Women. And that book really pisses me off, it’s such a pain in the ass. But it is also a really good book. It’s really well built. And it makes students have feelings that aren’t necessarily the ones Alcott wanted them to have, but they still stir the emotions — the hooks are still there.

N: My mom says…I haven’t read it…but my Mom says, “Beth always dies, and I always cry.”

B: I challenge you to read it and not cry when Beth dies.

N: I’m easy to make cry.

B: Alcott really is good at making you cry.

But I guess what I’m saying is that I orchestrate the kind of time travel I describe in the book all the time. Of using feeling to reach out and touch the past, to get a sense of the weirdness of both the disjunction between now and then, and also the connective tissue between now and then. And because I’m teaching fiction, I think it would be disingenuous of me to deny that it’s an affective connection. Knowing the past is not just all about rational, historical knowledge.

One thing I did in the text that I thought was kind of cool is that it’s absolutely stuffed to the gills with crazy citations of other literature. Some of them are really obvious, like when people are quoting stuff. Most of them are obscure, or pretty buried and I don’t particularly even want readers to notice them. But it’s just a fun way to try to build in echoes of the past. To make textural to the reading experience what I was trying to think about in terms of time travel and reading.

N: So when you’re talking in the book about how people travel backwards on feeling, it’s something of a meta…it’s a description of the readers’ experience of the book to some degree.

B: Yeah, it definitely comes out of my experience of reading and of teaching literature that’s several hundred years old. And I also think that it’s about why do we want to read books from the past if we do want to read them, and why do we consistently reinvent them for the present. And if you’re going to consistently reinvent them for the present, what is your duty to the past in doing that?

So my characters are all torn up about ethical relations to now and then, and they change depending on which era they’re in. And it’s a kind of meta-commentary on reading.

N: Nick, who’s the main character, when he’s in the 21st century he’s a 21st century guy, sleeping around and making cheeses. But when he goes back to the past he becomes more like himself, or like he used to be — he’s arrogant and sexist and classist. You’re talking about a meta-commentary on the experience of reading, but it’s also talking about how people are of their time and don’t have a choice about the matter in some ways. Is that what you’re getting at?

B: Well, I didn’t want Nick to be fully in control of things. I wanted him to be a slightly lazy kind of character. He wants to think of himself as a nice guy, and he is a nice guy. He’s not particularly intellectual about his place in time. He has to go to future school to learn how to be a contemporary dude. Which he does, and he does it fairly well. Then when he returns to his old era he doesn’t expect to be blindsided by the old emotions. But he is blindsided; he finds those emotions are waiting for him as if he had just taken his hat off. And he doesn’t know how to deal with that. He doesn’t know what that means about selfhood.

Basically I really want this novel series (I’m thinking it’s going to be 3 or 4 novels long) to be ultimately a kind of story of collectivity vs. individuality. So when Nick moves about in time, it’s his idea that he’s a sovereign self that comes under attack. It’s as if the feelings and emotions of the era are in the air he breathes. And they’re very contingent on his race privilege and his class privilege; he has certain feelings that uphold who he is in his moment. And I think it’s partly a commentary on his character that he’s not more resistant to it. But I also didn’t want him to come back as some sort of enlightened subject from the future. I really didn’t want to say, oh, in the 21st century we know what’s up and back then they were benighted and ignorant. I wanted it to be more a portrait of two different ways of being that are in conversation, that one mode of being grew into the other across several generations. It’s definitely not a progress narrative.

Baseball as a Metaphor for Certain Industrial Necessities: A Speculative Comment

An earlier version of this essay was posted on May 26, 2011, at The Panelists, a now-defunct group website, at the invitation of Derik Badman. It was conceived as part of a multi-site commentary project, the “Manga Moveable Feast,” devoted at that time to the baseball series Cross Game, created by Mitsuru Adachi.

A million thanks to Andrew White for his invaluable technical assistance.

***

Say there was a manga studio.

CrossStudio

Writer-on-manga Ryan Holmberg recently identified Shinji Nagashima — albeit by the artist’s own assertion — as the first mangaka to utilize the Production (“Pro”) moniker to denote the operation of a studio: Musashino Manga Production, founded in the late ’50s. Nagashima had previously served as an assistant to postwar comics godhead Osamu Tezuka, and would subsequently work for Golgo 13 creator Takao Saito at his Saito Production, the early years of which Holmberg depicts as a transition from the on-page interaction of several artists retaining some individuality of line to the smoothed-out servitude of multitudinous studio hands pursuing a uniform visual goal. Comparisons to modern corporate function were present and pertinent, though Saito was also wont to invoke the filmmaking process, with himself as director – indeed, Holmberg cites Tezuka’s own fascination with American film as influential on a tendency to initially just pretend that he operated a studio, even while drawing many of his early works essentially by himself.

Of course, anyone who’s seen the excellent 1985 television documentary included with Helen McCarthy’s The Art of Osamu Tezuka: God of Manga knows that Tezuka did eventually command a studio of very tired manga assistants, despite retaining a great aptitude for drawing pages, even while in transit, say, from his small hotel workroom to an airport. He would be dead in four years, at the age of 60.

CrossWork

Also a sexagenarian at the moment is Mitsuru Adachi, creator of Cross Game — serialized in Big Three manga publisher Shogakukan’s Weekly Shonen Sunday, 2005-10 — and namesake of the above-cited Adachi Pro. Diligent reader that you are, I needn’t tell you that Cross Game is both a baseball-themed sports manga and a humorous character drama set among young people. The ‘baseball’ parts make for better images.

CrossThrow

Likewise, though, you’re aware that the speed-lined sports action pictured above is not the essence of Adachi’s comics, though he is nonetheless adept at the stuff; I like how the tense, intent figure to the right dominates the page so as to actually upset the act of reading, his limbs barging into adjoining panels so that they function less as sequence than collage, balls and rays and all manner of expressive fury exploding from his form while the rest of the space depicts time-displaced moments of accordant havoc.

That’s all pretty great, but this is a bit more Adachi’s style:

CrossSpy

A young girl has drowned unexpectedly. The top tier depicts her immediate family, supporting characters all, their personae summarized deftly through expression and body language. Below, series protagonist Ko, at this point only in fifth grade, searches through a forest of proper adult attire to understand what’s going on: that his dear close friend is gone for good.

One chapter later:

CrossCry

For much of the series up until this point (note the pg. 183), Ko has been depicted as a traditionally callow shonen, undisciplined but unarguably full of guts and determination and raw sporting talent. Now, faced with a serious tragedy, Adachi suddenly and effectively shows how he is also a child, only very slowly comprehending the permanence of death. With expert subtlety, Adachi reprises a visual motif from the previous chapter’s memorial service, again catching Ko peering through adult bodies, mistaking a nearby girl for his friend. It is made plain that she is not coming back, and by this I mean it’s made plain to us; it takes a few more pages for Ko himself to understand what he must do, but narratively, subconsciously, Adachi reveals the hard cosmic facts, through pure cartooning.

That’s nice, huh? I liked that. Here’s another protagonist, the dead girl’s sister:

CrossPants

Ha ha, yes, it’s shonen manga: time to focus on the eighth grade panties. And, I know, I know – this is one page, out of context. Adachi has, in fact, set up an entire ongoing theme of curious sexuality for his now-teenaged cast, introducing Older Ko’s less childlike disposition by having him gaze wide-eyed upon schoolgirl thighs from a few escalator steps down. Later there’s a scene where tomboyish Aoba whips a dirty shirt off right in front of him, and, weeell, that’s kind of the issue here, because that would be an entirely separate laundry scene, just one chapter away from the one pictured above, presented with no especial character insight behind it. Then *another* chapter’s title page shows the girl posing in cutoffs and a sports bra, joined two chapters later by a critical panty flash. Again, it’s all basically apropos for the overheated atmosphere of boy-girl interactions at a certain age, but after a while it gets to feel like restatement to the point of inadvertently revealing something else.

My guess? Industry. Adachi is an entertainer, having worked skillfully for a variety of ‘mainstream’ manga publications — generally from Shogakukan — since 1970. He’s worked in shonen, shojo and seinen forums, with Cross Game specifically positioned in a magazine meant to appeal (though not exclusively cater) to male readers around Ko’s age. In this context, underdressed images of a likewise-aged female peer make some economic sense; notorious lolicon progenitor Hideo Azuma, in his autobiographical Disappearance Diary, depicts himself ordered by a Shogakukan editor to insert fan service nudity into his own Weekly Shonen Sunday work circa 1969, roughly around the time Adachi was honing his skills as a studio assistant.

But we don’t need history to sense the finger of industry upon the aesthetic pulse. After all, this is a speculative comment.

CrossRun

I like this page a lot. The curling stairs bordered by small hits of first-person sensation — crosshatching as the insides of your eyelids — ably convey the disorienting sensation of running unto exhaustion. It reminds me a bit of an establishing image of looming, intimidating competition architecture from Adachi’s Rough, a 1987-89 swimming saga:

CrossRough

That is a damn scary stadium. And yet, I don’t think I’m alone in looking at pages like these and thinking “well, they’re good, but are they the creator’s pages?” Which is to say, aren’t essentially photographic backgrounds like these generally the province of a studio assistant? Is that even an important distinction to make?

A few years ago, Derik Badman observed that Adachi’s series tend to share common traits, including similar-looking characters. I’d go a bit further and term Adachi’s entire style as remarkably consistent over the past three decades. Here’s a page from Nine, serialized 1978-80, the baseball manga by which the artist made his solo longform debut:

CrossNine

All of the Japanese-language images I’m posting come from a 2010 Shogakukan sampler released in honor of Adachi’s 40th anniversary as a professional mangaka. Admittedly, I think some effort was made to have the art appear more consistent, in that his first eight professional years are omitted entirely and the sample from Nine lacks the ’70s brushiness of some other pages from the series. Still, you can see how the character designs are only slightly thinner and sprightlier.

Now let’s try another baseball series, Adachi’s 1981-86 megahit Touch:

CrossTouch

And hell, we might as well throw in the mighty H2, 1992-99:

CrossH

Again, there is some variation in the character drawings, which are typically the sole province of the series’ creator, even on deadline-tight, assistant-stuffed weekly series like these three, all of them Shonen Sunday. But the crucial difference to me — and I readily admit this isn’t entirely discernible from the small samples I’ve provided, in that the true Adachi experience, to my mind, demands heroic consumption — is how both of the latter pages draw considerably on either blankets of empty space sitting behind the character art or (in H2) photographic-style images lacking any character art whatsoever. This approach is absolutely essential to Adachi’s art.

Getting back to Cross Game, let’s take a series of pages, in sequence.

CrossHit1

Typically paced windup action, concluding with a startling snap from the distorted speedball in panel #4 to eerie stillness in panel #5, like a bullet paused ripping through an apple. It doesn’t appear to be a photo-drawn image, but it stands in stark contrast to the cartoon stylization just above. It is the point of impact drafted into service as a wholesale shift in tone.

CrossHit2

We hear nothing, but the character up top can see it happen. Considerable speed is conveyed by the panel directly below, showing the ball very far away, while the character from panel #1 has hardly moved. Indeed, his arm has yet to relax from the pitch. There is meaning to everything. At the far left, characters look around, actively, bringing us back to mobile action.

CrossHit3

Then, halfway through the third page, the image of the sky repeats to again suggest tremendous speed, this time in a joking manner, as Ko and his not-long-for-this-world sweetheart escape the celebration.

Truth be told, though, I see that big sky as representative of a second kind of speed.

CrossHitClose

They never do scan well, those minute patterns of screentone. Probably digital. The last time I wrote about Adachi, Andrew White, cartoonist and Adachi expert, suggested that the artist’s ‘extraneous’ panels — the sky, nature, laundry, etc. — are “at least in part motivated by practical concerns,” which is to say that space on every page can thus be easily delegated to studio assistants, who would need only training at mechanical tasks to complete their work. This certainly fits in with my understanding of the mechanics of weekly manga production; logically, a man over the age of 50 simply does not produce 17 thick volumes of comics in under five years without considerable backup.

Let’s return to Adachi Pro. I won’t make you scroll up.

CrossStudio

What are we really looking at?

Panel #1 is all letters; I don’t have an untranslated edition handy, but I presume the original was nothing but Japanese characters. Panel #2 is urban scenery, very likely copied from photo reference. Panel #3 is the same, perhaps taken from a shot of the handsome Adachi Pro studio door. Panel #4 is the only area of the page to depict a character, helpfully shown from behind, so as to require nothing but a basic outline of a human form. Panel #5 is a classic: ultra-tight cross-hatching, or maybe a digital pattern or tone, upon which sound effects are plastered. The rest of the page is narrative captions and dialogue bubbles.

In other words, this page — depicting the mad rush of weekly manga serialization — is set up in a way that it could potentially be composed entirely by studio hands, insofar as every piece of it represents some mechanical task that can potentially be delegated so as to allow the artist’s attentions to focus elsewhere. I’m not privy to Adachi’s intent, of course, but it seems in keeping with his sense of humor to keep his own hands largely off the page while complaining about how little time he has to finish his pages. ‘Readers have no idea’ indeed!

This leads the thoughtful (or obsessive-compulsive) critic into a bog of attribution. Why, then, should a page ever be deemed the work of ‘Mitsuru Adachi’ and not ‘miscellaneous Adachi Pro employees,’ when it is realistically more the labor of the latter than the former? I understand, of course, Takao Saito’s analogy of the industrial comics artist-as-movie director, but I think something more fundamental is at work in my American mindset.

CrossAxe

Here is a page from Green Horror, a 1954 horror comic about an axe-throwing cactus that’s in love with its owner. Needless to say, it’s been beloved by generations, panel #3 is probably the apex of the comics medium (“It hates me! AIIIEEEE!”) and the cactus would definitely make for a great baseball pitcher. The story has most recently been presented in lovingly restored form in the Fantagraphics collection Four Color Fear: Forgotten Horror Comics of the 1950s. The editor, Greg Sadowski, has made sure to properly credit the tale to the “Iger studio,” a comics packager of the day, although he and Editorial Consultant John Benson do at least attribute the plot direction (and potentially the script entire) to Ruth Roche, the studio’s script editor.

It’s important to do this, to clarify the roles involved, because the history of North American comics is one of exploitation, of publishers refusing artists benefits, among them sometimes the credit for their labor, and holding perpetual ownership over their creations – indeed, per the work for hire concept, annihilating them as the legal author. As a result, the abuses of the past weigh heavily on the minds of practitioners and critics. The notion of “creator’s rights,” then, became inseparable from the idea for credit. Pencillers are credited, inkers and credited, colorists are credited – arguments rage over credits in billion-dollar superhero movies. Only the most inexperienced of studio hands go without credit, as do friends helping an artist out on a deadline. Moreover, artist substitutions in long-running work-for-hire American comic books do not involve anybody hewing to a foundational visual approach; it is a wholesale substitution of one style for another, because every hand on the page deserves its own spotlight. Pity the historical standing of the damned editor who had Jack Kirby’s Superman heads replaced!

Adachi is more enduringly popular than the biggest of the pop comics artists from North America, though there’s probably been many dozens of hands on his pages. But also, his development for what’s now approaching half a century has been free of the particular abuses that mark the development of American comic books. An editor can’t hire somebody to replace all of his character heads, because he is fundamentally in control. An editor can only reject him and his project. We might suggest a comparison to a popular singer, surrounded with producers, session musicians, stylists, backup singers and other entities orbiting him.

Or, you know – movie directors, corporate heads. Baseball players.

CrossControl

I will now expand on a suggestion made by Sean Michael Robinson at this very website: that baseball analogizes to making comics.

It’s hard to escape the idea that when Adachi is writing about baseball, he’s also writing about making comics – about the thrill of watching one’s self improve, of pushing, of hitting a barrier only to break through to the challenge previously unseen. Aiming for the top. The sweet satisfaction of an aptitude well-developed, of a lifetime of skill coming to bear on a single moment.

A team, though, eight around a star, a draw: the protagonist. Skill and drive and guts and control and rock-ribbed American-style individualism can take you far, but in some games you need a potentially motley assortment of teammates to cover the field. If Adachi’s comic is stocked with self-reference, then it’s fitting that baseball itself matches up with the process by which the comic is made.

CrossSmash1

CrossSmash2

More importantly, though, this deployment of assistance on a breakneck weekly comics schedule has formed the very heart of Adachi’s work on Cross Game, and maybe his art entire. Chapters are typically more like vignettes, tracking a certain incident or revealing some character trait seemingly without concern for suspenseful plotting. It’s a very straightforward story, yes, sentimental and at times distractingly silly, and never especially far away from the genre tropes that inevitably guide the eye of the die-hard populist, if only to know from where to veer away at the right moment. That doesn’t really matter, not to my reading, because Adachi’s art moves so well, pulling the reader gracefully through waves of dialogue and ‘silence,’ interaction and environment, drawings and photographs, intimacy and enormity.

David Welsh is right: the mono no aware all but wafts up from any given spread in a fine mist. The interplay of self-evidently handmade character drawings are so often juxtaposed against realist, photographic, miscellaneous certainty, that it becomes by accident a procedural self-reference: a showcase for the delicacy of humanness before greater and older things. From this, the early chapters of Cross Game, when the characters are little, becomes a striking thing indeed on a second reading, because Adachi so blatantly foreshadows the death of his tiny heroine from the constant interjection of looming skies and big bodies of water – time becoming threatening, the world something that swallows you up exquisitely, horrible and lovely. Summer hits like a mushroom cloud.

CrossBoom

In this way, Adachi has fused pragmatism and aesthetics into something unique, a comics art that seems to belong in the hazardous environment of weekly serialization. Is this the key to his longevity? Eh, that’s probably got something to do with characters, plot, romance, sports – you know.

But to me it’s the unity that attracts. Not the Adachi talking on the page, but communicating through it. Yes! In spite of all the transparencies I’ve so dubiously divined, I do hear Adachi himself in Cross Game, a singular presence speaking from the work of many like an MVP hoisting himself up to the podium. He says Osamu Tezuka is dead, and one day I’ll be the same. If my baseball players look alike, it’s only from being young to grow old. This art will outlive us all, and this architecture is bigger than me, but I know its ins and outs. He’s a pro, Adachi. He’s not doing this for his health.

CrossNew