Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
It’s like the New Frontiersman and the Nova Express all rolled into one
January 26, 2004Lots of great reading for those interested in Watchmen, all inspired by Eve Tushnet: here’s Jim Henley, John Jakala, Steven Berg, and Jim Henley again (and again). Superhero stories as a literature of ethics, Soviet apologism, Nixon as “replacement god,” “finding meaning by making it,” and much more–a great work, yielding great rewards in the exploration thereof.
Comix and match–now UPDATED
January 26, 2004Hey, it’s nice to see I’m not the only interviewer to founder on the rocks of Gloeckner: On her blog, Phoebe recounts the venerable Gary Groth’s attempts to determine how “autobiographical” her comics are. Unlike a lot of the folks in the attached comment thread, I think this is a perfectly reasonable and understandable question to ask, all the more so because the events in what we’re presuming to have been Phoebe’s life are so dra/traumatic. And I do think male writers, European writers, whatever writers would and do get asked this same question quite often. (Look at J.T. LeRoy, for example. Hell, look at the frequency with which autobiographical impulses are attributed to J.R.R. Tolkien, for Pete’s sake.) I think that it’s Phoebe’s method of answering–“there is no truth”–that leaves journalists (vocational truth-seekers, whether they choose to think of themselves that way or no) coming back to this well so often. (That and the fact that, yes, there’s an extra element of interest in the fact that Phoebe’s comics are about a teenage girl doing drugs, having sex, et cetera. Purient interest plays a part–the “car wreck” factor, as I’ve called it. But I’m not sure this is so unreasonable a response to such strong (in all senses of the word) material.)
Fans of good Alan Moore comics rejoice: your Watchmen analysis roundup can be found here.
While we’re busy linking to other posts here on ADDTF, check out My review of Bill “Egon” Kartalopolous’s review of Craig Thompson’s Blankets.
Also on the point-counterpoint tip, Bill Sherman comes to bury Mark Millar’s The Unfunnies, while Alan David Doane comes to praise it. I haven’t read the book, so it’s tough to comment, but it seems clear that whether it’s good or not, it’s not exactly the groundbreaking, shocking explosion of comic-book complacency Millar makes it out to be, given that Robert Crumb, the Air Pirates et al were doing this stuff nearly forty years ago now. So the real question is this: Is Mark Millar a) completely ignorant of the history of underground comix, or indeed any comics that aren’t superhero fare; b) vaugely aware of their existence but content to ignore them for the purpose of selling this comic to an audience he’s fairly certain is completely unaware of them; c) fully familiar with them but ready and willing to bullshit his fans anyway? He appears to be a fundamentally decent guy, so my guess it’s either (a) or (b). Any other theories out there?
Also in that ADD post is a review of Paul Hornschemeier’s excellent Mother, Come Home. Alan has a tendency to oversell this book–I think it becomes a little too neat in the profundity of its tragedy by the end–but that’s really not much of a complaint: If a book’s going to stumble a bit, shouldn’t it do so by aiming big and not small? Quibbles aside, this is obviously a breakthrough book by a hugely talented artist with years and years ahead of him, and I recommend it highly. So, incidentally, does Time.com’s Andrew Arnold (link courtesy of Dirk Deppey.)
Back to Indy Magazine, you’ll find an interesting editorial-cum-mission-statement from editor Billy the K. Bill says he’ll be focusing on the medium of comics, as opposed to the machinations of the industry–the Direct Market, bookstore sales, the manga boom, et cetera. (Hey, I resemble that remark!–ed.) It comes off as a bit more dismissive of the comics blogosphere–not to mention capitalism (yes, oh woe is this Dartmouth graduate “crushed [him]self between [sic] the boot-heel of capitalism”)–than I’m comfortable with, but actual critical analysis of the art, not the business, would be a welcome thing on the web. (Witness the ecstatic reaction to Eve Tushnet’s Watchmen essay, for example.)
Speak of the Devil: Eve Tushnet–back to comicsblogging, with a vengeance!–reviews Brian Bendis’s killer Daredevil: Hardcore. As Eve notes, this is a tough, tough book to stop yourself buying in its monthly installments.
Chris Puzak breaks down the discounts at Wal-Mart’s online graphic-novel store. Any way you slice it, they’re pretty damn deep. This is good news for people like me who don’t exactly have a lot of disposable income to feed their trade paperback jones, but (as Tegan Gjovaag notes) probably bad news for comics retailers and people who don’t like gi-normous retail monstrosities coming in and devouring every market in sight.
Big Sunny D jumps on the Sleeper bandwagon, which Dirk Deppey promptly tries to run off the road. To me, Dirk’s complaint reads a little bit like “I would have enjoyed Chicago if it weren’t for the damn musical numbers,” but diff’rent strokes, etc.
Dirk also asks what the hell the big deal is about Mark Millar anyway. I’ve got some problems with the man’s work (see above), not to mention his online personal, but when Millar is at the top of his game, he brings a slick contemporary zeal to superheroics that’s nearly unmatched. If you ignore his tin ear for dialogue, his goofy politics, and his over-the-top pronouncements–sometimes a lot to ignore, I’ll admit–you’ll find, in Ultimate X-Men and The Ultimates at least, some of the giddiest, oomphiest, least intelligence-insulting superhero action comics of the past decade.
Finally, I think it’s worth noting how wrong the usually astute Paul O’Brien is about the most recent New X-Men storyline. As I put it the other day in my top-secret, spoiler-laden musings on said storyline, “Wow. This is the kind of geeky, idea-intensive frisson that the best, most highly-detailed SFF can engender. I love love love it. More more more!”
Building the perfect Blankets?
January 26, 2004Apparently this is a relaunch, but if you haven’t read Indy Magazine before, it’s new to you! The first installment of this snappy-looking altcomix magazine includes a review of Craig Thompson’s Blankets, the gist of which is that the book isn’t good because Thompson doesn’t adhere to some formalist version of the Aristotelian unities. Yikes.
I wanted to like this review, because Bill Kartalopolous is obviously putting a great deal more thought and consideration into his critique than most reflexive Blankets bashers–the word “emo” is not used, for example. But the review goes on for eight deadly pages, each of which points out a stylistic choice of Thompson’s, then criticizes him for not using it often enough, or consistenly enough, or properly, or something. Without realizing it, Kartalopolous has made a strong case for the book–it’s a dizzying, enveloping blizzard of formal effects and sensations, mimicking the immersive sensations of adolescence note-perfectly. True, if you want a perfectly planned and executed how-to manual of graphic-novel making, this isn’t the book for you. But I, for one, am happy to “settle” for transcendence over perfection.
(Links courtesy of NeilAlien.)
Blegging; Beautification
January 26, 2004As you may have gathered, Amanda and I have fallen on some difficult times recently. In December, I lost my job, as did everyone else who worked with me on it. We had already done all our holiday shopping before I got the news, unfortunately. In addition, it looks like I will have a hard time qualifying for unemployment insurance, due to the funky way my ex-employer had me on the books.
So if you’ve enjoyed this blog, or if you’ve enjoyed the pleasure of my company at some point, or if you haven’t enjoyed either but are just a nice person, it would be terrific of you to hit the tip jar to your left and send a donation my way. I do spend quite a bit of time working on the blog, and a financial incentive to do so would be incredibly helpful at this point in time. Thanks in advance for whatever support you’re able to lend.
But as I’m reluctant to beg without offering anything in return, I’m going to try and post something beautiful for you: Here are the lyrics to a new favorite song of mine. Enjoy, and thanks again.
—–
So it’s grey, well so are my favorite cities
And we have, we have all the time in the world here
We’ll just stay tucked in the shade and our eyes they can’t be blinded
We’ll just stay tucked in the shade
So it’s grey, well so are my favorite cities
And the sky on such a memorable night
And we have, we have all the time in the world here
That’s a lie, that’s a lie
–Azure Ray, “Favorite Cities”
Victory!
January 26, 2004The Return of the King swept the Golden Globes in all the categories for which it was nominated last night, winning Best Picture (Drama), Best Director, Best Score, and Best Song. (I found it inexcusable that no one from the film was nominated in an acting category, particularly since the lead-actor category is split into Drama and Comedy, thus doubling the potential slots; but I suppose it’s difficult to say who’s the lead in RotK–Frodo, I guess–and at any rate the buzz surrounds clear supporting players like Sean Astin and Andy Serkis.) Here’s hoping it replicates this feat at the Oscars.
Return to the King
January 25, 2004I went to see The Return of the King twice this weekend. What a great film. Amanda has an altogether unique take on it: Check out her absolutely fascinating comparison between the Ring and anorexia.
De-Deanification
January 23, 2004The most disturbing and unfortunate effect of the stranglehold Howard Dean had on the Democratic Party this past year (up until a couple of weeks ago, that is) is that he forced otherwise reasonable candidates to fall all over themselves in an effort to prove to the so-called “Democratic wing of the Democratic party” that they, too, are “anti-war.” Roger L. Simon puts it like this:
…what Dean has done by feeding the antiwar (really anti-Bush) frenzy of the leftwing of the party is far worse than demonstrating that he’s a hothead. He has essentially intimidated the others (except Lieberman, obviously, and Kucinich, in a different way–both fringe candidates) into a limited and conventional response to a complex situation for fear of losing the nomination. The potential of the Democratic Party has been stymied. There is no dialogue on foreign policy. Who knows what Kerry and Edwards really think about confronting Islamic fascism? Who knows if they know what [they] really think anymore?
In its most concrete encapsulation, this produced a raft of congressman and senators who voted for the war, then after the war was a done deal, voted against the $87 billion appropriation needed to fund the troops already there. Kerry and Edwards were two such men, the shameful opportunism of which is a big reason why I’m so hesitant to support them now.
My hope is that with Dean seemingly ready to collapse into a singularity and pull Wes “The Stepford Candidate” Clark in with him, Kerry and Edwards will be able to reassert themselves regarding foreign policy, without feeling the need to pander to an anti-war segment of the population that, if Iowa is any indication, is simply not an integral component of political success. No, it doesn’t bode well that these guys changed their points of view on as serious an issue as the war in Iraq simply out of political expediency. But my support of George W. Bush over the past few years should prove that I’m the forgiving sort, if the situation warrants.
First time for everything
January 23, 2004Interested in reading an essay about Watchmen that’s actually about Watchmen, as opposed to “what Watchmen did to/for comics”? You bet your ass I am, and Eve Tushnet has produced a fantastic one.
I love lists
January 23, 2004I’ve been wondering why all these people have been listing the IMDb Top 100 on their blogs lately. Apparently it’s a meme these days.
Films I’ve seen are in bold
Films I own (in any form) are bold and italicized
(List courtesy of Johnny Bacardi.)
1. Godfather, The (1972)
2. Shawshank Redemption, The (1994)
3. Godfather: Part II, The (1974)
4. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, The (2003)
5. Lord of the Rings: Two Towers, The (2002)
6. Casablanca (1942)
7. Schindler
Comix and match
January 22, 2004A very thorough and thoughtful response to my posts on comics interviews comes from Steve Wintle. A lot of the piece stems from a misreading of my feelings about the Comics Journal–it’s other people who think the Journal exists to hype Fanta product, certainly not me. (If there’s any Fanta-related bias in the magazine at all, it’s just that both entities ultimately answer to Gary Groth.) Beyond that, though, he makes many useful distinctions between interviewing and journalism, and between politics, entertainment, and business, and between televised and print pieces. However, what it comes down to for Steven is that
Discussions about the survival of the medium, expansion of the Direct Market, exploration of other genres or many other similar topics that are a concern for the discerning comic reader aren’t necessarily for comic companies, even if we believe they should be.
Let us agree to disagree on that one, Mr. Wintle.
Just to prove that I’m not a big party-pooper when it comes to hype, here’s a two-parter from the Pulse about what Brian Bendis is up to. Bendis is back on Daredevil as of this week–boy, is he ever. Great stuff, but from Bendis that’s no surprise.
Speaking of Daredevil, Marvel editor-in-chief Joe Quesada will be writing and drawing a DD miniseries. I think that in terms of the Daredevil character’s recent history, there are two strains of story type. You’ve got Bendis’s dark crime stories, focusing very specifically on how Matt Murdock’s drive to destroy crime affects him as a person; and you’ve got the Smith/Quesada/Mack stories, which rely heavily on religious imagery and emotional operatics (which often take physical and violent flight). They’re both interesting takes, though the contrast between them has been growing ever starker. I’m interested to see where Quesada’s new take on the character comes down, but with a title like Father, my guess is it’ll be in the latter category.
Chris Allen hands in his year-end report cards on several comics publishers, including Marvel, DC, Top Shelf, and Drawn & Quarterly. His focus on PR, press relations, and overall line coherence is a welcome one. These are decisions made by the company itself, and can’t really be pinned on the individual creators. It shows to go you that publishers have an important creative role to play, in a sense, and it’s fascinating to evaluate how they’re doing with it.
From what I can gather, issue 13 of McSweeney’s, the comics-centric issue edited by Chris Ware, will include work by Ware, R. Crumb, Art Spiegelman, Daniel Clowes, Lynda Barry, Los Bros Hernandez, Adrian Tomine, Julie Doucet, Seth, Joe Matt, Joe Sacco, Chester Brown, David Collier, Debbie Drechsler, Jeffrey Brown, Ron Rege Jr., Gary Panter, Archer Prewitt, Charles Burns, Michael Chabon, Ira Glass, John Updike, and Chip Kidd. To quote Hair, “sheeeeeit.” (Thanks to Egon and ADD for the pertinent links and info.)
Speaking of the comics edition of McSweeney’s, the Comics Journal messboard thread on the subject contains the following howler (well, it would, wouldn’t it?) from poster Scott Grammel:
Between this and the digest thread [discussed by me here–ed.], we’ve pretty much got the two opposite poles of where-should-comics-go-next pretty well bracketed.
Indeed. After all, the McSweeney’s issue will package the work altcomix superstars in a reader-friendly volume that will bypass the direct-market ghetto and find an eager audience in bookstores, while the theoretical manga-digest-sized editions will merely package the work of altcomix superstars in a reader-friendly volume that will bypass the direct-market ghetto and find an eager audience in bookstores.
Wait a minute.
Oh, right, I remember the distinction now: The manga-sized volumes have the potential to appeal to thousands and thousands of manga-reading teenagers, while the McSweeney’s volume have the potential to appeal to art-school graduate students who listen to Belle & Sebastian. Clearly the self-evident philosophical and aesthetic superiority of the latter make it the correct venue for where-comics-should-go-next. I mean, isn’t that obvious to everyone?
A discussion of New X-Men #152 so geeky and spoileriffic that it’s invisible
January 22, 2004Holy Moses, what an issue.
Highlight to read, starting right here: My goodness! So the Beast is actually Apocalypse! (He is, right? Granted, he’s saying he’s 3 billion years old, as opposed to the official 5,000, but it sure does seem like it’s the same guy.) Someone out there in the comics blogosphere already predicted this, I believe, and indeed the Beast’s prominent use of the A-word in #151 made it a little bit obvious. After all, Morrison had avoided using it even when having Cyclops discuss his possession by the guy, opting always for the more obscure En Sabah Nur. Seeing the word “apocalypse” come out of the mouth of the supervillain in an dystopian alternate-future X-Men story… well, it was a big winking clue from Mr. M.
But what wasn’t obvious until the final page of #152 was that Apocalypse was also… John Sublime, founder of the U-Men! And apparently was so all along. It also stands to reason that he was the mysterious “Dr. Sublime” referred to in the Return to Weapon Plus storyline as the founder of the Weapon Plus program.
It makes sense, given the genetic warfare free-for-all we find ourselves in in this alternate future. Both the U-Men and the Weapon X/Weapon Plus program represent attempts to create new species of life that would foment war between man and mutant. Both are logical means of pursuing Apocalypse’s evolutionary-war, survival-of-the-fittest agenda, particularly when you consider that “the fittest” has traditionally meant “Apocalypse and whatever underlings he’s relying on at the moment” in the Big A’s worldview.
(This also echoes what I understand is going on in that Weapon X series, where Apocalypse protege Mr. Sinister has been revealed to be in charge of the current Weapon X program. I don’t know how tied to continuity the current X-books are, but it seems like Morrison sets the pace and the other books follow, so that could explain this apparent correlation. And hey, John Sublime and Mr. Sinister do look a lot alike… well, we’ll stick with Apocalypse for now.)
Here, though, are a couple of intriguing questions raised by this revelation:
1) Was Apocalypse/En Sabah Nur/Sublime/The Beast involved in the gestation and awakening of Cassandra Nova? She, too, was “a new species of life that would foment war between man and mutant,” and it always seemed like a lackadaisacal bit of plotting for her to just pop up out of the sewer all of a sudden. (Granted, this is a superhero comic, so lackadaisacal plotting is something we’re prepared to accept even in the best such works, but still.) Also, her apparent control of her body at the molecular level directly echoes Apocalypse’s power (and Sinister’s!), if I’m not mistaken.
1) Was Apocalypse, etc. involved in the Magneto/Xorn ruse? Again, Magneto’s secret survival and reemergence helped push forward a genetic war between two species–indeed, unless the reset button is somehow pushed (in the form of the Phoenix, perhaps?), he succeeded in destroying the greatest human city on Earth. Moreover, John Sublime was directly involved with the Chinese prison in which “Xorn” was housed. Also, Beast (the real Beast (we think?)) said in issue 149 or 150 that he understood the link between Sublime/the U-Men and Magneto/Xorn. Was the constant U-Men harassment of the X-Men and the Xavier Institute merely a way to run interference and distract the X-Men from the traitor in their midst? Indeed, the U-Men attack on the Special Class was the turning point in Xorn’s conversion of those kids to Magneto-style militarism. And the camping expedition that led to the attack conveniently removed the Specials from the mansion during the Omega Gang riot, perhaps in order to prevent them from choosing the losing side and thus preserving them to fight on Magneto’s side when he was ready to cast aside the Xorn disguise. Magneto is unlikely to have joined forces with Apocalypse, but was he unwittingly a puppet in Apocalypse/Sublime’s plan all along?
Wow. This is the kind of geeky, idea-intensive frisson that the best, most highly-detailed SFF can engender. I love love love it. More more more!
Phew. Am I right, or am I right?
Bush Blog Backlash
January 22, 2004Glenn Reynolds, Andrew Sullivan, Matt Welch, Roger Simon, Tacitus, Stephen Green, Jonah Goldberg, and yours truly (Jim Henley too, but, well, duh): It’s been a bad couple of days for President Bush on the blogosphere. Wha’ happen?
Simply put, a one-two punch:
1) The strong showing of John Kerry and John Edwards and the drubbing of Howard Dean in the Iowa caucuses, coupled with the rapidly diminishing returns of Wes Clark, make it look like the Democratic party will field a responsible, electable, non-berserk candidate for president after all. I don’t know enough about Edwards’s record or positions to comment, and Kerry’s opportunistic backpeddling on the wars in Iraq/on terror is transparent and infuriating, but I don’t get the feeling that either of them has a dangerous temperament, or that they like to put sneer quotes around the War on Terror. In other words, I don’t feel that they’ll sell out our ambitions to foment democracy abroad, nor will I feel dramatically less safe while buying comics in Times Square or across from the Empire State Building if they’re in the White House. Thus the main obstacle to foreign-policy hawks voting Democratic is removed (in the process reminding many of us that, domestically and socially, we were always a lot closer to the Democrats than we were to Bush’s Republicans).
2) The President’s State of the Union address started strong and rapidly swerved into the nightmarish. Mandatory drug testing for schoolchildren, enshrining anti-gay bias in the goddamn Constitution, “unleashing” the churches and temples, taking time in the most prominent political speech of the year to basically take potshots at Barry Bonds, an adamant refusal to reexamine the excesses of the PATRIOT Act, advocating what is essentially a faith-based approach to teen sexuality: If you sat around and tried, you couldn’t have come up with a better laundry list of things tailor-made to make me not want to vote for you. What’s more, Bush wants to throw a ton of our money at all these things, and more besides, continuing a spending spree that’d put my wife at a 3-hour sale at Loehmann’s to shame. And even if you’re not a fiscal conservative and do think the government should be spending a good deal of money on important programs, these sure as hell aren’t the programs you had in mind.
There’s a large and growing class of voters who are socially liberal, fiscally moderate, and hawkish. Neither party is a comfortable home for them, and so they must prioritize and vote accordingly. With the Dems making it easier for hawks to hold their noses (beaks?) and vote donkey, and the President making the social libs and fiscal mods run screaming from their television sets, I think we’re beginning see a realignment of the post-9/11 realignment. And I don’t see this boding well for the President.
High School Soundtrack
January 22, 2004Or “Let’s let the nice man with attention deficit disorder make a list so that he can then get some stuff done around the house, make the bed, put away the laundry, that sort of thing.”
Here’s a list of my favorite albums from high school. I’ve only included one album per artist. In some cases they’re the first albums I encountered by the artists in question; in all cases they’re the albums that influenced my high-school self the most. And I still love them today. Enjoy!
1. Alice in Chains: Dirt
2. Aphex Twin:
You know what North Korea needs? A really good morning news program
January 21, 2004The bulk of the criticism directed at my “comics needs Tim Russert” piece is that, well, yeah, it does, but it needs a boatload of other things before such a figure would be of any use at all. A readership that’s aware of and interested in the issues, for example. For that matter, a consensus on what the important issues are. A level of parity between publishers, distributors, retailers, and readers, through which an interchange of ideas might actually have an effect on the implementation of policy. In other words, for there to even be the possibility of a Tim Russert type in comics, comics needs the type of civil-society infrastructure you find in the American polity.
Needless to say, we’re pretty far away from that. (Babar at Simply Comics makes these points quite well–thanks to Dirk Deppey for the link.) But I’m aware of all that–the Tim Russert angle was, in its way, a fantasy based on a theoretical comics industry where such a civil infrastructure exists, where such values are shared and agreed upon, where an interview that exposes an influential figure as honest or intelligent or a bunko artist might actually make a difference to the people who consume the art that figure produces.
(It’s also worth noting that many people have responded by saying that Russert really isn’t so great. (Steven Grant, for example, isn’t a Russert fan, but agrees with the basic point I was making, even if he sees (as I do) how difficult it’d be to create such a figure.) And that’s fine–the point was not that we need TIM RUSSERT, but that a dedicated, intelligent, talented, doggedly determined interviewer seen as a necessary destination by the movers and shakers in the business would be good for said business. You’re welcome to substitute Bob Schieffer, or Georges Stephanopolous and Will, or the people on Fox News Sunday, if you’d like; it’s that Sunday-morning talk-show framework that I’m referring to, not one particular journalist.)
(UPDATE: I also want to state for the record that, obviously, there’s a big difference between hard-news journalism and entertainment journalism, as well there should be. There should always be a place, a big place at that, for hyping upcoming projects and having friendly, fannish interviews with creators. But I think even there we folks who write about comics could do better than we sometimes do; and I think at a certain point we do need to do serious reporting and interviewing, even if this is “just” an entertainment industry. Just by way of a for instance, New Line risked its own bankruptcy by financing a three-film Lord of the Rings trilogy, so in addition to reading interviews with Sean Astin and Miranda Otto, I think it’s an objective good to have interviews with the studio heads explaining what they were thinking. (I also think it’s fair to ask creators to justify the work that they’re doing and the way that they’re doing it; though on a much smaller scale, these are important decisions, too, and I’d think that many creators would welcome the opportunity to talk about them.))
(UPDATE 2: It occurs to me that the parody bits in the original post come across as very harsh toward the folks who conducted and/or participated in the interviews they’re based on, and that really wasn’t my intent. I don’t know them from Adam, so it’s certainly nothing personal, and hell, it’s not even meant as being indicative of the average level of their work. It’s just commentary on what I see as some specific weaknesses of the current state of comics journalism, particularly interviews. I thought I should clear that up.)
Union jacked
January 21, 2004On the one hand, President Bush is more willing to put American money & might (not to mention his own political future) on the line to fight for human freedom abroad than I could possibly have hoped back when he was running against Al Gore. On the other, he seems just as willing to restrict human freedom at home as I feared, well, back when he was running against Al Gore. Andrew Sullivan puts it thusly:
I was also struck by how hard right the president was on social policy. $23 million for drug-testing children in schools? A tirade against steroids? (I’m sure Tom Brady was thrilled by that camera shot.) More public money for religious groups? Abstinence only for prevention of STDs? Whatever else this president is, he is no believer in individuals’ running their own lives without government regulation, control or aid. If you’re a fiscal conservative or a social liberal, this was a speech that succeeded in making you take a second look at the Democrats. I sure am.
Yep.
And that’s without mentioning his asinine attack on the rights of gay citizens. No, he didn’t come out and explicitly call for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage; as even Pat Buchanan pointed out on MSNBC, said avoidance is shorthand for “shut the fuck up about a constitutional amendment already, you nitwits.” But he clearly felt either obligated or happy (or both) to give a nod and a wink to the anti-gay right, and I simply can’t brook that.
His points on Iraq and terror were razor-sharp and rock-solid. But he spent the rest of the speech coming out swinging on behalf of a reinvigorated, non-reexamined PATRIOT Act, a failed religious-based policy toward sexually transmitted disease,an expanding war on the personal freedom of American citizens and even children in the guise of the “War on Drugs,” and an insult to the decency and moral seriousness of American homosexuals. All this and record deficits, too.
Couple this with the Democrats’ apparent rejection of their own rejectionist extraordinaire in Iowa two nights ago, and the loyal opposition begins to look a lot more appealing.
Oh, for Chrissakes
January 21, 2004This oughta be terrific.
Good heavens. What on Earth will dozens of twenty&thirtysomething minicomics artists think of war? Do you think they’ll disagree with the policies of President George W. Bush? Will the topic of oil come up at some point? Is war going to be seen as bad for children and other living things? Perhaps comparisons to Nazi Germany might be made–who knows? The world waits with bated breath.
Prediction: Not since the Comics Journal’s Special Edition on Patriotism will there have been a collection of political cartoons as predictable and inessential as this bad boy.
Digestion
January 21, 2004On both his blog (no permalinks yet; currently the top item) and the Comics Journal message board, Zack Soto weighs in the possibility of altcomix favorites being published in manga-sized digest formats. Like me, Zack thinks it’s a great idea. The big “if” here, of course, aside from whether the creators want to do this, is whether the publishers (like Fantagraphics) can afford it. But I think it’d pay dividends in the long run–this is the format that young readers want their comics in, and I see little reason that these high-quality books wouldn’t appeal to them if presented in that format.
(NB: Blogger Shawn “Silverthorn” Fumo and cartoonists James Kochalka and Colleen Coover offer interesting and enthusiastic responses on that TCJ.com thread. But be warned, the usual signal-to-noise ratio for that board applies here: There are plenty of people yelling, “DON’T SHRINK THE ART JUST TO MAKE SOME MORE OF THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR, YOU FUCKIN PHILISTINE!” (And there’s a drunk Tony Millionaire, but what else did you expect?) In all seriousness, shrinking art is sometimes a very bad idea, and I’m well aware of that, which is why I suggested the comics I did: They’d work at that size, without question. But some of those posters are reflexively rejecting an idea precisely because it might lead to the artist and publisher making more money and expanding their readership. (This despite the fact that the material itself wouldn’t change, aside from getting a little smaller, which as I said wouldn’t matter in these cases.) “Artform vs commodity. No good can come of this.” Yes, folks, welcome to the Comics Journal messageboard.)
“That’s DOCTOR Also-Ran to you, asshole!”
January 20, 2004(Pic courtesy of Andrew Sullivan.)
I Have a Dream
January 19, 2004by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
(Delivered on the steps at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. on August 28, 1963. Source: Martin Luther King, Jr: The Peaceful Warrior, Pocket Books, NY 1968. Found at http://www.mecca.org/~crights/dream.html.)
Five score years ago, a great American in whose symbolic shadow we stand signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity. But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free.
One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land.
So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition. In a sense we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.
This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation.
So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God’s children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the Negro. This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights.
The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges. But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. we must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.
The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” we can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair. I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.” I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor’s lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with a new meaning, “My country, ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.” And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California! But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”
What Comics Needs Now
January 19, 2004I’ve been thinking a lot about interviews lately. Actually, I think most people who read about comics online have been thinking about interviews lately. Can you imagine interviews like the kind we see in comics appearing in any other field of endeavor?
* “You’re watching World News Tonight. Sitting in for Peter Jennings is Ben Stiller, because it’s Ben Stiller Week here at ABC News.” “Good evening. We begin tonight with special guest Owen Wilson. Later in the broadcast, Janeane Garofalo will be stopping by. And be sure to tune into 20/20 later tonight, where myself and co-host Jerry Stiller will interview Ann Meara, Andy Dick, and the cast of Mr. Show with Bob and David.”
* “Hello, I’m Lester Holt, and you’re watching MSNBC. Recently I spoke via email to Democratic presidential contender Dennis Kucinich. I asked him some questions–some about comics, others about, y’know, just some kind of neat things about ideas and stuff–and he responded by talking about buttfucking and midget kangaroo prostitutes or something. I will now read you the complete, unedited transcript.”
* “Today on Good Morning America, my interview with President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Diane, any thoughts?” “Well, Charlie, my suggestion is that, when they get into their pseudo-Martin & Lewis routine, just let it roll. Or better yet, try to provide set-ups and puns for them to riff off of. The kids’ll love it. Make sure not to challenge any of their assertions on the success or appeal of their major policies. Actually, try not to even specifically ask about their major policies, at least not the ones involving anything more complex than the controversial new outfit Smokey the Bear is wearing these days. Okay, okay, if you must you must, but remember that “follow-up” is just another F-word. Generally speaking, a nice, simple, “rough year, huh?” will say everything that needs to be said, and if they reply “hell no, it was great,” well, you did your job. If you really want to come off like a take-no-shit kinda guy, press them on something inconsequential and stupid, some obvious failure that got a lot of press a long time ago but then disappeared into well-deserved obscurity–that is, until you dedicated about 40% of your interview to questions about it. Now, occasionally, when you ask them about the strength of the U.S., they’ll reflexively talk about how good our movies do overseas. You’re welcome to gently remind them that movies are nice, but we’re talking about politics–but only after they’ve done this four or five times. And remember, it’s only government! Have fun with it!” “Thanks, Diane. Actually, that was pretty much my game plan to begin with.”
I think that what comics needs, and badly, is Tim Russert.
I don’t know how you folks feel about Russert, but I think he’s the gold standard for interviews with politicians and policy makers. I guess he was a Cuomo operative once, but as far as I can tell his agenda, if he has one, is completely invisible. He’s hard, really hard, on everyone. Those “gotchas” he does with old interviews and video clips are just priceless. When people bullshit him, he follows up just long enough to make it clear that that’s what’s going on, but not so long that it becomes an O’Reilly-esque screaming match that enables his subject to claim that he’s being unfairly attacked. He doesn’t interrupt like Chris Matthews does, either–if you’ve got a point, he’ll let you make it, though he’ll challenge you on the specifics. And best of all, if you want to be taken seriously as a politician or policymaker, you have to appear on his show. You know you’ll get hammered, but you have to sit there and take it, or people will see you, and rightly so, as someone who can’t walk the walk.
I don’t think there’s anything even remotely comparable in comics today, and man oh man, does comics ever need there to be one. The PR-type gabfests that comprise 95% of comics-related interviews certainly have their place, but when there’s an issue of importance on the table, we need something better. When the people talking are the people who truly shape the industry, they need to be called to account, asked the important questions, pressed for the real answers. Moreover, there needs to be a sense of obligation on the part of such people to face that kind of forum. Without the sense that “the road to being taken seriously leads through this inteveriew,” needless to say, no one would even go near it.
Can it be done? I don’t know. There certainly are figures in the world of comics that hold positions of preeminence in their respective quasi-journalistic fields: Rich Johnston is the gossip columnist, Dirk Deppey is the blogger, the Comics Journal is the magazine, etc. A person or entity can be built up to the point where their reputation ensures that they are taken seriously by those who wish to be taken seriously themselves. But none of these figures are directly comparable to what I’m talking about: Blogs are still too obscure, the Comics Journal will always be seen as an elitist propaganda wing for Fantagraphics (mainly, of course, by the perpetually benighted, but let’s face it, there are a lot of ’em), and as good as Rich’s columns can be (except the New Year’s ones, for whatever reason), I’m not sure that anyone feels that their credibility is at stake unless they grant an interview to Waiting for Tommy.
The fact is that comics journalism just doesn’t pay enough to create someone with the full-time dedication, talent, and clout of a Tim Russert. (This is simple enough to deduce: Take the average amount that someone who writes comics for a living will make in a lifetime, and then picture what someone who makes a living writing about that writer might make. And then let me know when you’ve stopped shuddering.) The other fact is that so many comics readers don’t give a flying fuck about reprint policies or payments to freelancers or creator-owned opportunities or the strengths and weaknesses of genre or the need for a forward-thinking Direct Market or whatever that folks in this industry will always be able to get away with murder, Tim Russert or no.
But imagine what it would be like if important figures from across the industry had to put the press releases aside, erase the zany responses to the canned questions, swallow their conviction that the art-snob elitist/mouth-breathing pervert-suit part of the biz was out to get them, and talk straight for half an hour with someone who knew what he or she was talking about–and most importanly, why it was worth talking about to begin with.
Meet the Press, comics industry. I insist.
UPDATE: I’ve posted some follow-up thoughts here.