Dick Hyacinth's One-stop Hyphen Shop

KE7 table of contents

2009-03-13T18:25:00.001-07:00

I promised to post this a few months ago, but it took my reviewing the book to actually do it. Here's the table of contents for Kramers Ergot 7. Those who own the book will find this especially useful, given that the contents page (which is actually a very cool two-page spread by Shoboshobo) greatly favors form over function.

The review is forthcoming, like later tonight (UPDATE: here it is).

Cover: Sammy Harkham
Back cover: Shary Boyle
Endpapers: Shoboshobo
i.: Martin Cendreda
Title page: Walt Holcombe
Credits: Shoboshobo

4-5: Shary Boyle
6: Jerry Moriarity
7: Aapo Rapi
8: Ted May
9-12: Tom Gauld
13: Geoff McFetridge
14-15: Chris Cilla
16: Tim Hensley
17: Daniel Clowes
18: J. Bradley Johnson
19: James McShane
20-21: CF
22-24: Kim Deitch
25: Walt Holcombe
26-27: Chris Ware
28: Jacob Ciocci
29: John Brodowski
30: Jaime Hernandez
31: Matt Furie
32-34: Anders Nilsen
35: Ivan Brunetti
36: C. Tyler
37-39: David Heatley
40-41: Dan Zettwoch
42: Johnny Ryan
43: Mat Brinkman
44-45: Eric Haven
46-47: Conrad Botes
48-50: Josh Simmons
51: Richard Sala
52: Jesse McManus
53: Rick Altergott
54-55: Matthew Thurber
56-58: John Hankiewicz
59: Ben Katchor
60-61: Frank Santoro
62-63: Seth
64: Leif Goldberg
65: Blanquet
66-68: Blex Bolex
69: Sammy Harkham
70-71: Will Sweeny
72: Ben Katchor
73: Kevin Huizenga
74-75: Adrian Tomine
76-77: Florent Ruppert & Jerome Mulot
78-79: Anna Sommer
80: Ben Jones & Pshaw
81: Jonathan Bennett
82-83: Helge Reumann
84: John Pham
85: Matt Groening
86-87: Xavier Robel
88: Souther Salazar
89-90: Jerry Moriarity
91: Joe Daly
92-95: Ron Regé Jr.
96: Gabrielle Bell
97: Conrad Botes

Now in poll form

2009-03-11T01:24:00.000-07:00

Haven't done one of these in a while:

Online Surveys & Market Research

The case for Watchmen: If you're reading this, you know all about Watchmen.

The case for "Two Minutes to Midnight": Has a pretty catchy chorus. Guitar solo is a little disappointing. Here's the video for those unfamiliar with the song:

It's very important that you remember that you're voting for the song, not the video. We want to keep these things as scientific as possible.

(Yes, there will be more of these things--they just won't involve Alan Moore comics. For the record, I voted for Watchmen.)

Generally short items

2009-03-09T15:28:00.000-07:00

Check out Sean Collins and yours truly going back and forth on Black Hole:
Here. We've talked about doing it again later this year--maybe for Epileptic.

Still planning on looking at Kramers Ergot 7 for my next SC post.

Question #1:
Is there any comics art style more unambiguously dated than the Bruce Timm/animation-influenced style? When you see contemporary comics drawn in a 1970s Sal Buscema style, or a primitive Golden Age style, you immediately process this as a deliberate choice, intended to convey quaintness or to establish a time period, or something like that. The Image style isn't quite to that point--nothing ironic about Ian Churchill or Ed Benes--but it's coming soon. You'll see Jim Lee go from slow-but-extremely-popular to slow-but-kitschy. I'm not sure if All-Star Batman is slowing or accelerating this process; I'm guessing it's the latter.

But that Timm-influenced style, it keeps plugging along, sending me back to the mid-to-late 90s every time I see it.

Injury to stop publication:
FUUUCCCCKKKKK. (Via Spurgeon.) Look, I'm going to miss Crickets and Or Else as much as anyone, but taking away Injury is like a kick to the shin. Now are we justified in cheering for Diamond's collapse?

Question #2:
Does reading DC/Vertigo comics cause brain damage? Is there something toxic in the ink? Should I be wearing latex gloves and a respirator next time I'm stuck in a situation where I feel the need to read one of those books?

The great thing about the Scans Daily debate, besides Christopher Bird's post (also this one, but kind of to a lesser extent)?
Now you have a better idea of what I mean when I talk about blogs which I can no longer stand to read. (HINT: I'm not talking about Scans Daily, which I've never read without following a link from Dirk Deppey or someone else.)

Question #3:
Which is better: Watchmen or "Two Minutes to Midnight"? I think I like Alan Moore and Iron Maiden about equally, but Watchmen is a bigger component of Moore's oeuvre than "Two Minutes" is for Iron Maiden's. It's close, though.

Interview: Paul Maybury

2009-03-02T12:30:00.000-08:00

Paul Maybury came to my attention with Aqua Leung, but those more plugged into the world of webcomics probably first encountered him through Party Bear, his contribution to the ACT-I-VATE collective. After putting the strip on hiatus to finish Aqua Leung, Paul is now returning to Party Bear. We discussed the difficulties of writing a comic with an African American-majority cast, Paul's creative process, and his plans beyond Party Bear.

I've got a new theory that there are two types of people: those who find primates (gorillas, chimpanzees, monkeys, etc.) funny, and those who find bears funny. I know I'm definitely in the latter camp. Do you consider yourself a bear person?

I think bears have a certain charm to them. It's an animal who's identified with terror, as well as a term of endearment by many couples. Which works well as a character in a story I must say. I also think that monkeys are in the same category as pirates, ninjas robots and zombies. I need a break.

I think a lot of people agree with you about that.

That's interesting that you bring up the cute/scary dichotomy with bears, since it seems like those are the two qualities a child might want from a father: a tough exterior, but cuddly and loving to the family. It's the "Party" in Party Bear that adds an extra degree of weirdness. Is that mostly a joke, or will you be explaining it later on?

The whole idea stems from a drawing I did in 2004 titled "Dealing with Esteban". I just liked the way it looked, and it sort of had a fairy tale element to it. I won't really explain why he's a Party Bear in the story, as I feel it's more fun just guessing what he's all about, and adds to his magical mystique.

What led you to the story, characters, and settings of Party Bear? Do they reflect your own experiences, people you knew, etc?

Well, a few years ago I was approached by ACT-I-VATE early on to do a webcomic under the group name. So I just sort of dug up this image that I really liked, and I started to craft a story that was a tribute to a lot of early 90's urban drama movies, like Colors and Fresh. It's also set somewhere in my memories of Boston and my own personal middle and high school years. I grew up in Jamaica Plain, but because of busing I was sent to The Lewis Middle School, which is in Roxbury. This had quite a profound impact on my life. All of the characters in the book are loosely based on friends with the exception of Officer MacMurphy and Esteban, who are inspired by the movies I mentioned. The story itself has evolved as I've worked on it, and I've gone so far as to rewrite and redraw various scenes throughout the book if early readers were paying attention.

Many characters in Party Bear seem to be in somewhat difficult circumstances (I'm thinking about the Doritos that Seal's mother forces on him for breakfast), but it's a funny comic. Do you think there's some special opportunity for humor to be wrung out of the gritty, urban milieu? Does your experience as an outsider thrust into that world give you some extra insight into what makes the inner city an interesting venue for a comic like Party Bear?

I think that it lets me dance around the culture in my writing without feeling like I'm faking it. I'm also a few steps back enough to find humor in those kinds of small moments. I think humor is something that I really wanted to stress, especially with the back and forth between the characters and the constant ragging on each other that I remember. I also feel fortunate enough to be mixed racially, as I don't feel committed to strengthening any culture's point of view, but rather just observe and display it as honestly as I can.

It seems somewhat underrepresented in long-form comics. Comic strips like The Boondocks or Curtis have a predominately African-American cast and take place in cities, but there aren't many graphic novels like that. Do you hope to have Party Bear published in a collected form once you've finished it?

It's true, there just aren't many that aren't leaning towards an overly positive or negative representation of the culture. And when I say culture, I'm not necessarily just talking about African-Americans. I'm speaking of the smaller melting pot cities like Boston, that are overpopulated with poor people that are sort of just stuck in neighborhoods that are full of dead ends. I feel it's also difficult to present these issues in comics because there's tension that comes from fear of exploiting characters who happen to be black. I would love to publish the book with the right publisher, but because of the subject matter it's been an uphill battle for sure. This sort of saddens me.
Have you received any interesting and/or useful feedback from readers or colleagues regarding these issues?

Yeah, some have been very useful. I've definitely tweaked the story to be less abrasive, and as I answer these questions, I'm rewriting and redrawing the first 3 pages to make it an easier pill to swallow. I'm actually pretty grateful that I started this project as a web-comic. I've had a lot of time to grow up with the project and rethink my directions. It's definitely going in a more serious and deeper direction in the end from what I had originally written in the beginning. I think I figured if it was going to be this hard to publish already, I'll take it as an opportunity to throw in some subjects that I wanted to talk about anyways. Such as the failure of the Boston public schools, contrast in parenting directions and reverse racism, all which weren't present in the original story line. I guess I'm only concerning myself with doing the story the way I want to see, and trying to present it in a way that's easily accessible. Maybe those two things don't mix well, and could be the reason it's taken this long to find a middle ground that I'm happy with.

When was it that you started Party Bear? What do you think are the most important ways you've changed your approach to cartooning since then?

September 2006. Which is interesting because I was just really getting underway with Aqua Leung at the time. I took a long break from it to finish Aqua and get some personal life things taken care of. I didn't really do new pages until around page 23, including a bunch of redrawn stuff from early on. A strange thing sort of took place in that long gap. I have progressive palmoplantar hyperhidrosis, which basically means the nerves in my hands are all screwed up. It causes sort of an electric painful tingly feeling through my hands and feet, and makes them shake and sweat randomly, but is brought out more when I'm around people or stressed out. The problem is the progressive part, as I started having the problem when I was around 12, but it didn't make my hands shake much until my mid twenties. That being said, I could no longer control my brush in a finer manner, even though technique wise I was getting there in skill. This has drastically changed my approach and style. And looking at that particular page when I got back really defines that moment for me. I would like to add, this should serve as an explanation as to why I hardly shake hands at conventions.

On another note, I've grown as an artist, and strive to focus on being a story teller over being some sort of master inker, or writer, or penciller etc. Another reason why I'm handling pretty much every task myself with this book with the exception of Olli, who came on recently to do flats.

How about coloring? You were obviously trying to establish a different atmosphere in Aqua Leung; how is your approach different for Party Bear? Is there any change in technique?

I want Party Bear to feel cold, in a way. Since I moved to Texas, it's something I've missed color wise in my surroundings. It's always sunny, and vibrant. I kind of miss the gray mute colors of a cold rainy day up north. There are a lot more flat colors at work this time around too. I make use of gradients and a "cuts" style like in Aqua Leung here and there still, but it just depends on the scene. Either way I'm trying to be very reserved in my approach. I think coloring is one of my favorite parts of working on my own comics. It's so easy to wreck a scene with crazy colors, or bad lighting, and I think it's one of the most underrated aspects of comics aside from lettering, which is something I'm having a bit of fun doing myself as well.

That's actually something I noticed looking over Party Bear again: there's a lot of variety in the lettering, and it's all generally pretty expressive.

Could you talk us through your process for creating a page of art for Party Bear?

I write/draw everything first in piccadilly notebooks in coffee shops. I like to sort of draw my way through a scene emotionally, then refine the dialog later after writing some brief stand in dialog. It helps me work the page around in a composition that I like as I write too, and I can tell what's too much and too little from page to page as I go.

After that's all set I usually use Eon boards, or Canson (they donated a bunch to me).

I take a look at my notebook, and play Tetris with the panels and find good positions for them on the page if I haven't already in my notes. I'll then lay down the borders in a clumsy fashion with my ruler in blue mechanical pencil.

Then I clench my black mechanical pencil like some kind of an ape and try to lightly pencil the page. I've yet to master the art of erasing, so I try to make it as painless as possible for me later.

After that I do all the lettering, which is a weird mixture of my own handwriting fused with Wholefoods Market sign maker font. I worked there while drawing Aqua Leung, and had to change my handwriting to their house style, and I've never been able to really get back to my own fully. The lettering is done with a Micron 08 and sometimes a faber Castell cheapo brush pen for larger lettering. After the lettering is dry, I lay down the word balloons with the same brush pen. After those dry (I'm afraid of smudging) I free hand the panel borders.

I'm usually doing this to 5 pages at a time in a factory method. That way I'm not just staring at the wall while everything dries. I've recently been inking with a Scharff 3000 size 2, although I jump back to my Winsor Newton sable brush from time to time. Working on 5 pages at the same time helps me make expressive lines while the brush is working for me without having to stop. I usually wrap them all up by the end of the week, then repeat.

I then scan them, clean them up, format them for print then send them off to my flatter Olli, who is a life saver. Once I get them back I work my magic and you have a finished Party Bear page!

How long do you expect Party Bear to end up being?

I would like to shoot for 120 pages (half way there),but might fill out to 150. I'm working off a loose evolving script, so you never know. I've been joking with my girlfriend that 27 seems to be a popular year to die as an artist, so I better hurry up in case that's how I'm going out.

Any update on The Adventures of Maxy J. Millionaire?

Maxy J. is trucking along. I've got maybe 30 pages of the script left to write and it's ready to venture out into the world and make some deals. It's an all ages book that I've put a tremendous amount of thought and care into, and I guarantee it's not going to be another cheap kids book cash in, and should be something that I hope will be something everyone can get into and have fun with, and will be a great learning tool.

I assume, then, that you've reworked the original concept quite a bit, since the original 8-page Zuda strip had some adult elements. And there's going to be an educational component, too?

Yeah, the entire thing from Zuda is pretty much scrapped. Other than the boyfriend moving in on his girl Roxanne and them "breaking up". It's going to teach kids about cooking, trying new foods, diversity, manners etc. There's a lot in there, but I've gone to great lengths to not come off as preachy or obvious. I'm extremely excited to start it as soon as I put Party Bear to bed. I need to do something my Grandma can read and then I can look her in the eye afterwords.

Real short items

2009-02-25T02:00:00.000-08:00

My first piece for The Savage Critics:
A review of Black Hole, it's here. Sean Collins did indeed write a review earlier this week as well--your memory isn't playing tricks on you. Later in the week we'll have a final post reacting to each other's review, and maybe reacting to each other's reactions as well. Mark your calendars, fans of reactions.

My next review there:
Probably Kramers Ergot 7. Hopefully that's not what Sean had planned.

Why I will see the Watchmen movie:
I imagine that it will eventually be on basic cable (or satellite, in my case). I still haven't seen The Dark Knight; I'm starting to question if I'll ever bother.

Note #1 about recent Bookscan conversations:
I think the current debates reveal more about the rivalries and relationships between prominent comics bloggers than anything useful about the numbers themselves. This probably would have amused me more a few years ago.

Note #2 about recent Bookscan conversations:
As weary as I am of the phenomenon mentioned above, I'm always more annoyed by the interjections from the peanut gallery. Can anyone point out any instance where Alan Coil has ever added anything of value to any conversation whatsoever?

Note #3 about recent Bookscan conversations:
This is the sad, serious part. Last year I interviewed Andy Graves, the owner of an independent bookstore in Columbia, SC that stocked a lot of art/literary comics. It was the kind of store which I think accounts for some of the discrepancies in the Bookscan numbers. Unfortunately, the Happy Bookseller closed late last year. It's hardly a unique story, which makes it all the more tragic that the popularization of the graphic novel coincided with the steep decline of the independent bookstore. It could have been a vital symbiotic relationship. I mean, I guess it still is for those big, bad independents that are still going strong, but it would have been nice to know that you could go into any medium-sized town in the US, found the local independent bookstore, and known that you could find something like Love and Rockets on the shelf.

This year marks the ~~150th~~ uh, 200th anniversary of the births of Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln:
In fact, the day passed a couple of weeks ago. You may have heard scintillating debate over which man was more important to history. This brings to mind other classic "which was more important to history" debates: Millard Fillmore or Ed Sullivan? Blackbeard or Henry Ford? Jesus Christ or the cultivation of rice? The debates rage.

If you didn't know that mixed martial arts had started to resemble Tekken, here is your visual evidence: That's Nate Marquardt finishing Wilson Gouveia at last weekend's UFC 95. The amazing thing is that nobody had previously considered Marquardt even one of the top 10 strikers in his division, but now he's pulling off the kind of chain attacks that would be considered too unrealistic for Virtua Fighter.

Was thinking this post would no longer be timely, then Diamond bails me out

2009-02-18T10:45:00.000-08:00

(This post is NSFW. It's not pornographic or anything, but I wanted to warn you that there are drawings of bare-chested ladies on down the line.)

So it's come to my attention that Diamond has named Brian Azzarello and Lee Bermejo's Joker the OGN of the year. For those curious, something called Dark Knight: The Joker 1:6 Scale Collector Figure won "Toy Product of the Year," (great year for cash-ins on Heath Ledger's likeness!) and Marvel Masterpieces Set 2 Trading Cards won Non-Sports Card Product of the Year. I'm glad to see that Collectable [sic] Statue of the Year was a separate category from Mini Bust of the Year; I'd hate to live in a world where Batman: Black & White Frank Miller Statue and Women of the DCU Series 2 Wonder Woman Bust wouldn't both receive some kind of award.

Even though there can be no doubting the immense prestige of the Diamond Gem awards (just re-read that first paragraph if you have any doubt), I probably wouldn't have made a mental note of any of this had there not been a post on a prominent blog about a month ago suggesting that Joker was the graphic novel of the year, and implying that anyone who doubted this was a stupid elitist who wanted to wrest the term "graphic novel" from the righteous grip of the masses. I had planned to write some kind of snide response, but then it dawned on me that I had not actually read Joker, nor even flipped through its pages. How could I write something suggesting that another writer was painfully ignorant and unfit to make such statements if I myself had not read the book in question? I mean, what if Joker made Maus look like, I don't know, Women of the DCU Series 2 Phantom Lady Bust? Who would look silly then?

So I went to Borders to find out for certain and, well, it's absolutely, positively not even close to being one of the best things I've read this year. Remember that list I made of all the stuff I would consider (or would like to consider) for a year's best list? Every single thing I've read on it is better than Joker, and not by just a little. I don't like Lee Bermejo's art at all, and I guess I'm immune to the charms of Brian Azzarello's writing (especially his dialogue, which I take to be one of his strengths according to his admirers). The whole thing felt like a gritty crime caper squeezed into a pair of ill-fitting spandex tights. That scene with the newsie? The one holding up a newspaper with a headline about the Joker's latest shenanigans, so as to inform the reader that Joker is back and Gotham is terrified? That's just schlocky. Terrible.

I mean, I understand the purpose of Joker is to exploit the most recent Batman movie, to attract consumers who liked Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker. (I would think the cover does it a disservice in that it's not clear this is the "movie" Joker, but the thing seems to have sold well enough, so what do I know?) Personally, I found it distracting, a constant reminder that this was a cash grab on DC's part. I mean, it's a smart move, and I don't blame them or anything; this is exactly the sort of thing bloggers rightfully complain about when some company (cough, MARVEL) fails to have a palatable tie-in for the quasi-interested moviegoer. But really, now: does Lee Bermejo have to "cast" Johnny Depp as the Riddler? I'm not sure if Bermejo drew this before or after Michael Caine claimed Depp would be in the next movie; either way, it's just as lame here as when Salvador Larocca or Bryan Hitch do it.

So no, I cannot fathom how anyone could proclaim Joker to be the best graphic novel of the year. It speaks to one of the following: (1) woeful unfamiliarity with the wide, wide array of comics with greater ambitions, and more successful realizations of their ambitions, that were published in 2008; (2) taste so far removed from my understanding of what constitutes worthwhile comics that I question my own grasp of reality; (3) a weird definition of "graphic novel" that excludes every halfway decent comic book-like thing which came out in 2008; or (4) a premium on appreciation for what shoveled the most money into a distributor's coffers in 2008.

As long as I was in my local Borders (which, BTW, looks about as sad as you'd expect given the chain's current woes--those manga shelves are anemic, they're literally debacled; on the other hand, you can't sneeze without tripping over a Watchmen display, or something like that), I figured I might as well check out a few other books which I had heretofore ignored when considering the best of 2008. In a couple of cases, I read copies from the local public library. Briefly:

Too Cool to Be Forgotten
I never cared for Alex Robinson's art. In fact I hated it with a burning passion that has only faded in recent years as I've realized that it's not 1998 anymore, and that Robinson has probably learned a few things over the last decade-and-change. This is, of course, absolutely true; he's actually turned into a good cartoonist. I still don't find his style all that appealing, but he's a confident storyteller and character designer. It's a little annoying when you get the sense that Robinson is holding back a little--there's a sequence on page 94 that suggests that he's capable of more interesting linework than what fills most of Too Cool to Be Forgotten. But he's got a leg up on most working cartoonists.

Overall, I thought it was a pretty okay book until the end, which is about the schmaltziest thing I've read in ages (or it would be if I hadn't read (and reviewed) Never Land recently). It's a really hackneyed sort of ending, though I could see it really speaking to those with raw wounds similar to the protagonist's. But I still found it simplistic, implying that healing psychological wounds is kind of like solving a jigsaw puzzle. Too Cool to Be Forgotten is worth reading, and has as nicely designed a cover as I can remember seeing in 2008, but it's not one of the best comics of the year.

The Alcoholic
First the cover: I hate photo covers on graphic novels. It makes sense for prose novels because there aren't any pictures inside, so it doesn't really matter what's on the cover as long as it's aesthetically pleasing and encourages purchases. Those are also the goal of most comics covers as well, but the difference is comics do have interior art. Having an interest in what's actually inside a graphic novel or comic, I expect the imagery on the front cover to bear some resemblance to the interior art. There are, of course, exceptions; I wouldn't dare complain about those great Carmine Infantino and Neal Adams covers in the 1960s, for instance. But that's partly because I think they're engaging in a type of visual narrative themselves, which, as Eddie Campbell has argued, is a sort of cousin to comics, and worth our time in and of themselves. (At least I think that's what Campbell has argued, but for the love of god don't go by my memory/interpretation of his words.) The cover of The Alcoholic, however, conveys the impression that the book is ashamed by its guts, almost like it's trying to lure in the fabled casual reader by intimating that it's not really a comic book. It's just like a regular book, see?

At least that's what I think whenever I see a cover like this one. This is at least a shade better than Vertigo's other major OGN for 2008, Incognegro, in that interior artist Dean Haspiel drew the napkin doodle on the cover. On the inside, I thought Haspiel's art was a bit less sharp than I remembered. There are some pages which do shine, like a scene towards the end of the book depicting the narrator (a basically non-veiled stand-in for writer Jonathan Ames) trying heroin for the first time. It's effective for a few reasons--the way the Jonathan's legs form panel gutters for instance--but it's also noteworthy that it's one of the few panels in which Haspiel's Jack Kirby influence is prominent. And that's really Haspiel's strong suit, those sorts of powerful images.

Unfortunately, part of what bugs me about this book is my doubt that Haspiel is the right artist for it. I think he's a fine artist, and his work with Harvey Pekar indicates that he can succeed in a collaborative effort, but I don't think he sounds the right tone here. No matter how mundane his material, Pekar's work is always very much steeped in the traditions of the traditional North American comic book, making Haspiel a good collaborator. Here, though, I think Haspiel's storytelling and cartooning is actually too big, too comic book-y. There's a lot of crying and sadness in this book, the depictions of which almost always involve mouths and eyes agape, actual rivers of tears flowing. Like, you could go white water rafting down those cheeks.

Part of this is Ames' fault as well, as he veers toward the melodramatic. When bad news is delivered over the phone (and it frequently is), characters stare directly into the reader's eyes, shouting NO NO NO in big bold letters. There's certainly a place for melodrama in comics, no question, but Ames and Haspiel seem to lose sight of what kind of book they're making. This is a cancer comic. I don't use that term in an entirely pejorative sense, since there have been many good tragedy-laden memoirs published in the last 10 years--the best probably being Alison Bechdel's Fun Home. But a cancer comic calls for at least some degree of subtlety, as seen in Bechdel's work, or in that of Emmanuel Guibert. (Alan's War isn't really a cancer comic, given the tone and content, but it's a cousin.) The approach here is more like the kind of made-for-TV movie I saw during my childhood. (Not-so-fun fact: CBS aired one such movie about a classmate of mine who shot and killed two guys who were apparently trying to rob his home.)

There are other problems, like my feeling that I didn't really learn much about the roots of Jonathan A.'s problems. Ames seems a little reluctant to discuss the possible influence of his parents and his upbringing, but it's probably hard to get out of your own skin when writing a memoir like this. The Alcoholic isn't a bad comic. It's certainly better than Joker (high praise indeed!) but probably not as good as Too Cool to Be Forgotten. I liked the ending, which actually makes the execution a bit more frustrating--this might have been pretty good if handled differently. Still, it's almost certainly going to be somewhere in the top 10 on the 2008 meta-list, so kudos for DC/Vertigo's publicity department's work in getting this into the right hands.

Northlanders

This comic is seriously okay. If graphic novels were widely available in airport newsstands, the homes of relatives hosting family gatherings, or the waiting rooms of dentists, tire stores, etc., then I would strongly recommend checking out the first volume of Northlanders. It captures the feeling of reading an issue of Quasar or Kull the Conqueror on a long drive with one's parents. I liked it better than Local or Demo.

You'll find the art by Davide Gianfelice and (particularly) colorist Dave McCraig quite good, at least at first. McCraig's rich colors gives it the appearance of stained glass at times, sort of an ironic (but not unpleasant) effect for a comic about Vikings. It also reminds me of Ernie Colon's art in his 1988 OGN Ax (which is pretty interesting, if you ever get the chance to flip through it). As the series wears on, Gianfelice's line art looks more rushed, the lines heavier and less expressive, almost bordering on latter-day Scott McDaniel territory. Brian Wood's writing provides occasional excitement, and lots of colorful language.

It is by no means one of the best comics or graphic novels of 2008, at least based on the first collection of issues. Maybe the single issues published last year improve dramatically; maybe I'll check out the second volume when it comes out later this year to see for sure.

I swear I'm going to run this every year until someone admits it's funny

2009-02-16T09:00:00.000-08:00

I have to admit, this makes even less sense the further we get from those halcyon days of furious reactions to Civil War (responses to Final Crisis are positively panegyrical in comparison), perhaps best exemplified by those ubiquitous/fatuous "Cap was right" banners. Also noteworthy (sort of): I do not have a stepfather; my parents are actually still married. And man, I really liked exclamation points back then.

I added in an entry for President Obama and edited some stuff that seemed excessively dumb in retrospect (obviously that's really saying something). Otherwise, this is the same shit I've run the last two President's Days. Get used to it!

You know, we don't do enough to celebrate President's Day in the DC/Marvelogosphere, which is a terrible shame. So we asked our crack research team, who we guarantee know more about history than you, to rectify this situation. What they came up with is a list of which president best corresponds to which corporate intellectual property. Hope you enjoy!

-Abraham Lincoln: Known as the father of our country, old Honest Abe only needed one nickname: the Rail Splitter. Now we've never been much for physical labor. I mean, occasionally our stepfather would force us to pick weeds on a Saturday afternoon, even though we told him that we were allergic to dirt. God, I HATE HIM SO MUCH....Anyway, we speculate that rail-splitting might have been something like swinging a hammer. So the obvious answer here is THOR.

-George Washington: Known as the father of our country, old Honest George was known for chopping down cherry trees just to prove how honest he is. Well, no superhero says "chop" quite like KARATE KID.

-Andrew Jackson: Waged war on the Indians, killed a man in a duel...sounds like JONAH HEX to us. Plus they kind of looked similar.

-Andrew Hamilton: This president is best known for appearing on a ten dollar bill, being secretary of the treasury, calling for the expansion of the federal government, and being killed by Aaron Burr. We're going to say IRON MAN.

-Aaron Burr: We'll continue our earlier line of thought and say CAPTAIN AMERICA. We guess we'll see this Wednesday--we can't wait!!!!!!!!

-Ronald Reagan: We always associate Reagan with our stupid stepfather, who made us wear a stupid Reagan/Bush '84 button to class. All the cool first graders called me us a nazi and made us eat dirt, which made our allergies act up. Our stupid stepfather had a stupid mustache like DOCTOR STRANGE, so let's go with him.

-Franklin Roosevelt: Well, Roger Stern says CAPTAIN AMERICA, so who are we to disa--wait, we already did Captain America. Uh, let's say USAGENT.

-George W. Bush: We hear he doesn't care about black people, and neither did GREEN LANTERN, HAL JORDAN VERSION. Bring back the other guy! [In all fairness to Hal Jordan and his gruesome legion of fans, I hear that he did care about the "purple skins." -DH]

-George HW Bush: Obviously must be GREEN LANTERN, ALAN SCOTT VERSION.

-John F Kennedy: Taken from us too soon. GWEN STACEY.

-Bill Clinton: The greatest player in the history of the presidents, the ultimate large-testicled sex machine. Clearly you have to go with that stud NIGHTWING. We bet they've even had sex with some of the same women! In the DCU, we mean. We know Nightwing doesn't really exist...yet!

-Warren G Harding: Known as the most handsome president, so we guess he'd be BATMAN. Well, we hear women think Batman is handsome. We can't tell, being totally heterosexual-type guys.

-Dwight D Eisenhower: We think he looks like METAMORPHO. Runner up: DON RICKLES.

-Grover Cleveland: Our greatest president, the man who freed the slaves, proponent of free silver. Clearly the best choice is SILVER SURFER.

-Barack Hussein Obama: Call me old fashioned, but I'm going to say GREEN LANTERN, JOHN STEWART VERSION. I've always thought Denny O'Neill's depiction of a proud, angry black hero was directly responsible for the passage of the Voting Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act probably had more to do with Lt. Flap from Beetle Bailey, though. I guess that would have been a good choice had this been an article comparing presidents to minor comic strip characters. Maybe next year. [Ha ha. -DH]

And there you have it, every president ever, compared to a superhero. Happy Presidents' Day!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That announcement

2009-02-15T17:20:00.000-08:00

In case you've missed it during this wild Valentine's Day weekend, I'm now writing for The Savage Critic, along with fellow new recruits Tucker Stone, Sean Collins, David Uzumeri, and Chris Eckert. I even have a neat little icon designed by Kate McMillan, a test tube to represent Chemical King. I had no idea until I joined that all the Savage Critics' icons represented Legion of Superhero characters (with the exceptions of those prima donnas Tucker and Douglas, who apparently prefer Popeye and Krazy Kat, respectively, to the genius of teenage Jim Shooter; also, maybe (MAYBE) I'm dense, but I'm not entirely sure if Chris and David's icons represent Legionnaires or not). I guess that explains Jeff Lester's tooth, which had previously always baffled me. Anyway, my first post is here. (EDIT: And you know, it now occurs to me that Sean Collins' lightning bolt probably has more to do with David Bowie than Lightning Lad, which probably explains why it's purple and red instead of yellow. Plus, I guess my icon is more accurately described as a beaker, rather than a test tube--and a beaker makes for a better visual anyway. Sigh. One day I'll figure shit out, I swear.)

I'll mostly be working on a project I was going to announce whenever I finished my best of 2008 list (STILL IN THE WORKS, I promise you): an ongoing diary of my attempt to put together a best of the 00s list. I, of course, encourage each and every one of you to consider making a similar list at the end of this year. And we can also think about which comics we would consider for such a list, whether or not to include reprints and translations of work from before this decade, etc. I'm not going to try to make an exhaustive list right now (that's what the comments section is for), but we can start with a list of what I suspect are the consensus choices, or at least the closest approximation to such a thing that I can think of off the top of my head:

Things originally published in this decade:

Blankets
Fun Home
Bottomless Belly Button
All Star Superman
Exit Wounds
What It Is
Scott Pilgrim series
Acme Novelty Library
Safe Area Gorazde
American Born Chinese
Shortcomings
Y the Last Man

Things spanning multiple decades, or originally published in the 90s and collected in the 00s:

Black Hole
David Boring
Jimmy Corrigan
Louis Riel
any of the thousands of Love and Rockets reprints

Reprints would include:

Complete Peanuts
Popeye
Krazy Kat
Art Out of Time

Translations would include:

Persepolis (I think it qualifies for the 00s anyway)
D&Q's Tatsumi reprints
Epileptic
various Tezuka reprints

Anthologies would include:

Mome
Kramers Ergot
McSweeney's #13

None of that is an endorsement of these selections (particularly Y the Last Man), but it's a starting point for a starting point. Now to narrow it down further: what book should I read to start this series? I'm kind of leaning towards Black Hole.

Also: have been playing too much Persona 4

2009-02-05T16:10:00.000-08:00

I was going to write something about Final Crisis #7, since what the world really needs right now is yet another post about that subject. But what I'd have to say is largely solipistic, I'm so sick of superheroes stuff, plus a little about how I can't take Morrison's grand themes seriously because I look at Superman and see a mascot used to sell peanut butter, and not a serious socio-religious figure. I would like to echo the comments from Sean Collins (who, just to be clear, is one of the greatest advocates of Final Crisis #7 on my RSS feed) and others that Grant Morrison might consider actually reading some comics by people who are actually doing the revolutionary storytelling he thinks he's doing. Morrison is much, much closer to Geoff Johns or Brian Bendis than Kevin Huizenga or Yuichi Yokoyama, or even NYT Funny Pages mainstays like Jaime Hernandez or Dan Clowes. Given what I think of contemporary superhero comics, I consider Morrison kind of irrelevant to any discussions of what constitutes truly great comics. But then again, I thought All Star Superman was more "nice" than "mind-blowing," so what do I know?

In any event, I'm off to the land of dial-up at my parents' house for about a week so that I can attend my brother's wedding. So no posts for a while (I've been working on something about books I hadn't considered for the best of 2008 list--which, yes, I will eventually post someday--so expect that once I've returned and had a chance to read The Alcoholic). I'll still be checking email and stuff like that, though. Meta-list will be up whenever the year-in-review issue of TCJ is out and I manage to get a copy. And there should be some other Hyacinth-related news out next week, too. Excitement~!

Fifth roundup of best comics and graphic novels of 2008 lists

2009-01-22T22:44:00.000-08:00

I strongly suspect that this is just about it. There are undoubtedly a few lists yet to come--like mine!--and I'll publish a final list of sources when the final meta-list is tallied. But I'm guessing that's fewer than 10 lists we're talking about.

Remember, if you know of a list not included below, please email me or leave a comment pointing me in the right direction. And please, don't rush getting your lists in on my account. I wouldn't want anyone to do this in this in the first place, but it's totally unnecessary besides. The Comics Journal won't publish their best of 2008 issue until February (I think), and I won't be doing one anytime soon either. I've got about 8-10 books I want to consider that haven't come in the mail yet. Among them: Kramers Ergot 7. Anyone know what's going on with Amazon's distribution of this book?

Criteria for inclusion in the Meta-List:

-list must contain no fewer than five items and no more than fifty
-list must be a general best-of list, not a series of categorical awards like "best superhero book," "best children's book," etc.
-list must not be limited to superhero comics, manga, major publishers, etc.
-I don't include votes for things like "everything Warren Ellis wrote in 2008"
-when a list includes a vote for a title which came out in a year prior to 2008, I usually tally everything like I normally would; it's rare that there are enough votes for an out-of-date item for it to crack the top 100
-no overt sleaziness (like voting for your own work; will be determined on a case-by-case basis)

New lists are in green.

GENERAL INTEREST LISTS:

Amazon

Contra Costa Times/Inside Bay Area

Daily Vanguard (Portland State University)

New York Magazine

OC Weekly (OC Weekly is not the periodical for me--anyone other than my brother likely to get that joke?)

Oklahoman: Part 1 (graphic novels); Part 2 (periodicals)

Oregonian

Patriot News/Chris Mautner (As per Chris' request, I'm using this instead of his Robot 6 list.)

Playback STL: Part 1 (graphic novels); Part 2 (periodicals)

Publishers Weekly

USA Today

Village Voice (RC Baker)

Village Voice (a different list, this one by Richard Gehr; notable for stretching the definition of "comics" to include an animated film)

Washington Post

COMICS-FOCUSED LISTS:

Bacardi, Johnny

Badman, Derik

Bilus, Sandy

Borden, Carol

Brady, Matthew

Callahan, Timothy: Part one (collected editions); Part two (original material 11-20); Part three (original material 1-10)

Cederlund, Scott

Cass, Evan Harrison

Collins, Sean

Cronin, Brian

Doane, Alan David

Gordon, Joe

Graphic Novel Reporter

Gravett, Paul

Harbin, Dustin

Heer, Jeet

Hickey, Andrew

Horsten, Toon

Jog

Largehearted Boy (not sure if he always goes by Guided By Voices song titles, or if there's a more conventional name I could put in this place)

Lockefeer, Wim

Lorah, Michael

Meehan, Bram

Mozzocco, J. Caleb

Neal, Andrew

Ostrander, Ben

Paggi, David

Robot 6 folks (Not all will count; see criteria above. BTW, since I haven't said it yet, welcome back, dudes.

Sobel, Marc

Steinke, Aron Nels

Stone, Tucker: Part 1; Part 2

Tomio, Jay

Wolk, Douglas (cross-reference with his list of single issues here)

COMICS PROFESSIONALS:

Kaczynski, Tom

Reynolds, Eric

Santoro, Frank

Smith, Jeff

Soto, Zack

Various (not all will be used, as some fail to meet the standards enumerated above; also, this includes what seems like the 217th Dan Goldman list I've seen, and, if my memory is holding up, there's less overlap than you might expect among the lists)

QUESTIONABLE/INCOMPLETE:

Amazon.jp (The Japanese branch of Amazon's best comics and "light novels." Interesting, but I'm not sure what to do with it since much (most?) of this is not available in English yet, and the light novels are definitely not comics. On the other hand, those aren't necessarily good reasons to exclude this list. Any thoughts?)

Boyd, Robert (Boyd admits this is a "best of things I read this year, but which were not necessarily published in 2008." But most of this list does consist of 2008 releases, so I'll almost certainly count it when the time comes. UPDATED: I've included it.)

Drawn!, part one (Matt Forsythe) (This contains one comic which is definitely not 2008 (Tekkon Kinkreet) and one which is either a 2007 entry if you consider it a book or a 2008 entry if you consider it a webcomic (Fart Party). My Brain is Hanging Upside Down and Cul de Sac are definite 2008 comic releases. I'm not sure what you would consider the Nicholas series. The rest are things which not everyone would agree are comics. My inclination is to count this list anyway, since (a) the non-comics stuff won't accumulate enough other votes to place, and (b) I'll disqualify any non-2008 titles when I finalize the meta-list. Do note that I'm not trying to denigrate the list because it doesn't fit into this project; I like seeing unconventional lists, and it's not like Drawn! is a comics-only blog. UPDATE: I have included this list.)

Drawn, part two (John Martz) (See comments above, except that this list a greater number of 2008 titles that most would classify as unambiguously comics. UPDATE: I have included this list.)

The Independent (Seems to have an awful lot of books from before 2008--Sleepwalk? Embroideries?--which might reflect new British editions, but I'm skeptical. Comics and Sequential Art seriously never came out in the UK before 2008? Just seems like a lazy list.)

Nicholson, Brian (I don't have any problem with it, but Brian suggests he doesn't "read enough to be considered a serious critic." I'm inclined to include it, unless Brian asks me not to.)

St. Louis Today (Includes one from 2007, which reduces the list down to a total of four, below the minimum threshold. I'll probably include it in the final tally, and ignore the votes for Laika. UPDATE: I've included it.)

Douglas Wolk (It's a gift guide, not a best-of list)

WILL NOT USE:

Clough, Rob (Too many entries--lumping Huizenga's work together pushes it over 50. Sorry, Rob. Good list, though.)

Comic Book Resources (too many entries; on a qualitative level, I do share Marc-Oliver Frisch's bemusement over the whole thing, but I certainly would have counted it, had it been slightly less gargantuan)

Comics Should Be Good/Danielle Leigh Readers' Choice (too short, categorical, and delimited to manga)

DCBS blog (self-described as "a semi-random list")

Ferraro, Dave (Delimited to superheroes; Ferraro plans to make an overall best-of list which will include some of these titles. Didn't know that Echo was a sci-fi/fantasy comic.)

Kethylia (delimited to manga)

NPR: Part one (graphic novels) and Part two (superhero books) (UPDATED: I decided not to use it after all. It's unclear if the superhero books are equal to the non-superhero books as some kind of separate but equal thing, or if this is just laziness (ie, not taking the time to determine if the best superhero books of 2008 do, in fact, stand up to the best non-superhero books), or pandering. If the graphic novel list was 10 items long, would any of the superhero books appear on it? I don't know, so I'm not counting this.)

Pop Culture Shock (delimited to manga)

Publishers Weekly (Kai Ming Cha) (delimited to manga)

School Library Journal (I think this is limited to comics for kids. If that isn't the case, please let me know and I'll include it in the project.)

Sequential Tart (Two lists, but neither meets the minimum number of entries for inclusion.)

Smith, Shannon (specifically delimited to mini-comics and web comics; well worth your time, though)

Various cartoonists at Forbidden Planet (Forbidden Planet is conducting a series of interviews with cartoonists, asking for a top three list from each. This is below the minimum threshold for this project, but you should check out this link, which should take you to all of the interviews conducted so far. Bryan Talbot is the most prominent interviewee to date.)

Wizard (Not the official list, at least not yet. This is a categorical awards list, and thus ineligible. What a strange list--a bunch of superhero comics, plus Kramers Ergot 7.)

Marvel: the penis outside your window

2009-01-20T12:00:00.000-08:00

AMAZING SPIDER-MAN: Everyone's favorite penis that can't catch a break is really in for it now: a date with Mary Jane, a battle with the Vulture, and Aunt May on her deathbed in the hospital. Will Peter Parker's penis make a stunning decision? Spider-Man's penis no more! Note to retailers: this issue will ship with a special 1 in 10 variant cover depicting the historic meeting between Spider-Man's penis and Barack Obama's penis.

IRON MAN: Part one of the yearlong epic PENIS WARS. It's Tony Stark's darkest secret: when those Red Chinese shot him full of shrapnel, they took out his penis in the process. For years, Stark has pleasured a wide array of beautiful women with a realistic prosthetic, code-named Iron Penis. But now Iron Penis has maybe fallen into potentially wrong hands, and could theoretically be used for evil. The Penis Wars have begun! Guest starring the ghost of Captain America.

THOR: Tricked by Loki, Thor is forced to sacrifice his testicles to save Midgard. Faced with this empty scrotum, Lady Sif weeps for days. Nourished by her tears, two enchanted holly berries grow in the place of the missing testicles. Tragically, Baldur has no choice but to eat these poisonous berries (long story), and his death signals the beginning of Ragnarok. Lo, what hath thou wrought, Thor's penis?

SILVER SURFER: For the past 20 years, the greatest mystery of the Marvel Universe has been: where does the Silver Surfer keep his penis? He used to wear silver underwear, but now he apparently doesn't. Why? To find the answer, the Silver Surfer take his penis to the far ends of the universe to convene with the Elder Phalli of the Marvel Universe. Does Norrin Radd dare gaze upon the fearsome penis of the mighty Galactus?

THE THING: For generations, fans have wondered about the Thing's penis. Is it orange? Is it made out of rocks? What they've never considered, however, is that the Thing is, you know, Jewish. You know. What happens when Ben Grimm decides he wants to restore his foreskin? And what key does Paste Pot Pete hold to this phallolithic foreskin reclamation process?

THE VISION: Why do female robots (to the extent that such a term is meaningful for artificial life) always have breasts, but male robots only rarely have penises? The Vision wants to know, and he's going to kill as many Hydra agents as it takes until he gets some answers. But he won't know the real truth until he gets a look at Wonder-Man's penis, which is being held hostage by Baron von Strucker himself. Can these two "brothers" put aside their differences long enough to rescue the kidnapped genitalia?

WOLVERINE: Now that his memory is back, Wolverine is finally starting to remember all the unconventional places his penis has been. But one memory still haunts him: that magical winter he spent with a Sasquatch during the Klondike gold rush. Logan never would have left that musky cave had he not sworn a blood oath of loyalty to Grover Cleveland. Now Wolverine has heard rumors that he left that Sasquatch with more than just memories. And if that mutant-Sasquatch hybrid can't be convinced to use his powers for good, what hope does mankind have?

THE HULK: You've probably always assumed the Hulk's penis was green (or gray or red, as the case may be). You were wrong, and you'll be shocked to learn why the color of the Hulk's penis will determine the fate of Atlantis! Can the fury of the Hulk's penis stand up to the graceful power of Namor's penis, which can breathe underwater and has little wings attached to it?

Re: This weekend's sports events

2009-01-19T00:26:00.000-08:00

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Also, what's up with Shogun Rua? Is it inadequate recovery from injuries, American drug testing, a bad camp, poor work ethic, or what?

At last, MMA comics

2009-01-13T22:00:00.000-08:00

It's taken a while, but finally the two of the great concerns of this blog (and blogger) have come together: MMA and comics. Yes, there is that MMA manga you occasionally see posted on blogs or message boards, but that's not available in North America, plus it appears to be kind of outdated (been a long time since Mirko Cro Cop was a serious heavyweight threat) and maybe not-good. What I've really been wanting is fictional (or quasi-fictional) MMA comics. I got two of them in 2008.

The most MMA-centric of the two is the second issue of Jeffrey Brown's Sulk (preview here). Sulk is, as I understand it, sort of like Brown's catch-all title for his non-autobiographical work, or at least the stuff which is a bit more genre-ish. Top Shelf's website describes it as "a showcase for a variety of Jeffrey Brown's all-new experimental comics," but the first two issues aren't exactly what I picture when I think "avant garde comics." The first issue (preview) marks the return of Brown's Bighead character, a kind of gentle superhero parody. It's some of my favorite work by Brown to date, charming, funny, and surprisingly inventive. It's also a good showcase for Brown's sketchy line and rubbery figures, highlighting the silliness of superheroes like Cyclotopus and the Brit.

It's a very cute comic, which is not usually my thing, and I have to say that I've read enough superhero parodies for multiple lifetimes. But Brown is never cloyingly cute; the humor always comes first. More importantly, he's well-attuned to the conventions and rhythms of superhero comics, and thus better equipped to exploit them. His gags are frequently surprising and successful. Bighead encounters "The Author" in one story, much in same way that Animal Man met Grant Morrison. Rather than lecturing him on the nature of fiction and creation, however, the Author's instead torments Bighead by summoning an army of 7-year-olds to follow him around and ask him to save the world. In another story, Bighead fights a clone (?) of himself, summoned by the police angry with Bighead for breaking up an undercover operation to arrest drug addicts (you know, rather than drug dealers). The fight ends with a caption declaring Bighead the winner, but not specifying which Bighead won.

Sulk #1 is a comic with potentially very wide appeal. It's certainly better than most superhero parodies, partly because Brown sends up the tropes of superhero comics/cartoons/etc. rather than specific characters or stories. In other words, there's no Batman analogue here. However, there is a story about Bighead's heroic death and subsequent resurrection. It's not absolutely essential stuff, but it's the sort of thing that many current and former superhero readers will enjoy.

I'm a little less certain what Brown's goals are in the second issue, devoted entirety to depicting a fight between two mixed martial artists. There are a lot of jokes that only mixed martial arts fans will get. Sulk #2 is loaded with thinly disguised references to real-life MMA personalities. "Jesse Rouge" seems like a pretty clear reference to UFC color commentator Joe Rogan. Even more obvious is his partner "Rass Buten," whose name inverts the consonants in Bas Rutten's name (and otherwise bears little resemblance to the Dutch fighter/broadcaster). One of the two fighters is named (Haruki) Rakasabu, an anagram for legendary Japanese fighter (Kazushi) Sakuraba. The other fighter, Eldark Garprub, is the hardest to place. I'm assuming Brown is nodding toward Quinton "Rampage" Jackson, based on the cadential and alphabetical similarities of the names (assuming you remove the "Quinton" and concentrate on "Rampage" and "Jackson").

The other tip-off of Garprub's identity is his frequent invocations of God. The real-life Quinton Jackson underwent a spiritual rebirth a few years ago (one which may have contributed to his reckless driving arrest last year--he was fasting at the time). As for Raksabu, his feud with Garprub originates from a vicious KO of the latter's training partner. This could be an allusion to Tito Ortiz' feud with Ken Shamrock and the Lion's Den, but it's probably more like a reference to Sakuraba's string of victories against members of the Gracie family (earning him the nickname "The Gracie Hunter").

Can you enjoy Sulk #2 without getting these references? Absolutely. Besides, I think the names are less important as references to specific fighters and more important as signifiers of different approaches to MMA. Rakasabu seems to represent a more traditional MMA approach to fighting, relying on technique and determination rather than size and athleticism (Rakasabu is outweighed by about 20 pounds, a huge disadvantage in modern MMA). Eldark Garprub seems to represent the opposite approach.

Moreover, there are cultural associations with each approach that you could reductively assign to Japan and the United States, respectively. If you were to try to determine the essence of American MMA (not that I'd recommend such a thing, but just play along for a moment), you'd probably look towards amateur wrestling. Technique is obviously important in wrestling, but raw athleticism is also crucial, and can easily overwhelm experience and skills. What's more, amateur wrestlers tend to cut weight in order to press size advantages. (For those unfamiliar with weight cutting, it goes something like this: (1) dehydrate in a sauna or rubber suit, possibly while exercising; (2) sweat off a few pounds; (3) weigh in; (4) rehydrate and gain back the weight over the next day or two; (5) come in to fight up to 20 pounds heavier than you were at the weigh-in.) Japanese fighters have a reputation for being reluctant to cut weight or even diet down to a more advantageous weight class. As a result, they have tended to be a fair bit smaller than opponents from other countries, particularly the United States. Sakuraba, for instance, basically ruined his career by fighting and losing badly to men much larger than him. Not that it was entirely his idea, but that's another story.

The size differential question also has a historical component. In the earliest MMA competitions, there were no weight classes; Royce Gracie frequently fought men who substantially outweighed him. Again, this is tied into the idea of traditional martial arts, which stipulates that a fighter with superior skill should be able to beat a less skilled, bigger man. In Sulk #2, Rakasabu has almost twice as many fights as Garprub, and he's nine years older. So in addition to a cultural clash, Brown seems to be establishing a generational clash.

Unlike the references to the specific careers of Quinton Jackson and Kazushi Sakuraba, you probably do need to figure out at least some of this stuff. Fortunately, Brown makes this easy enough that anyone can make out the broad strokes. The weight difference is one clue. The tale of the tape provides another: among his "likes," Rakasabu lists "mind games" and "subtlety." Garprub cites "power (and displays of power)." It's pretty clear that the story of the fight will be wily old technician vs. young powerhouse.

Having said that, Brown complicates this story in his depiction of the actual fight. Brown takes us inside the head of each fighter, revealing their thought process as they plan their actions. Rather than blindly rushing in, hoping to overwhelm Rakasabu with his power, Garprub considers the situation and looks for openings. He's as strategic a fighter as Rakasabu, who, for his part, has to rely on both power and strategy in order to survive against his much larger opponent.

In a sense, then, Brown is offering an alternative to the rather tired trope of the brainless big lug vs. the crafty, smaller man. That makes the comic more realistic, certainly, and it also does quite a bit to promote the sport of mixed martial arts as more than mere brutality. Which is good, but something I kind of take for granted as a fan of MMA; I know that elite fighters have to be able to make lightning quick decisions, and that one misstep can end a fight suddenly. I know that the mythical "cage fighter" (who looks a lot like this) can't come in swinging wildly and expect to last more than a minute against a skilled opponent. I know these aren't bar fights. But other people don't know this, and Sulk #2 might educate them on these points.

I do appreciate the subtle way that Brown undermines the brains vs. brawn argument. And the art is very nice, marked by dynamic compositions and moody shading. I do think it falls a bit short of epic, though; one doesn't feel that Rakasabu is in danger of anything more than losing the fight. Compare this to an extended fight scene from your favorite boys' manga. Or hell, not even necessarily a fight scene--any competition will do, whether it involves cooking or chess or whatever. Brown never really establishes a "oh, shit, what next?" factor. To be fair, he probably would have needed double the pages to do that. Brown does build up tension and releases it with depictions of violence, but he doesn't do it on a scale which would make this fight truly memorable.

This is not to say that such an approach is the only way to portray a fight, but Brown doesn't leave himself a lot of alternatives. He shows us almost nothing about these characters other than their fighting styles, so it's not like we have any emotional investment in who wins or loses the fight. It's a good, realistic (definitely photo referenced, and I mean that as a compliment), depiction of MMA, probably not any less dramatic than a real-life fight. But as a work of fiction, Brown seems to be working in almost a minor key.

Sulk #2 is a good book, certainly entertaining and worthy of your time. It's probably best for those interested in MMA, but not especially well-versed in its intricacies. I know some hardcore fans of both MMA and comics who would be delighted in seeing their favorite sport translated to comics, and others who would question its value when real fights with real people are easily available. I'm not sure how those with no interest in MMA would judge Sulk #2. It doesn't really succeed as a snapshot of a foreign world, because its scope is limited to the fight itself. Aside from a very brief epilogue, it's exactly like watching a fight on TV, right down to the segment where fighters talk trash at each other. You can almost hear the operatic gladiator music.

In a totally different style is Yusaku Hanakuma's Tokyo Zombie, which begins with factory employees grappling at work. Mitsuo is instructing protagonist Fujio on how to break a body triangle when a co-worker intrudes into their makeshift ring without taking his shoes off. Then he suggests that rolling around on the floor together might indicate something about the pair's sexual orientation (an insinuation MMA fans have heard time and time again, even from some fighters). Fujio responds by killing the naysayer with a baseball bat to the back of the head. The pair then drive to Dark Fuji, a mountain made of garbage where quite a few corpses have been dumped. Having done their work ("Our code says we gotta bury him with his toupee on"), they drive away, unaware that all the corpses have mysteriously returned to life. Fujio's old gym teacher, on hand to bury a student who he punished too vigorously, finds out the hard way (PUN INTENDED!) not to accept oral sex from zombies.

As they become aware that zombies have overwhelmed the town, Fujio and Mitsuo try to escape. Mitsuo seemingly dies in the process, his final words an instruction to Fujio to seek out further training in Russia (presumably with Fedor Emilianenko--Yusaka Hanuakuma is clearly a serious MMA fan). Believe it or not, it's only at this point where I feel comfortable saying "now the book gets weird." We jump five years into the future, where wealthy survivors have created a walled city to protect themselves from the zombies. The poor work as slaves; dissidents are forced outside the walls to fend for themselves. The pastime of choice for the wealthy is watching fights between humans and zombies. Fujio, as you may have guessed, has taken up work as a professional zombie fighter.

Okay, so far so good; the in-jokes about MMA aside, this is the sort of thing anyone can enjoy. But at this point, Hanakuma turns Tokyo Zombie into a commentary upon the Japanese fight industry. Seriously, you will not fully appreciate everything which happens from this point forward if you don't have some knowledge of Japanese MMA--not just MMA in general, but MMA as it is in Japan. Fujio is shocked to learn that the most popular fighter of zombies (Gaira) only fights in works, not shoots; in other words, he's more pro wrestler than mixed martial artist. The pits regular humans dress as zombies against Gaira, who, assured of victory, seeks to entertain rather than survive. When Fujio expresses dismay at this, the promoter chides him: "You need to stop and think about what the goddamn point of zombie fight really is."

The crowd loves Gaira because he's a charismatic entertainer, and they hate Fujio because he's a no-nonsense technician. (BTW, this kind of underscores Mitsuo's "go to Russia" comment. The average Japanese fan is not especially interested in Fedor Emilianenko; they prefer cartoonish characters like Bob Sapp (or at least they did, back when MMA was at the peak of its popularity in Japan). Mitsuo, however, knows what's really up and tells Fujio to seek out the best training possible.) HOWEVER, pure professional wrestling is not enough: the crowd demands bloody spectacle as well. The promoter mixes in real fights with the fake, sending actual zombies in to square off against occasionally unsuspecting human fighters.

What you may not realize is that, in Japan, professional wrestling and MMA are inextricable. Remember Sakuraba from the discussion of Sulk #2 above? His background is not in judo, muay thai, or any traditional martial art; he's a pro wrestler by training. In Japan, professional wrestlers were taught legitimate holds, making them tough enough to survive (and often win) fights against experts in more traditional disciplines. The most accomplished of these pro wrestlers was Kazushi Sakuraba, who almost single-handedly built the Japanese MMA industry by beating all those Gracie brothers (and the occasional cousin) in the early 00s.

Unfortunately for Japanese professional wrestling promotions, the public now wanted all pro wrestlers to prove their toughness against "real" fighters. The results were disastrous, the worst probably being the destruction of pro wrestler Yuji Nagata by Croatian kickboxer Mirko Cro Cop. On the other hand, legitimate mixed martial artists like Kaz Fujita were promoted heavily, in hopes of adding (restoring?) legitimacy to their promotions.* In other cases, pro wrestlers like Yoshihiro Takayama advanced their career by participating in fights of dubious legitimacy in MMA. Most confusing of all was Naoya Ogawa, a legitimate judo gold medalist who parlayed his success into pro wrestling work, which he backed up with fake MMA fights. Yeah, it's all kind of confusing.

Hanakuma seems to hold pro wrestling in some degree of contempt. Gaira, a pudgy dude with long hair, meets a grisly end (both as human and zombie). And when the promoter unveils the most dangerous zombie of all time, the crowd unleashes a maelstrom of boos, denouncing the fight as fake. (There might be a subtle class inversion thing going on here--pro wrestling crowds are traditionally working class, and the stereotype is that they can't tell real from fake. Here it's the wealthy who can't tell the difference. But then again, I'm not sure if these stereotypes apply to Japan, so take my theory with a grain of salt.) Resolution comes in the form of an army of real fighters. And, uh, pigs.

It's that second thing--an army of pigs!--and things like it which makes Tokyo Zombie appealing for reasons beyond its commentary on Japanese fighting. Don't get me wrong: I really loved all the MMA stuff. For everyone else: this is not a typical zombie comic. I mean, the climactic scene involves an audience of wealthy slave owners booing a fight between a martial artist and his zombified instructor because it's too technical. And then the pigs.

I know this sounds like the WACKY SHIT kind of comic which we all should strive to avoid, but it's actually funny. It's not like Hanakuma wrote a bunch of words like "ninjas," "robots," "surfing," "grocery store," and "roller coaster" on slips of paper, put them in a hat, drew at random, and came up with Tokyo Zombie. And it's not like it's carefully calculated to merge the zombie demographic with the MMA and pig army demographics either. This is actually a pretty sophisticated satire--rather than facing the horrible reality of the zombie apocalypse, the wealthy turn to fake fights between pro wrestlers and mute slaves disguised as zombies. Or rather, mute slaves disguised as zombies wearing animal masks.

That's what separates Tokyo Zombie from the pack: it doesn't really pull any punches. There is violence and cruelty. The fake zombies are legitimately disturbing. The walled city is both ridiculous and appalling. Hanakuma's rather primitive cartooning adds to this effect, by forcing the reader to remain in the moment. Rather than allowing the reader to escape into beautifully drawn panels, the simple figures and austere backgrounds keep the event at the forefront. So when you see the pig army charging into the arena, it's not like the gorgeous mayhem of the Great Cow Race; it's ugly little pigs chasing ugly little people. It's hilarious and horrifying at the same time.

Honestly, I was initially so distracted by all the MMA stuff that I wasn't sure if Tokyo Zombie was actually as good as it seemed, or if it appealed to me in a special, particular way. Upon re-reading it, I'm confident that this is a very good comic, one which I would enthusiastically recommend.

* Yes, I know Cro Cop KOed Fujita before he fought Nagata; I also know that this is what catapulted Cro Cop to fame in Japan. I just don't want to get too bogged down in the history of all that here. Partly because I don't want to have to research it.

Fourth roundup of best comics and graphic novels of 2008 lists

2009-01-06T12:50:00.000-08:00

This is a long time coming; sorry for the delay. I had planned to publish this roundup shortly before Christmas, but things just kind of got away from me. So instead, we have an extra-long list with entries from a variety of well-respected comics folk. This is strictly from my RSS feed; I'll be doing a Google search sometime soon to see what else I can turn up for the fifth roundup. And there are still a few notable internet-based lists outstanding, plus the Comics Journal's year in review. So there's plenty of time to get your lists in before I publish the final meta-list.

Of note this time: I've changed around the "will not use" list, in that I'm not cataloging every unusable list anymore. It just sort of seems pointless, and maybe a bit petulant, to catalogue lists merely for the sake of saying I won't include them. I'll continue to provide links to lists which I think are worth your time, even though I don't feel like I can use them for the meta-list project. Yes, that includes Wizard's list. It's not an endorsement so much as an acknowledgment of their place in comics discourse. Er, maybe their historical place in comics discourse, given the way things are going there.

Also: at the request of Marc-Oliver Frisch, I now have labeled every post related to the meta-list project. (Actually, I had already labeled these posts, but hadn't figured out how to get labels back on the posts after I apparently removed them at some point. Don't ask me, I just type here.) There's a link on the sidebar for this year's project, as well as last year's. And I've also included my own best of 2007 list and my ongoing 2008 workbook posts.

Observation: is Kevin Huizenga the new Chris Ware, ie, the alt/whatever cartoonist most likely to show up on lists otherwise exclusively concerned with assembly line comics? If so, will he be facing a backlash similar to the one currently afflicting (if that's the right word) Chris Ware? I'm guessing that the less morose tone of his books will guard against such a reaction, but I'm keeping my eyes open for it in 2009. Not that it really matters on anything beyond a discursive level, but many of you know how I feel about discourse by now.

Remember, if you know of a list not included below, please email me or leave a comment pointing me in the right direction. And please, don't rush getting your lists in on my account. I wouldn't want anyone to do this in this in the first place, but it's totally unnecessary besides. The Comics Journal won't publish their best of 2008 issue until February (I think), and I won't be doing one anytime soon either. I've got about 8-10 books I want to consider that haven't come in the mail yet. Among them: Kramers Ergot 7. Anyone know what's going on with Amazon's distribution of this book?

Criteria for inclusion in the Meta-List:

-list must contain no fewer than five items and no more than fifty
-list must be a general best-of list, not a series of categorical awards like "best superhero book," "best children's book," etc.
-list must not be limited to superhero comics, manga, major publishers, etc.
-I don't include votes for things like "everything Warren Ellis wrote in 2008"
-when a list includes a vote for a title which came out in a year prior to 2008, I usually tally everything like I normally would; it's rare that there are enough votes for an out-of-date item for it to crack the top 100
-no overt sleaziness (like voting for your own work; will be determined on a case-by-case basis)

New lists are in green.

GENERAL INTEREST LISTS:

Amazon

Daily Vanguard (Portland State University)

New York Magazine

OC Weekly (OC Weekly is not the periodical for me--anyone other than my brother likely to get that joke?)

Oklahoman: Part 1 (graphic novels); Part 2 (periodicals)

Publishers Weekly

USA Today

Village Voice (RC Baker)

Village Voice (a different list, this one by Richard Gehr; notable for stretching the definition of "comics" to include an animated film)

Washington Post

COMICS-FOCUSED LISTS:

Bacardi, Johnny

Badman, Derik

Andrew Neal (Thanks, Leigh!)

Clough, Rob

Cronin, Brian

Doane, Alan David

Graphic Novel Reporter

Harbin, Dustin

Hickey, Andrew

Hipster Dad

Jog

Lockefeer, Wim

Lorah, Michael

Meehan, Bram

Mozzocco, J. Caleb (Unless Caleb specifically asks me not to, I'm going to use his top 20 only, since that's what he posted at Blogorama. However, I'm linking to his more exhaustive post because, well, it's more exhaustive.)

Ostrander, Ben

Robot 6 folks (Not all will count; see criteria above. BTW, since I haven't said it yet, welcome back, dudes.

Sobel, Marc

Stone, Tucker: Part 1; Part 2

Tomio, Jay

COMICS PROFESSIONALS:

Reynolds, Eric

Smith, Jeff

Various (not all will be used, as some fail to meet the standards enumerated above; also, this includes what seems like the 217th Dan Goldman list I've seen, and, if my memory is holding up, there's less overlap than you might expect among the lists)

QUESTIONABLE/INCOMPLETE:

Amazon.jp (The Japanese branch of Amazon's best comics and "light novels." Interesting, but I'm not sure what to do with it since much (most?) of this is not available in English yet, and the light novels are definitely not comics. On the other hand, those aren't necessarily good reasons to exclude this list. Any thoughts?)

Associated Content (Written by Russell Burlingame of the new Blogorama crew. Framed as "the best and worst of 2008," I took this to be more of a year in review kind of list. Plus it might be too narrow (Echo is the only not-at-the-front-of-Diamond title listed). We'll see if Burlingame posts a best of 2008 list at Blogorama.)

Boyd, Robert (Boyd admits this is a "best of things I read this year, but which were not necessarily published in 2008." But most of this list does consist of 2008 releases, so I'll almost certainly count it when the time comes. UPDATED: I've included it.)

Callahan, Timothy (It's a list of the top 20 collected editions of 2008. Callahan has promised a separate list of the top 10 original comics of 2008, and I'll combine and tally the two lists once he publishes that list.)

Drawn!, part one (Matt Forsythe) (This contains one comic which is definitely not 2008 (Tekkon Kinkreet) and one which is either a 2007 entry if you consider it a book or a 2008 entry if you consider it a webcomic (Fart Party). My Brain is Hanging Upside Down and Cul de Sac are definite 2008 comic releases. I'm not sure what you would consider the Nicholas series. The rest are things which not everyone would agree are comics. My inclination is to count this list anyway, since (a) the non-comics stuff won't accumulate enough other votes to place, and (b) I'll disqualify any non-2008 titles when I finalize the meta-list. Do note that I'm not trying to denigrate the list because it doesn't fit into this project; I like seeing unconventional lists, and it's not like Drawn! is a comics-only blog. UPDATE: I have included this list.)

Drawn, part two (John Martz) (See comments above, except that this list a greater number of 2008 titles that most would classify as unambiguously comics. UPDATE: I have included this list.)

The Independent (Seems to have an awful lot of books from before 2008--Sleepwalk? Embroideries?--which might reflect new British editions, but I'm skeptical. Comics and Sequential Art seriously never came out in the UK before 2008? Just seems like a lazy list.)

Nicholson, Brian (I don't have any problem with it, but Brian suggests he doesn't "read enough to be considered a serious critic." I'm inclined to include it, unless Brian asks me not to.)

NPR (UPDATED: They've made two lists so far: one for "graphic novels" and one for superhero books. I'm not sure if there are any further lists coming or not; I'm holding off on distributing this vote until I'm reasonably sure there are no more lists forthcoming For now, I've removed all the points distributed for the original graphic novels list.)

Reed, Brian (Delimited to single issues; he says other categories will be coming later)

Some dude on Amazon (Do I really want to include Amazon lists? I mean, it's not a bad list, aside from being a little long, but really...)

St. Louis Today (Includes one from 2007, which reduces the list down to a total of four, below the minimum threshold. I'll probably include it in the final tally, and ignore the votes for Laika. UPDATE: I've included it.)

Douglas Wolk (I think this is a gift guide, not a best-of list?)

Various message board posters (Most of these fail to meet my minimal criteria (ie, they're all Marvel, DC, Dark Horse, and Image). And I haven't decided whether or not to include a bunch of hastily compiled message board lists. I mean, if this were Abhay Khosla or something, I would reconsider, but these are a bunch of basically anonymous dudes on a Hellblazer forum.)

WILL NOT USE:

Comic Book Resources (too many entries; on a qualitative level, I do share Marc-Oliver Frisch's bemusement over the whole thing, but I certainly would have counted it, had it been slightly less gargantuan)

Comics Should Be Good/Danielle Leigh Readers' Choice (too short, categorical, and delimited to manga)

DCBS blog (self-described as "a semi-random list")

Ferraro, Dave (Delimited to superheroes; Ferraro plans to make an overall best-of list which will include some of these titles. Didn't know that Echo was a sci-fi/fantasy comic.)

Kethylia (delimited to manga)

Patriot News/Chris Mautner (this is a an awards list, plus it's just easier to use Chris' list from Robot 6 (see above); I will change this, of course, at Chris' request)

Pop Culture Shock (delimited to manga)

School Library Journal (I think this is limited to comics for kids. If that isn't the case, please let me know and I'll include it in the project.)

Sequential Tart (Two lists, but neither meets the minimum number of entries for inclusion.)

Smith, Shannon (specifically delimited to mini-comics and web comics; well worth your time, though)

Various cartoonists at Forbidden Planet (Forbidden Planet is conducting a series of interviews with cartoonists, asking for a top three list from each. This is below the minimum threshold for this project, but you should check out this link, which should take you to all of the interviews conducted so far. Bryan Talbot is the most prominent interviewee to date.)

Wizard (Not the official list, at least not yet. This is a categorical awards list, and thus ineligible. What a strange list--a bunch of superhero comics, plus Kramers Ergot 7.)

It came in an enormous box

2008-12-31T12:30:00.001-08:00

-Sorry about the delay in posting--I haven't been away from home, but I was distracted by various Christmas-related things. Also MMA and football, but I'll spare you any thoughts on those subjects other than officially noting my glee at the Eagles' demolition of Dallas on Sunday afternoon. I never thought I would say it, but I was actually feeling kind of sorry for Tony Romo by the end of all that.

Anyway, I haven't updated my year's best database in about a week. I'll might publish the current list later today, and an updated one tomorrow. I'm guessing there weren't too many new lists added in the last week, though.

-At this point, I'm only awaiting my December shipment from DCBS to finish the acquisition portion of compiling my own best of 2008 list. Kramers Ergot 7 finally shipped from Amazon (anyone else have their shipment delayed?), and it arrived yesterday. I haven't read too much yet, but I have flipped through every page. Really, anyone complaining about the format (and accompanying price) needs to sit down with it. At a table--you don't want to try to read this in an armchair. You could also put it on an ottoman or a low couch and kneel before it, as if you were praying to it.

Anyway, I can't remember flipping through an anthology and saying "whoa" so many times. Upon first glance, the most impressive pages are the ones which really assault your senses. Those huges pages are absolutely stunning, especially as you move from one vista of color to another. I'm a little annoyed with the table of contents--I know that previous volumes of KE and many other anthologies have favored form over function in this regard, but it's very difficult to navigate when you're turning pages as long as your arm.* I'm planning to write out my own table of contents to keep alongside the book. I'll probably post it here when I'm done, in case anyone else is similarly inconvenienced.

This is, of course, a very minor complaint; overall, I'm as impressed with KE7 as I expected. I'm always leery of year's best lists which include titles which the list-maker has only a passing familiarity with, but I can understand the impulse to include this on early lists. Even a short time with KE7 will leave a strong impression.

*Not my arm, which is actually kind of long, but your arm. Assuming you're several inches shorter than me.

-Whenever I take a break from checking my RSS feeds (500+ posts to read!), there are always a few interesting comment threads waiting for me. Sometimes I mean "interesting" in a pejorative sense. In this case I don't: Sean Collins vs. Tom Spurgeon and Tucker Stone and Tim O'Neil (plus some other people) on ways to approach superhero comics in reviews.

I can't speak to who is making a better case, but I know that when I write about comics, I tend to navigate towards Sean's approach: when actually reviewing a Marvel/DC comic, write only about what I get out of a book, not what a hypothetical audience would think. Not that the other approach isn't valid, it's just that I can't fathom what the average superhero reader (or the potential superhero reader) wants from Final Crisis or whatever. Maybe this is a form of critical solipsism, but I just can't put myself in a mindset which acknowledges Geoff Johns' Green Lantern (or the Byrne/Claremont X-Men, for the hypothetical reader argument) as something that one would actually read for pleasure.

I've tried recently to read and review some comics which I knew I probably wouldn't like, but I found it impossible to get beyond my own revulsion at the dour meditations on super heroism I encountered. As I've said before (sort of), I found reading Secret Invasion akin to trying to decipher instructions on how to put together an obscure piece of furniture which were written in an extraterrestrial language. Plus every third page is missing. I don't merely lack understanding of who likes this stuff, or even who pays money for it--I don't understand the mentality which allows one to volunatarily read these comics instead of doing something more productive/entertaining, like cleaning toilets or alphebetizing cookbooks.

That doesn't stop me from writing about these comics from a business perspective; it's just that I don't really feel that it's necessary to read the comics in question. In fact, it's probably more productive if I don't. The popularity of the Sinestro Corps storyline in Green Lantern is undeniable; it was a great success in a year of dismal failures for DC. I didn't, however, read the story. I didn't have to; you can look at sales charts, or read the reactions of fans to whom this kind of thing appeals. I strongly suspect that, if I had bothered to read Sinestro Corps War, it would have warped my perception of it as a sales success and creative success on its own terms. That seems to be the case with Secret Invasion; it was so bad, so impossibly, incomprehensibly bad, that I have a hard time imagining that it didn't poison the waters for Marvel in 2009 and beyond.

Realistically, that's probably not the case (partly because, as I've lamented before, aesthetic quaity seems to have limited bearing on the success of modern DC/Marvel comics). In fact, this confation of personal reaction and general audience reaction is one of the foundational problems with internet comics discourse. There are a lot of people who can't fathom that something they like (say, Blue Beetle) has failed to attract an audience; likewise, they can't understand that Mark Millar is one of the most popular writers in comics, despite their eternal, burning hatred for him and all he stands for. This isn't a problem limited to comics fans, of course, but comics are such a small pond that you have people who can't accept the non-correlation of popularity and quality becoming semi-prominent, semi-respected bloggers or columnists or whatever. Just look at who freaked out over the (relatively) low sales of the first issue of Final Crisis.

Having said all that, I don't think Tucker or Tom or Tim's approaches are inherently bad or anything like that. Just as I can't merge commerce and aesthetics easily, some can't separate the two very easily, or they might find it to be the most valuable approach. I enjoy reading this type of analysis/review, even though I would never try to replicate it. This may be due, in part, to greater cynicism on my part re: the quality of Marvel/DC comics, or it might be that I have a more piecemiel approach to evaluating superhero comics. I tend to prefer an otherwise terrible comic with one great panel or sequence over an unremarkable-yet-competent comic. That tendency towards compartmentalization might lead me towards Sean's approach.

-The other "interesting" comments thread (this time in a pejorative sense) is the controversy over online reactions to Frank Miller's Spirit movie tanking. A few thoughts:

1. Online fans of EVERYTHING overreact and wish ill on people for a variety of poorly conceived reasons all the time. This doesn't seem much different to me; when one of Mark Millar's intellectual properties eventually (inevitably) tanks in the box office, people will say the same things about him. The thing is, Miller and Millar both are successful, relatively wealthy dudes who probably shouldn't care what a bunch of idiots on Newsarama think. I'm not sure Frank Miller needs Peter David to defend him. This doesn't excuse any excessive comments (which I assume there were--I didn't read the Newsarama thread because, well, I'd rather be cleaning toilets), but I don't see how this is an exceptional or distictively tragic case. Frank Miller hasn't received a fraction of the venom that even the most respected professional athletes deal with on a regular basis. It doesn't make it right, but that's just kind of the peril of reading shit the internet. Particularly comments threads where you know idiots abound.

2. If I'm going to agree with anyone hating on Frank Miller, it's Devlin Thompson. Actually, I'll state for the record that I agree with him on every point. Frank Miller is the closest thing comics advocates have to a Long Duk Dong (though if he reaches a comparable level of fame, Mark Millar will be about a million billion times worse).

3. Mostly I just don't want to have to think about Frank Miller anymore, at least not until people freak out over the next issue of All Star Batman or something.

Third roundup of best of 2008 lists

2008-12-16T23:23:00.000-08:00

Lots of new stuff this time. A conundrum as well: NPR has now made a separate list for the best superhero comics of 2008. Huh? Is there a reason this wasn't integrated into the best graphic novels of 2008 list? This isn't affirmative action for superhero comics--it's separate-but-equal. Look, I can understand multiple lists in different categories, and I usually included lists like that last year if I could discern some sense of logic in them. For instance: Matthew Brady made different lists based on method of delivery; it's not a distinction I would make, but I can understand the reasoning. A bit closer to the NPR situation was Sean Collins, who made two lists broadly defined as "artsy" and "genre-ish." But the latter wasn't just superhero comics; in fact, it included Daybreak by Brian Ralph, a cartoonist usually lumped in with the "artsy" crowd.

Maybe I'm wrong; maybe there's not such a big difference between Sean's lists and this one. I guess I'm willing to give Sean the benefit of the doubt because I read his blog, and I know that he has his own approach to appreciating genre works and more literary/artistic/whatever works. I don't think I've quite figured out his tastes yet (I don't think I'll ever understand the appeal of Green Lantern), but I respect where he's coming from. This NPR thing, though, it's weird. Is the implication that superhero comics can't compare to the serious stuff, but somehow deserves mention for unclear reasons (maybe the popularity of the Batman and Iron Man movies)? Was there a limit of five titles per list imposed from above, thus tying Laurel Maury's hands and somehow necessitating a second list? Is there another list to come, maybe one that will consider manga or webcomics? If not, do I include the superhero list, ignore it, or do I just disqualify Maury's vote altogether?

I'm not just asking rhetorical questions here; I really would appreciate some feedback. For now, I'm not including the superhero list, and I'm not removing the points for the graphic novels list.

All right, what else do we have? There's a really solid new list from the Village Voice, one of the best one I've read from a general interest source this year (the Daily Vanguard list is also very much to my tastes). Jeff Smith (perhaps you've heard of him?) checks in with the first list from a comics professional which meets the minimum length requirements. The venerable Johnny Bacardi has posted his list. There's also a list from the equally venerable Robert Boyd. Plus lots of other lists worth your time.

Remember, if you know of a list not included below, please email me or leave a comment pointing me in the right direction. And please, don't rush getting your lists in on my account. I wouldn't want anyone to do this in this in the first place, but it's totally unneccesary besides. The Comics Journal won't publish their best of 2008 issue until February (I think), and I won't be doing one anytime soon either. I've got about 8-10 books I want to consider that haven't come in the mail yet. Among them: Kramers Ergot 7. Anyone know what's going on with Amazon's distribution of this book?

Criteria for inclusion in the Meta-List:

-list must contain no fewer than five items and no more than fifty
-list must be a general best-of list, not a series of categorical awards like "best superhero book," "best children's book," etc.
-list must not be limited to superhero comics, manga, major publishers, etc.
-I don't include votes for things like "everything Warren Ellis wrote in 2008"
-when a list includes a vote for a title which came out in a year prior to 2008, I usually tally everything like I normally would; it's rare that there are enough votes for an out-of-date item for it to crack the top 100
-no overt sleaziness (like voting for your own work; will be determined on a case-by-case basis)

New lists are in green.

GENERAL INTEREST LISTS:

Amazon

Daily Vanguard (Portland State University)

New York Magazine

NPR

Publishers Weekly

Village Voice

Washington Post

COMICS-FOCUSED LISTS:

Bacardi, Johnny

Doane, Alan David

Harbin, Dustin

Hickey, Andrew

Hipster Dad

Lockefeer, Wim

Tomio, Jay

COMICS PROFESSIONALS:

Smith, Jeff

QUESTIONABLE:

Amazon.jp (The Japanese branch of Amazon's best comics and "light novels." Interesting, but I'm not sure what to do with it since much (most?) of this is not available in English yet, and the light novels are definitely not comics. On the other hand, those aren't necessarily good reasons to exclude this list. Any thoughts?)

Associated Content (Written by Russell Burlingame of the new Blogorama crew. Framed as "the best and worst of 2008," I took this to be more of a year in review kind of list. Plus it might be too narrow (Echo is the only not-at-the-front-of-Diamond title listed). We'll see if Burlingame posts a best of 2008 list at Blogorama.)

Boyd, Robert (Boyd admits this is a "best of things I read this year, but which were not necessarily published in 2008." But most of this list does consist of 2008 releases, so I'll almost certainly count it when the time comes.)

Callahan, Timothy (It's a list of the top 20 collected editions of 2008. Callahan has promised a separate list of the top 10 original comics of 2008, and I'll combine and tally the two lists once he publishes that list.)

Drawn!, part one (Matt Forsythe) (This contains one comic which is definitely not 2008 (Tekkon Kinkreet) and one which is either a 2007 entry if you consider it a book or a 2008 entry if you consider it a webcomic (Fart Party). My Brain is Hanging Upside Down and Cul de Sac are definite 2008 comic releases. I'm not sure what you would consider the Nicholas series. The rest are things which not everyone would agree are comics. My inclination is to count this list anyway, since (a) the non-comics stuff won't accumulate enough other votes to place, and (b) I'll disqualify any non-2008 titles when I finalize the meta-list. Do note that I'm not trying to denigrate the list because it doesn't fit into this project; I like seeing unconventional lists, and it's not like Drawn! is a comics-only blog. UPDATE: I have included this list.)

Drawn, part two (John Martz) (See comments above, except that this list a greater number of 2008 titles that most would classify as unambiguously comics. UPDATE: I have included this list.)

The Independent (Seems to have an awful lot of books from before 2008--Sleepwalk? Embroideries?--which might reflect new British editions, but I'm skeptical. Comics and Sequential Art seriously never came out in the UK before 2008? Just seems like a lazy list.)

Nicholson, Brian (I don't have any problem with it, but Brian suggests he doesn't "read enough to be considered a serious critic." I'm inclined to include it, unless Brian asks me not to.)

NPR (Their all-superhero list. See above.)

Some dude on Amazon (Do I really want to include Amazon lists? I mean, it's not a bad list, aside from being a little long, but really...)

St. Louis Today (Includes one from 2007, which reduces the list down to a total of four, below the minimum threshold. I'll probably include it in the final tally, and ignore the votes for Laika. UPDATE: I've included it.)

Douglas Wolk (I think this is a gift guide, not a best-of list?)

Various message board posters (Most of these fail to meet my minimal criteria (ie, they're all Marvel, DC, Dark Horse, and Image). And I haven't decided whether or not to include a bunch of hastily compiled message board lists. I mean, if this were Abhay Khosla or something, I would reconsider, but these are a bunch of basically anonymous dudes on a Hellblazer forum.)

WILL NOT USE:

Brownfield, Troy and Lucas Siegel (Delimited to superhero comics)

Caleb Monroe (UPDATED: I had this among the regular comics-focused lists until I realized that its author had voted for a book he co-wrote, thus prompting the newest criterion for inclusion listed above.)

Comics Should Be Good/Danielle Leigh Readers' Choice (too short, categorical, and delimited to manga)

IGN (Categorical awards. If you think Wizard's gotten too snooty, this is the list for you.)

Kethylia (delimited to manga)

Maxwell, Matt (Doesn't include the minimum number of comics, mostly because apparently Maxwell agrees with Steven Grant re: the quality of comics in 2008. Much pontification along those lines, if you're looking for more of that.)

Pop Culture Shock (delimited to manga)

Sequential Tart (Two lists, but neither meets the minimum number of entries for inclusion.)

Smith, Shannon (specifically delimited to mini-comics and web comics; well worth your time, though)

Various cartoonists at Forbidden Planet (Forbidden Planet is conducting a series of interviews with cartoonists, asking for a top three list from each. This is below the minimum threshold for this project, but you should check out this link, which should take you to all of the interviews conducted so far. Bryan Talbot is the most prominent interviewee to date.)

Wizard (Not the official list, at least not yet. This is a categorical awards list, and thus ineligible. What a strange list--a bunch of superhero comics, plus Kramers Ergot 7.)

Second roundup of best of 2008 lists

2008-12-12T12:15:00.000-08:00

A few Google search results in this one, plus a few that I've seen linked to around the internet and one which was sent via email. If you're aware of a list (yours or someone else's) which isn't included here, please leave a link or description in the comments field.

Once again, my criteria for inclusion in the Meta-List:

-list must contain no fewer than five items and no more than fifty
-list must be a general best-of list, not a series of categorical awards like "best superhero book," "best children's book," etc.
-list must not be limited to superhero comics, manga, major publishers, etc.
-I don't include votes for things like "everything Warren Ellis wrote in 2008"
-when a list includes a vote for a title which came out in a year prior to 2008, I usually tally everything like I normally would; it's rare that there are enough votes for an out-of-date item for it to crack the top 100

New additions are in green.

GENERAL INTEREST LISTS:

Amazon

Daily Vanguard (Portland State University)

New York Magazine

NPR

Publishers Weekly

Washington Post

COMICS-FOCUSED LISTS:

Caleb (last name unknown) at Jim Hanley's Universe

Doane, Alan David

Harbin, Dustin

Hickey, Andrew

Hipster Dad

QUESTIONABLE:

Amazon.jp (The Japanese branch of Amazon's best comics and "light novels." Interesting, but I'm not sure what to do with it since much (most?) of this is not available in English yet, and the light novels are definitely not comics. On the other hand, those aren't necessarily good reasons to exclude this list. Any thoughts?

Associated Content (Written by Russell Burlingame of the new Blogorama crew. Framed as "the best and worst of 2008," I took this to be more of a year in review kind of list. Plus it might be too narrow (Echo is the only not-at-the-front-of-Diamond title listed). We'll see if Burlingame posts a best of 2008 list at Blogorama.)

Drawn!, part one (Matt Forsythe) (This contains one comic which is definitely not 2008 (Tekkon Kinkreet) and one which is either a 2007 entry if you consider it a book or a 2008 entry if you consider it a webcomic (Fart Party). My Brain is Hanging Upside Down and Cul de Sac are definite 2008 comic releases. I'm not sure what you would consider the Nicholas series. The rest are things which not everyone would agree are comics. My inclination is to count this list anyway, since (a) the non-comics stuff won't accumulate enough other votes to place, and (b) I'll disqualify any non-2008 titles when I finalize the meta-list. Do note that I'm not trying to denigrate the list because it doesn't fit into this project; I like seeing unconventional lists, and it's not like Drawn! is a comics-only blog.)

Drawn, part two (John Martz) (See comments above, except that this list a greater number of 2008 titles that most would classify as unambiguously comics.)

The Independent (Seems to have an awful lot of books from before 2008--Sleepwalk? Embroideries?--which might reflect new British editions, but I'm skeptical. Comics and Sequential Art seriously never came out in the UK before 2008? Just seems like a lazy list.)

Some dude on Amazon (Do I really want to include Amazon lists? I mean, it's not a bad list, aside from being a little long, but really...)

St. Louis Today (Includes one from 2007, which reduces the list down to a total of four, below the minimum threshold. I'll probably include it in the final tally, and ignore the votes for Laika. UPDATE: I've included it.)

Douglas Wolk (I think this is a gift guide, not a best-of list?)

Various message board posters (Most of these fail to meet my minimal criteria (ie, they're all Marvel, DC, Dark Horse, and Image). And I haven't decided whether or not to include a bunch of hastily compiled message board lists. I mean, if this were Abhay Khosla or something, I would reconsider, but these are a bunch of basically anonymous dudes on a Hellblazer forum.)

WILL NOT USE:

Comics Should Be Good/Danielle Leigh Readers' Choice (too short, categorical, and delimited to manga)

Smith, Shannon (specifically delimited to mini-comics and web comics; well worth your time, though)

Talbot, Bryan (too short, includes stuff from 2007)

Wizard (Not the official list, at least not yet. This is a categorical awards list, and thus ineligible. What a strange list--a bunch of superhero comics, plus Kramers Ergot 7.)

What I'm looking for is a list from an omniscient robot

2008-12-11T18:25:00.000-08:00

-Found a bunch of links to best of 2008 lists today. I'll post an updated master list tomorrow. The most interesting new ones definitely those from Drawn, but they're really unusual lists. And kind of problematic for my project (more on that tomorrow). But they're still really good lists, especially for people whose interests in comics are broad enough to include things that technically might not be comics. If you know what I mean.

As for the others.... Look, the lists you've all seen by now are, generally speaking, the best lists out there at the moment. With maybe one or two exceptions, these new lists fall into one of two categories: lists from well-known sources which kind of suck, or lists from basically unknown sources that don't suck. Okay, there are also a few unknown/suck combinations as well. The biggest gap between name value and quality of thought comes from the Washington Post (scroll down). Their list from last year sucked as well. I'm willing to bet that their lists are comprised entirely of whatever they're sent, and that 90% of what they're sent comes from Dark Horse and DC. Either that or this list is farted out by someone who doesn't have the time/energy/expertise to put into such things. But based on some of the strange choices in 2007, I'd guess the former.

Plus: the first appearance of Buffy on one of these things! Shit, I thought all that was over by now. I suppose this will pop up on a few other lists, especially if Entertainment Weekly bothers to make one this year.

-A few people have shared some thoughts about the process of making lists in the past couple of days, and I agree with very little of what I've read. Undoubtedly the least valuable of these posts comes from Lucas Siegel of the new Blog@Newsarama. I feel sort of responsible for the shit storm that follows in the comics, given that I mockingly linked to the article yesterday (Heidi MacDonald even repeats my description of Siegel's position as "affirmative action for superhero comics"). Really, I'm not sure it merits this much attention in and of itself (as an expression of a larger sentiment, perhaps it does; more on this later). Tom Spurgeon pretty much captures its spirit perfectly in describing it as something "from a Usenet Group in 1996."

But this isn't the first instance of anti-best of list backlash from the new Blog@Newsarama crew. Getting much less attention is this post from Sarah Jaffe, taking the New York Magazine top 10 (or 12) list to task for not including the collected Local. If that's going to be her standard for excellence in these lists, she's going to be sorely disappointed; in my experience compiling these things, very few books show up in more than a small fraction of lists. And from what I've seen so far, the collected Local isn't going to be one of them this year. Why? For one thing, it's a collection of comics previously published from 2005 to 2008. Bloggers and writers for comics-oriented publications tend to ignore these sorts of collections, making them particularly dependent on lists coming from general interest publications. Of the six lists like this I've compiled so far, only NPR includes the collected Local. No comics-focused sources have ranked it yet.

Still, I take Jaffe's comment to be more boosterism than complaint; I think she's more interested in drumming up her readers' interest in the book than anything. I was more disappointed in the comments her post elicited, especially this one by Ryan Higgins:

It’s depressing sometimes that these lists always consist of books that I can’t sell to save my life. Outside of Fables, I stocked a few of these, and not a single one has sold.

I'm not sure what Higgins' point is. If he's bemoaning his inability to sell quality works to his customers, I would think this would be more of a self-deprecating statement. You know, "what does it say about me as a salesman that I can't sell comics which the critical consensus rates as the best of the year." Or maybe, "Boy, our customers suck." That kind of thing. Instead, this seems more in line with Lucas Siegel's position that there are too many "pretentious" choices on these lists, that critics don't have their finger on the pulse of what the comics industry is really about, etc., etc.

This isn't anything new, of course. We've seen countless examples of superhero fan rage at the alleged snobbery of the art/literary comics contingent. I'm finding the superhero people a little touchier lately, though. It used to take statements of outright derision to set them off, but I'm seeing increasingly volcanic reactions to the omission of superhero comics from discussions of what constitutes the "best" in comics. I first noticed this during the Best American Comics 2007 fiasco from last year; it looks like we're seeing it again now.

I can't attribute this trend (assuming it's actually a trend and not a figment of my imagination) to anything with absolute certainty, but I've got some ideas. We see many superhero partisans (perhaps most notably Paul O'Brien) cite the popularity of superhero movies as evidence that superhero comics better reflect mainstream tastes than something like Acme Novelty Library. Somehow this leads to the conclusion that anything purporting to list the "best" comics is somehow flawed if it fails to include superhero comics.

The problem here how you get from the factual statement that the general public likes superhero movies to the questionable conclusion that best of lists/anthologies must include superhero comics. There are at least three assertions one must accept to get from (a) to (b):

1. There are superhero comics from the period in question which are worthy of inclusion in best of lists/anthologies.

2. The aforementioned superhero comics will appeal to the segment of the general public which enjoys superhero movies.

3. Best of lists/anthologies must reflect popular tastes in order to be considered legitimate.

Clearly there are problems with all three assertions. In clarifying his original post, Siegel suggests that most shonen manga somehow qualify as superhero comics. I think this greatly stretches the definition of "superhero" as a genre, but we'll leave that aside. By including things like, presumably, Naruto or Bleach, you can beef up assertion #2: these comics are popular, and they're popular for the same reason movies like Iron Man and The Dark Knight are popular. Again, I've got my doubts about this, but let's put that aside. Does the popularity of these comics necessitate their inclusion in a best of list or anthology?

I don't see how this follows. There are a number of commenters who distrust the idea of best of lists because they overvalue the concepts of objectivity and expertise. In other words, you can't trust most lists because (a) they reflect the list-maker's subjective tastes and (b) it's extremely unlikely that the list-maker will have read every single comic of any merit in any given year. Thus, once can view the inclusion of a couple of superhero comics as evidence that neither of these problems afflict a given list. If a list full of artsy fartsy comics includes one or two Marvel or DC titles, it can provide the illusion that the list-maker has expertise in/appreciation of all areas of comics, even if the only superhero comics (s)he has read all year long were written by Grant Morrison.*

There are, naturally, going to be some people who include Captain America alongside Alan's War in their lists not out of tokenism, but out of a genuine respect and admiration for each work. But no one should get upset when mainstream publications ignore Marvel and DC, and possibly Dark Horse and Image as well. Ask yourself: do you really think that the average person sitting down to write one of these lists for Time or The Onion or whatever is going to hold Rage of the Red Lanterns and Bottomless Belly Button in equal regard? Can you not see the difference in appeal among the types of people who make these sorts of lists? Sure, Rage of the Red Lanterns will outsell Bottomless Belly Button in the short run**, but does that obligate those of us who actually take the time to make these lists to include something by Geoff Johns on our lists?

Are we even obligated to read Geoff Johns' output when making our lists? I would argue pretty strenuously that we aren't, that most of us who think enough about comics to assemble a best of 2008 list probably know by now whether or not we like Geoff Johns' work. To some, this might diminish our expertise, or reveal our subjectivity. This concern is misguided. Certainly, I would not value a list written by someone with a very narrow range of interests, or a very limited familiarity with comics released in 2008. That's why I have criteria for inclusion on the meta-list; I'm not going to take a top 10 list which includes eight superhero comics, Penny Arcade, and something by Jonathan Hickman very seriously.

But we should be realistic. Does everybody who makes a list share your interests and prejudices? You'd have to be very, very naive to expect every list to cater to your tastes. Does every list reflect the same level of expertise? Of course not. Not everyone making a list will be able to afford to buy every comic of interest to them, and they probably won't be able to find every one of these books in the library or a bookstore which permits reading in the cafe. Most of us won't recieve complimentary copies of Kramers Ergot 7, and lots of those folks might not put it on their best of 2008 list because they can't afford to buy a copy for themselves.

I really don't have a problem with that, though. There are a lot of lists to choose from out there. It's only December 11, and I've already found at least a dozen worthy of consideration. And hey, I'm going to do a lot of the work for you by compiling all these lists into one meta-list reflecting scores of different perspectives. The final top 10 probably won't be entirely to your liking, but what's stopping you from making your own top 10? You could make it nothing but superhero comics if you want. I mean, I won't take it seriously, but other people might. It might bother you that your list won't have the same reach as those from major media sources; if so, I guess you'll just have to get over it. Sorry, but that's life.

*Of course, you'd have some people who would consider the inclusion of a Grant Morrison comic as prima facie evidence of pretentiousness. We can probalby dismiss these people as the types who would rank Essential Power Pack as the number one comic of the year, thus establishing that they're not quite ready to sit at the grown-ups' table yet.

**I'm guessing. In the long run, I expect that people will still be reading Bottomless Belly Button years and years after all but the most ardent fanboys have forgotten what a Red Lantern is.

-BONUS TERRIBLE GROSS OUT COVERAGE: For the vast, vast majority of you, this will be the worst thing you see all day. Do you dare click on the link? Please note: I'm not kidding. This is terrible, and you might regret looking at it.

-EXTRA BONUS LINK UPDATE: Right after posting this, I read Tom Spurgeon's review of some undoubtedly terrible comic by some D-list celebrity. I don't know how Tom's going to feel about me saying this, but that's one of the best reviews I've read in months; insightful and very funny. Just wanted to point out my appreciation for it, since Tom doesn't have comments and probably wouldn't publish correspondence saying nothing more than "That was awesome, dude."

First roundup of best of 2008 lists

2008-12-10T11:31:00.001-08:00

Great thanks to those who have been sending me links to best of 2008 lists. As we move deeper into December, we'll certainly start to see more and more of these things. I've determined that the most effective way for me to compile these lists is to post periodic updates to my list database. This should serve a few functions. First, it will allow anyone who wonders if I've missed a recent list the opportunity to see what I've compiled so far; plus, you can leave links to missing lists in the comments. Second, it allows me to discuss in a public forum the process of determining which lists will and won't be used in the final meta-list tally. Finally, those looking for a clearinghouse of year in review-type lists can find them here.

I'll be updating this list at least once a week, probably more often as we start seeing a deluge of new lists after Christmas. I'll put new lists in bold as I add them to the database.

And, as a reminder, here are my criteria for being included in this project:

-list must contain no fewer than five items and no more than fifty
-list must be a general best-of list, not a series of categorical awards like "best superhero book," "best children's book," etc.
-list must not be limited to superhero comics, manga, major publishers, etc.
-I don't include votes for things like "everything Warren Ellis wrote in 2008"
-when a list includes a vote for a title which came out in a year prior to 2008, I usually tally everything like I normally would; it's rare that there are enough votes for an out-of-date item for it to crack the top 100

If you dislike these criteria, you may find some comfort in this call for affirmative action for superhero books in best of lists. Does the last issue of Love and Rockets count?

Here are the lists so far:

GENERAL INTEREST LISTS (lists from newspapers, websites, or other media outlets which cover a wide range of subjects beyond comics):
Amazon
Daily Vanguard (Portland State University)
New York Magazine
NPR
Publishers Weekly

COMICS-FOCUSED LISTS (lists from blogs, websites, or publications devoted to comics):
Doane, Alan David (kind of an unclear format for ranking, but Alan and I have talked and he's instructed me in how he wants his vote tallied)

Harbin, Dustin

QUESTIONABLE:
The Independent (Seems to have an awful lot of books from before 2008--Sleepwalk? Embroideries?--which might reflect new British editions, but I'm skeptical. Comics and Sequential Art seriously never came out in the UK before 2008? Just seems like a lazy list.)

St. Louis Today (Includes one from 2007, which reduces the list down to a total of four, below the minimum threshold. I'll probably include it in the final tally, and ignore the votes for Laika.)

Douglas Wolk (I think this is a gift guide, not a best-of list?)

WILL NOT USE:
Talbot, Bryan (too short, includes stuff from 2007)

Final best of 2008 workbook/checklist

2008-12-08T21:45:00.002-08:00

Okay, here's an alphabetical list of all the comics I can think of that I will seriously consider when I get around to making my best of 2008 list in a few weeks. It's a pretty big list, but it's been a pretty good year for comics: beautiful archival reprints of important works; reprints celebrating lesser-known cartoonists; incredible anthologies; stunning debuts; great pamphlet series; tremendously diverse manga; more great European comics; and continued excellence from established creators.

Since this is such a long list, I guess it can also serve as sort of a holiday shopping list, if you're in the market for yet another one, and the person you're shopping for has very similar tastes to my own, yet has not managed to acquire any of the major comics works of the last 12 months. Or you can consider it a checklist for 2008 reading, though again it's a checklist from my perspective. For instance, Skyscrapers of the Midwest isn't on here because I bought it in pamphlets, and thus consider it more of a 2005-07 title.

Abandoned Cars by Tim Lane: Haven't read, but my copy should arrive before the end of the year.

Achewood by Chris Onstad: I think the latest storyline with Cornelius' May-November relationship with Polly (rhymes with "Molly"...hmm...) has injected some life into the strip, which I thought was kind of sagging after the exhausting marriage storyline. Also: have not so much as looked at a copy of The Great Outdoor Fight. Haven't seen a copy on any store shelves, even at Powell's a couple of weeks ago. Probably just missed it, but still: you couldn't escape that Perry Bible Fellowship collection last year. Or even today. Could very well just be chance that I'm not encountering it in my trips to bookstores.

Acme Novelty Library #19 by Chris Ware: Another one I'll be getting by the time I make my list. Honestly, I've been very skeptical of the whole Rusty Brown thing from the beginning. I hated the early Rusty Brown strips; I thought they were totally cynical in going after such an easy target, with the added bonus of some queasy self-flagellation from Ware, since he self-identifies as a collector. And I don't even have much sympathy with the obsessive fanboy type or anything. But what I've read of Ware's NYT work (mostly limited to flipping through Acme Novelty Library #18) seemed much more promising. And I'm sure that what Ware has done since then has transcended the weak initial premise of Rusty Brown, as Jog's review suggests.

All that aside: I've read a few comments suggesting that any list failing to include Acme Novelty Library #19 are substantially flawed in some way. Aside from aggravating my deep-seated sense of cultural relativism (I don't think I'd say something like that about anything I've ever read), I think this also misses another point. A lot of these lists are made by non-obsessive types. This particular issue of Acme Novelty Library is a single chapter of a longer, ongoing story. I think it's entirely reasonable that some reviewers would hesitate to include on their list a fragment of a larger work, even if the fragment stands reasonably well on its own. This is not a universal approach to list-making, of course; my own top-rated comic from last year was Sammy the Mouse #1, the first chapter of a longer, still-incomplete work. But I think there is a substantial portion of the list-making public which does think that way.

Alan's War by Emmanuel Guibert: Should be reading it in the next couple of weeks.

Amazing Remarkable Monsieur Leotard by Eddie Campbell and Dan Best: Another one I'll be getting soon. I know it sounds like I'm woefully behind on my reading for 2008, but there's a disproportionate number of books beginning with "A" that I haven't read for some reason.

Aqua Leung by Mark Andrew Smith and Paul Maybury: I think this comic would have worked better after future volumes fleshed out the story, but unfortunately that's not going to happen. Because of its incompleteness, I think this mostly stands as a showcase for Paul Maybury's art.

Aya of Yop City by Marguerite Abouet and Clement Oubrerie: Wow, this is in full-out soap opera mode now, huh? I guess that makes it the most lushly produced soap opera on the stands--like the first Aya volume, this is a beautifully-produced hardcover. And Oubrerie's colors are even better here. Where one would normally expect delicate watercolors for this style of art, Oubrerie works in intensely vibrant opaques. And if you're going to read a soap opera, it might as well be a well-written one that will teach you about an unfamiliar place and time. What would we be saying about the Minx line if DC had managed to acquire the Aya series? We'd probably still be talking about its demise, but undoubtedly with a great deal more regret.

Bat-Manga by Jiro Kuwata: Review here.

Black Jack vol. 1-2 by Osamu Tezuka: I've only read the first volume so far. Good stuff, as one always expects from Tezuka. I think I liked the darker material towards the end the best. I expect the weirdness quotient to be a bit higher in the second volume, if I understand correctly.

Body World by Dash Shaw: I read the first chapter or so, and then started having problems getting the updates on Google Reader. The RSS feed is working for me again, but I haven't managed to catch up yet.

Bottomless Belly Button by Dash Shaw: Short thoughts here. Haven't thought too much about this book since then.

Bourbon Island 1730 by Apollo and Lewis Trondheim: Tom Spurgeon's review was very insightful. Man, there have been a lot of Trondheim comics this year. Anyway, this starts out kind of slow--some of the least inspired-looking Trondheim art I can recall--but picks up steam about 20 or 30 pages in. Definitely turns into something worthwhile by the end, but it doesn't really compare with Trondheim's best work.

Breakdowns: Long review here.

Core of Caligula #1 by CF: This is a new mini from Picturebox, possibly compiling one-pagers CF did somewhere else? Maybe not? Anyway, I liked it almost as much as Powr Mastrs, which is to say I liked it a whole bunch. And it's really not the same thing as Powr Mastrs at all. Probably not one of the best 10 comics of 2008, but definitely one of the 30 or so best comics.

Cowa! by Akira Toriyama: Review here.

Criminal by Ed Brubaker and Sean Phillips: I haven't read the last two issues (vol. 2, #6-7). The first three issues of the current volume were probably the best thing Marvel has published this decade, and probably the best thing Brubaker has ever written. Not as crazy about the current arc, but as I said above, I'm only halfway through it.

Crickets #2 by Sammy Harkham: Almost forgot about this! Major improvement over the first issue, which is really saying something. Sammy Harkham doesn't get nearly the attention he deserves--he's probably equal to or not far behind Kevin Huizenga in terms of talent, but gets only a fraction of the press. Maybe people think of him primarily as an editor?

Deitch's Pictorama by Kim Deitch, Simon Deitch, and Seth Kallen Deitch: Haven't read much about this, perhaps because it falls too much outside the realm of "comics" for some people. (BTW, Kim Deitch's introduction includes a broad definition of "graphic novel" that may or may not induce apoplexy in Eddie Campbell.) As I write this, I've read about 80% of it. Kim's first story is about what you'd expect from him, which is to say very good. I also liked the Seth's "Unlikely Hours," which seemed pretty harmonious with Kim's illustrations. In general, the stories I've liked the best are the ones with copious Kim Deitch illustrations, which is about what I expected going into this. Good stuff, but I'm not sure that it really accomplishes the formal breakthrough Kim seems to be angling for in the introduction. The first story probably would have filled up a 150+ page graphic novel if Deitch had completed it in a more conventional comics style; you kind of wonder if he liked this format because he's got so many ideas for stories and only so much time to complete them. If that's the case, then I'd rather have a bunch of stories in the Pictorama form than a few in a more conventional comics form.

Delphine #3 by Richard Sala: Thoughts here.

Disappearance Diary by Hideo Azuma: Review is here. I'm looking forward to reading this again. It's been a really good year for art/literary manga.

Fight Or Run #1 by Kevin Huizenga: My favorite of all Huizenga's work this year, and I quite enjoyed Or Else #5 and (to a lesser extent) Ganges #2. Really, highly recommended. You'll probably see this on a lot of best of 2008 lists.

Ganges #2 by Kevin Huizenga: It's funny how I just mentally skipped past all the Fight or Run material in this issue; now it seems likely that it's the best stuff in this issue of Ganges. I really need to re-read this issue, which I never really felt like I entirely got the first time around.

Goddess of War #1 by Lauren Weinstein: This was a lot of fun, but it felt more like an appetizer than the main course, you know? Like, I'm really looking forward to future issues of this series. Slightly more detailed version of these thoughts here.

Good-Bye by Yoshihiro Tatsumi: More of the inner turmoil and timeless antisocial behavior we've come to expect from Tatsumi, but this volume seemed a bit more linked to specific historical events (most notably the end of WWII, as seen in a couple of stories). Not really any better or worse than the previous volume in D&Q's reprint series (Abandon the Old in Tokyo), but the subject matter has changed enough to make these stories seem fresh, even though they're working in the same thematic and emotional territory as before. It's also a bit racier than I remember the previous volumes being, which again makes it stand out maybe a bit more. Still bleak as hell, though. That all sounds more negative than I mean to be, so let me make it perfectly clear: this is probably one of the most essential books of 2008.

Grotesque #2 by Sergio Ponchionne: Maybe the most underrated of all the Ignatz books. Brief thoughts here.

Gus and His Gang by Christophe Blain: This was on my radar, but not a very high priority until I saw Dustin Harbin's best of 2008 list. I like what I've read by Blain (pretty much limited to Isaac the Pirate, though I do have The Speed Abater checked out from the library right now), but this seemed like an "I'll get it eventually" type of book. Don't know if I'll get to read it by the time I make my list, but hopefully I'll at least get to flip through it.

Haunted by Philippe Dupuy: Short review here. I'm interested in re-reading this, but my memory is that it's a solid step down from the best comics on this list.

Injury #2 by Ted May, Jeff Wilson, and Jason Robards: Probably the biggest gap between amount of buzz and likely popular appeal among all worthwhile comics I've read this year. In other words, you probably want to read this comic if you haven't already. Three major features, all winners: a funny series of gags about Heracles and his clones; a totally awesome series about teenage hessians in the early-mid 80s; and an equally awesome urban SF comedy thing called "Your Bleeding Face." That last one sounds like the sort of strip I'd usually hate, which is really a testament to how good May and Robards are (Wilson collaborates on the 80s metalhead strip). Look: the first pages of "Your Bleeding Face" feature a brother and sister playing a Slade-themed pinball machine that plays "Gudbuy T'Jane" when the player loses a ball. That alone makes this worth your time; fortunately for us, there are many, many other things in this issue also worth your time. Make sure to track down the Injury #1 as well, though, since all three stories are continued from that issue.

Jessica Farm vol. 1 by Josh Simmons: Probably Simmons' most accomplished work to date. I'm really eager to see what he does next (which presumably won't be Jessica Farm vol. 2 in 2016). More thoughts here.

Kaput and Zosky by Lewis Trondheim with Eric Cartier: These two were never my favorite Lewis Trondheim characters, but this is an amusing enough stuff. Essential for a Trondheim completist* like myself; not so sure about everyone else.

*Well, a translated Trondheim completist. And even then, I'm missing some stuff.

Kramers Ergot v. 7 by various; edited by Sammy Harkham: Don't have a copy yet, hopefully getting it for Christmas. I picked up the Gasoline Alley Sunday collection just to get an idea of how this thing is going to feel in my hands. Where am I going to put it when I'm done reading it? Should I screw around with the height of the shelves on my bookcase, or what?

Little Nothings vol. 1 by Lewis Trondheim: Number one on my mid-year list. You folks know there's a second volume out in January, right?

Little Vampire by Johann Sfar: I really liked these stories, which may have been available in English in a different format prior to this First Second edition. Adults might find it especially bittersweet if read in conjunction with Sfar's Vampire Loves, which follows these characters into adulthood. Sort of. On its own, these are excellent cute-scary stories. If you liked Cowa!, you should definitely read this book (and vice versa, of course).

Love and Rockets v. 3 #1 by Gilbert, Jaime, and Mario Hernandez: Well, yes, that Jaime story is totally awesome, and pretty much buries any other superhero comic in recent memory. Jaime Hernandez is such an incredible cartoonist that this is liable to be the case whenever he dips into these waters (as he will again for part two of this story next year, presumably). But there are moments while I was reading this where I sat awestruck and realized: Jaime Hernandez would probably be considered the greatest superhero cartoonist of all time if he had chosen to work in that sub-genre full-time. Like, maybe even if he were forced to bend his style to meet the needs of the vile philistines who run Marvel and DC. There are cartoonists whose work I value more than Jaime Hernandez--not many, but a few--and I don't think I could say that about them. He's just so keyed into the visual language of the superhero comic, yet his work is so much better than practically any superhero comic I've ever laid eyes on.

And that's not even to mention the work by Gilbert (alone and with brother Mario), which compares very favorably to last year's/early this year's excellent output. Obviously a contender for a best of the year list.

Mome by various; edited by Eric Reynolds: Okay, now we're talking. It's not like Mome hasn't been improving steadily since its launch, but the last couple of volumes (we're talking 11 and 12 here) have upped the ante considerably. Part of my enthusiasm stems from my deep love for European comics, which are a cornerstone of the anthology at this point. Maybe the cornerstone. How can you go wrong with vol. 12, which features excellent work by Killoffer, Oliver Schrauwen, and greatest living cartoonist candidate David B? And the North American contributor list, strong enough already (loved the John Vermilyea story in volume 12), will only get better in 2009. This is no longer I'll-get-around-to-it-when-I-have-the-time/money fare; it's must-read-immediately material.

Never Been by Stuart Kolakovic: I genuinely hope people seriously consider this web comic when making their best of 2008 lists. I thought this blew away all other web comics I read this year on a number of levels (bearing in mind that I haven't kept up with Body World).

Nocturnal Conspiracies by David B: Not out yet, I don't think. Hope this makes it to press in the next few weeks!

Or Else #5 by Kevin Huizenga: I liked this issue quite a bit, though not quite as much as Ganges #2 or Fight or Run #1. Huizenga kind of branched out beyond his comfort zone a little this year, didn't he?

Paul Goes Fishing by Michael Rabagliati: Thoughts here. Gotta say, this the book I'm probably feeling the most doubt about with regards to its ranking on my halfway point best-of list.

Rabbi's Cat vol. 2 by Johann Sfar: A few very brief thoughts here. Seems like there was less Sfar out last year after a deluge the last couple of years, but I might be remembering that wrong. What came out this year was very, very, good, though.

Rasl #1-3 by Jeff Smith: Still haven't read the last issue. The one thing that keeps bugging me about this is how weird the protagonist looked--big head and short limbs. I kept expecting him to unzip himself and reveal that he was Fone Bone wearing a human costume. Which isn't to say I didn't like Rasl, but that's the lasting impression from two issues I haven't read in many months.

Real vol. 1-2 by Takehiko Inoue: Still my preferred Inoue basketball manga. Thoughts on volume 1 here. I've since had the chance to read volume 2, which doesn't substantially alter my initial impression of Real. If anything, it deepens my appreciation for what Inoue is doing. I know lots of comics readers break out into a rash whenever they encounter anything related to sports, but give this a try.

Red Colored Elegy by Seiichi Hayashi: Okay, this is the first thing on the list which I own but didn't finish before making this list. I'll try it again soon, but I just didn't have the patience to press onward the other day when I made my first attempt. I'll try to read it again before the list is made. In the meantime, I liked Eddie Campbell's review.

Sammy the Mouse #2 by Zak Sally: Didn't quite blow me away like the first issue, but that's partly because the novelty wasn't there. That sounds shallow, but bear with me: Sammy the Mouse #1 was fascinating in large part because its uniqueness took my breath away. The second issue was also good, but good in many of the same ways that the first issue was. Also, it's the second chapter in a larger work; not every chapter is going to work equally well as stand-alone books. I'm still convinced that this will end up being a really great and important book when viewed as a whole, and as such I recommend this issue as heartily as the first.

Slam Dunk vol. 1 by Takehiko Inoue: Thoughts here. Really looking forward to the second issue. You have to love Viz' shonen line. At that price (a mere $8 retail!), is there any better entertainment bargain in North American comics?

Sublife vol. 1 by John Pham: I really dug this first issue of what I assume is an ongoing series. This is the sort of one-man anthology Tom Spurgeon frequently bemoans losing due to the ascendence of the graphic novel. Of course, this is packaged as a graphic novel, with square binding and a high page count, so maybe that's the way to bridge the gap for future cartoonists.* As for Sublife itself, it's quite good. Pham's work here reminds me quite a bit of Chris Ware's, except it didn't seem as bleak. That's more of a tonal thing, since Pham's characters are every bit as pitiful as Ware's underdeveloped man-children. There's a sort of timelessness to Ware's work (even the period pieces) which makes his characters' suffering seem more oppressive to me.** This is very much a contemporary book, taking place in a vibrantly urban, multicultural, multiracial setting. So while the Ware influence is clear, Pham is very much doing his own thing with Sublife. Ware's characters are burdened by the mundane horror of their daily lives, while Pham's are struggling tooth and nail to survive.

And it's also funny in a completely different way than Acme Novelty Library. I haven't seen a lot of press for this book, which is really a shame because it's very good.

*Though it's kind of hard to picture Injury in the same format as Sublife; maybe this is more of an opportunity for the more literary-oriented young cartoonist?

**Not a criticism, just an observation/interpretation.

Tales Designed to Thrizzle #4 by Michael Kupperman: I'm really not sure that there's ever been a funnier cartoonist than Michael Kupperman. Maybe Chris Onstad or Matt Groening? Possibly Eiji Nonaka? Bill Watterson? At this point in my life, I'd take Kupperman over all of them. And yet I'm not sure if that puts Tales Designed to Thrizzle #4 on my best of 2008 list or not. Am I just (severely) undervaluing comedy?

BONUS PSA: I had no idea, but Snake'n'Bacon's Cartoon Cabaret is apparently available on Amazon! Holy shit, you have no idea how badly you need this book, unless you already have a copy (in which case you don't really need a copy of this book--paradox~!). Brave soldiers died to bring you the Cartoon Cabaret!

Three Shadows by Cyril Pedrosa: Thoughts here.

Travel by Yuichi Yokoyama: A few preliminary thoughts here. I liked it better than New Engineering, which I liked a whole lot.

Typhon vol. 1 by various; edited by Danny Hellman: Haven't read it yet (hopefully I'll get a copy before the end of the year), but I did flip through it a couple of weeks ago. Looked very promising. Typhon appears to inhabit ground not covered by Mome or Kramers Ergot, so hopefully we'll see more volumes in the future.

What It Is by Lynda Barry: Look, guys, I'm sorry, but I still haven't got up the gumption to finish this. My brother and I discussed it, and I think it comes down to this for both of us: we don't like the collages. I know that's a big draw for a lot of people, but for me it's just something I've got to wade through before I get to the comics, the lima beans prelude to a much more appetizing dessert. I'm not sure if this is a general anti-collage sentiment or specific to Barry's work; I've never felt strongly about collage one way or another before now, so it's probably the latter. Again, probably a minority opinion, but that's really the way I feel. I'll finish this book by the time I make my list, collage antipathy be damned.

Where Demented Wented by Rory Hayes: Thoughts here.

Various comic strip reprint projects: Haven't read any this year; the only series I'm caught up on is Popeye, which I strongly suspect is the best of them all in terms of both production values (Jacob Covey is a beast-GET IT?) and the quality of the material being reproduced. Yes, I prefer Popeye to Peanuts, Krazy Kat, and Terry and the Pirates.

Of the major new projects, I haven't done much besides flip through the Little Orphan Annie series from IDW, but it looks as good as their other reprint series (which is to say, very). I've got a copy of the Scorchy Smith reprint coming my way soon, and I'm very much looking forward to that particular visual feast. Am I missing anything? Why do we have to wait so long for the Pogo reprints, anyway? I WANT THEM NOW.

Because Tucker demanded it

2008-12-04T20:00:00.002-08:00

-You ever have one of those sinus headaches that's so bad that you almost understand those people who drill into their own head to relieve the pressure? That hurt, but it's not as bad as what my father is going through. The day after Thanksgiving he had emergency surgery to remove part of his colon, which had become perforated due to diverticulitis, or something (I'm on the other side of the country, and haven't quite figured it all out yet). Dad's never read this blog, and I think he's only got a vague sense of what it is that I do here (he seems to think there's money to be made in reviewing ~~comics~~ graphic novels on the internet). But I thought I'd wish him well here anyway.

-And speaking of family, that new logo was drawn by my brother, who was eager to find a project which would allow him to avoid real, paying work for a couple of hours. Thanks, bro.

-The new Blogorama has been up for a few days, and the new crew certainly hasn't been shy about posting frequently. The core of the group, as I understand it, comes from the Shotgun Reviews site/Best Shots review feature from the main Newsarama site. There are a bunch of other people writing for the blog as well, including some people from the main Newsarama site and a few complete unknowns (at least to me). Among the main site contributors is Vaneta Rogers, whose interviews I've criticized before. I don't think she's actually contributed anything to the blog yet, though.

The main contributors so far are J. Caleb Mozzocco, arguably the most well-established blogger of the group; Michael Lorah, the "indie guy;" Sarah Jaffe, the "Verti-girl;" Troy Brownfield, who is, if I understand all this correctly, the editor of the new Blogorama; and David Pepose, who I had never heard of before.

Pepose has turned out to be the main workhorse for the blog, making multiple posts every day. A lot of his posts focus on the Hollywood stuff which I don't have any interest in (I still haven't seen Dark Knight). Brownfield has also written a lot of movie/TV articles, many of which frankly don't seem to have a lot to do with comics. They probably would be of interest to a certain segment of the comics-reading public, admittedly, but I'm not particularly interested in Samuel L. Jackson as a concept at this point in my life. So that's a step in the wrong direction, given my preferences.

Pepose is also covering a lot of superhero news, with maybe a slight focus on blog/message board discourse. Burlingame is covering similar ground, like the recent slate of canceled DC/Marvel comics. He's also prone to editorializing, which I don't mind all that much in theory.

Sarah Jaffe's Vertigo-centric articles aren't going to be of much interest to me. I'll probably skip them unless she's writing about canceled titles (and this being Vertigo we're talking about, she probably will be inside of three months).

Mozzocco is, for my money, providing the most useful content right now. His link roundups and Wednesday shopping lists are the closest thing to continuity with the old Blogorama. The former have been pretty good, covering a nice swath of comics-related news. The latter...well, I'm not much in the market for Wednesday shopping lists anymore, and even if I was, I'm not sure how much overlap there would be between what Caleb advocates and what I would buy. But I would imagine that it's a feature that other Blogorama readers will be happy to see return.

Michael Lorah has a good Previews shopping list feature--not unlike the one Greg Burgas does at Comics Should Be Good, but I think Lorah's tastes might be in greater alignment to my own. Maybe. I'm not sure how much Lorah is writing this for his audience, and how much it reflects his own tastes. The front-of-the-catalogue stuff actually comes last on his list, which is sort of refreshing. On the other hand, there's an awful lot of attention paid to James Robinson and Warren Ellis, and not much about the non-Fantagraphics art/literary publishers. Granted, D&Q, Picturebox, et. al., might simply not have much in the February Previews, or possibly Lorah isn't interested in what they are soliciting for that month. I haven't seen the February Previews yet; I might not have recommended anything from these publishers either. But all personal bias aside, a Previews rundown seems like a good feature, especially since not many other sites are doing something like that.

As for the other contributors, I haven't quite got a handle on what they'll be bringing to the table. Dirk Manning has some Bruce Lee related item--again, not sure what it has to do with comics, though many readers will doubtlessly get a kick out of it. Barbara Hallock has a...well, it's not really a review...let's say an endorsement of Knights of the Dinner Table. Lucas Siegel was the first person I read to post the news that Comic Foundry was shutting down, but he also links to an article about the downturn in the horror industry (BTW, the "horror industry"? Not the "horror movie industry?" Does the horror industry include manufacturers of fake blood?), but doesn't really try to tie in to, you know, comics. Cory Henson gnashes his teeth about the upcoming Watchmen movie (and let me point out once again, Watchmen is absolutely not the greatest graphic novel ever), and also posts a satirical piece about how different comic strips will end.

I have no idea what any of these people will focus on, because their posts seem to be all over the place. In his introductory post, Siegel claims he will be writing about video games, but that doesn't seem to be what he's posting about yet (with the exception of a post criticizing parental watchdog groups). Hallock suggests that her focus might be on "the various roles that women fill in comics." Again, I'm not sure if I'm seeing that yet.

The result, at least for me, is an absolute cacophony of opinions, newsy tidbits, and review-like articles; it's hard to focus on each individual voice when they all seem to be covering the same thing, or they're covering a bunch of different things. I don't necessarily expect everyone to carve out a niche and never venture beyond it, but it might help in the short term if everyone established their areas of expertise/interest, and then branched out from there. Some of the new posters have done so: I more or less know what Lorah, Pepose, Brownfield, Jaffe, Burlingame, Mozzocco and the returning Jeff Trexler are covering. But the other contributors seem to be drowning each other out. It doesn't help that there are about a dozen people posting right now, with apparently more to come. I'm much more open to reading somebody grouse about whatever the hell people are grousing about at the moment if I know who they are and where they're coming from. Right now, most of the new Blogorama crew have the credibility of a bunch of anonymous message board posters.

My other major complaint--and probably the more serious one, in the long run--is how much fucking Hollywood stuff gets covered. The new focus is kind of reminding me of the old Comics Scene magazine of the late 80s/early 90s. Anyone remember it? It was published by Starlog, and the ratio was usually half-comics, half-movies/TV. Lots of articles on Disney animation mixed in with interviews with comics creators. The new Blog@Newsarama is approaching that ratio, with lots of articles on genre movies, or movies related to nerd culture (like this article about The Wrestler, which sounds like an interesting movie, but only has a tenuous link to comic books).

I don't want to read too much into this--the contributors mostly seem to be writing about whatever they want to write about--but one wonders about the ongoing changes to Newsarama since the Imaginova buyout. The focus seems to be widening to include various aspect of nerd culture in general, while retaining a strong comics focus. There's no direct acknowledgment of a change in focus in Troy Brownfield's mission statement, but my rough estimate is that about 1/3 of the articles published since the relaunch have been about TV shows or movies; take away the various welcomes and introductions, and it's more like 2/5 of the posts.*

That's certainly all good and well; blogs and their parent website change, and their readers will just have to deal with it. But really, there's a reason I don't read i09, despite the presence of Graeme McMillan; I don't want to slog through a million billion posts about vampires and Fraggle Rock and whatever the fuck they cover over there to get to one post semi-related to my current comics interests. The new Blogorama is much, much, much, much more focused on comics than i09, so I'm not going to drop the RSS feed or anything.

But it's pretty clear that a lot of Newsarama readers haven't been happy since the Imaginova buyout, and there seems to have been some worry that the new Blogorama would become a general nerd culture blog (for multiple expressions of these fears, see the comments thread to JK Parkin's farewell post). Some similar comments are being made on the new posts, but Matt Brady (Newsarama version) is out there to defend his new crew. So far it's still a comics blog, and there's some worthwhile content. The blog will inevitably look different six months from now; hopefully it will cohere into a useful source for comics news along the same lines as the old Blogorama. But I wouldn't be all that surprised if some readers' fears of a more generalist Newsarama come to pass, either. Those movie and TV posts seem to be generating a respectable number of comments; maybe that's what the people really want.

*And geez, how many of the posts are about Heroes? I thought nobody watched that show anymore or something.

Just before going to bed...

2008-11-26T01:11:00.003-08:00

...I see this. Obviously I don't know who will be running the new Blog@Newsarama, but I have a hard time imagining that the new staff will provide the same breadth of coverage as I've come to expect from the departing Blogarama gang. It should be easy enough to replace some of the content there, particularly the fanboy- and Hollywood-oriented stuff*, but will the new Blog@Newsarama have the equivalent of a Chris Mautner? Hopefully yes, but I'm pretty skeptical. JK Parkin does promise some kind of Blogarama reunion early next year (Great Curve 2.0?), so at least we can look forward to that.

Anyway, in news related to this blog, work continues on my deliberations for the best comics of 2008. I've dug out all the books I could possibly consider among the best for this year, and I'll post a list of all the titles sometime in the next few days (possibly after Thanksgiving--another vegetarian starch-fest scheduled for this year!). I'm going to try to re-read as many of them as possible before making my list; I might blog my progress. Yeah, yeah, I know I'm spending about 200x the typical effort put into these things, but I find it a useful framework for making myself think harder about comics. Someone will probably read that last sentence and think, "isn't that antithetical to the whole comics-reading experience, these things are supposed to be fun, not deep, etc." But I say, have always said, and will always say: fuck those people.

*Not sure if it needs to be said, but I'm DEFINITELY NOT talking about Tom Bondurant here. I have to admit, though, that I've been skipping past his Trinity annotations because...uh, do I really have to finish that sentence? I'm sure they're good annotations and all but...Trinity, you know?

Short reviews

2008-11-17T14:55:00.002-08:00

Gyo v. 1-2 (complete) by Junji Ito

I wanted to read this series when it was out of print, so I'm glad to see this new edition. The first volume is kind of funny, as I had heard would be the case. It's hard not to laugh at a shark scurrying through a house on little mechanical crab legs. But overall, it's a somewhat funny idea stretched to the point of tedium: there's only so many times you rely on an army of walking fish as sufficient spectacle to avoid having anything else happen. Especially since the protagonist's shrieky girlfriend was the only thing punctuating the monotonous fish-walking.

The second volume, however, is a lot more interesting, as the disease/parasite/evil spirit moves from fish to human, with absolutely disgusting results. The climax comes with a simultaneously ridiculous and horrifying circus performance. Shortly after this we get probably the most revolting image of the entire series, delivered in such an offhand way that it magnifies what would already be one of the most awful thing I've ever seen in a comic book. (And I mean "awful" in a non-pejorative way.)

There's some suggestion that unaffected humans are going to push back against the disease/whatever, and a few suggestions that there's a mystery afoot regarding immunity to the disease. But Ito chooses to end the story shortly after broaching these topics. It's an odd choice, but it's probably better to see him blow all his wild ideas in two volumes rather than try to stretch them out over 1000+ pages. It's kind of like a short Lovecraft story now, except that we're fortunate that Ito's art tells the story rather than Lovecraft's words. If Lovecraft had written Gyo, it would probably read something like this:

"The fish walked decayingly across the impractical and ugly bamboo floor. The human male Nipponese, being somewhat more sturdy of mind than his other mongolian cousins, found his mind a-disturbed by the loud spectacle. He put down his opium pipe and spake, 'Ah-so, meester fish. You-a want to wark in my hut? I put-a you in my berry! Wife number one? Bling me empty rice bag so I can catch this fish!' The piscene ambulator, unimpressed by this asiatic claptrap, matriculated along eldritchly."

Travel by Yuichi Yokoyama

I'll probably save my more detailed thoughts on this for my best of 2008 list (yes, work has commenced and Travel will be on it). For now, I'd like to point out how intimate this book is, at least when compared to last year's New Engineering. The latter was a surprisingly large book, its big pages filled with scenes of artificial landscape construction and battles between oddly dressed people, using things like books and the contents of a refrigerator as weapons. Travel is in a much smaller format, and its subject matter is totally relatable: a train trip. Jog's review suggests (somewhat facetiously?) that Yokoyama is a crypto-humanist. I actually found a surprising degree of humanity and hope in even New Engineering, and I see it even more clearly in Travel.

Bat-Manga by...uh, let's not get into that, actually

Finally got a chance to read this, and I have to say: I have no idea who's going to be buying this book for the non-manga stuff. I mean, I have a pretty good idea who Chip Kidd and Pantheon think will be buying this book: people whose domiciles are strewn with Batman: TAS maquettes, lithographs of Harley Quinn drawn by Alex Ross, the Absolute edition of Hush, etc. But here's the thing: obviously I haven't met everyone who fits this target demographic, but those who I do know have little interest in or patience for the 1960s TV Batman. And all the pictures of various Japanese Bat-toys all feature hilariously weird art based on Adam West's version of Batman.

Of course, there are undoubtedly completists who have sacrificed heroic portions of their lives and income collecting everything with a bat logo on it. Those people will love the pictures of amusing toy packaging. The problem here, however, is that those people (a) don't comprise a significant portion of the English-speaking populace, or even the potential audience for this book, and (b) probably would have preferred to have more of the toy stuff, possibly with an index/checklist. This is not to say they wouldn't enjoy the manga; it's more to say that they might have preferred two different books, one devoted to Japanese bat-ephemera, and another devoted to the manga by Jiro Kuwata.

If they're like me, they might also prefer better treatment for the Kuwata material. Here it's been presented as another type of ephemera, down to the high-resolution photographs of the pages which make the manga look like recently-exhumed papyrus scrolls. I usually like this approach, particularly as seen in the Chip Kidd-designed Jack Cole/Plastic Man book from a few years ago. Here, though, it's strangely fetishistic, as though the manga as an artifact of Japanese bat-mania is more important than the content of the work. But if that really were the case, why did Kidd include so much of it?

The obvious answer is that it's very good. It certainly beats the hell out of 99% of the Batman stories I've ever read, possibly because they don't read like typical American Batman stories. Instead, they almost bear a greater resemblance to EC comics, particularly those from the sci-fi and crime lines. Kuwata's Batman is infinitely less compelling than his villains; he mostly lends stability and a narrative framework to all these stories. I can't remember much about Batman from these comics, but Lord Death Man, a mutated governor, and a much creepier version of Clayface linger in my mind. It's an approach which reminds me a little of Fist of the North Star. Each episode of that series was ostensibly about Kenshiro's search for his fiancee or brothers or something, but the focus of any given episode was actually on the villain of the week, whose arms, legs, and/or head will inevitably explode in the big fight at the end of the episode. In between Kenshiro asking about his lost family members and the limb detonation sequence, we get to focus on each villain's baroque approach to evil--vampirism, military-themed torture, whatever. They were always more interesting than Kenshiro, and they all ended up dead or crippled by the end. In other words, they never came back.

That doesn't appear to be entirely the case here--Clayface makes two appearances--but, generally speaking, these seem to be one-off villains. It's such a fresh and interesting approach that it makes me wonder if superhero comics in North America would have benefited from a more diversely villain-centric approach. In any event, the manga sections of Bat-Manga are well worth your time, and maybe, hopefully, we'll see an actual archival reproduction of these comics one of these days.

Real v. 1 and Slam Dunk v. 1, both by Takehiko Inoue

Slam Dunk is kind of like the distillation of everything I loved about anime (didn't read manga at the time) when I was a teenager: angry-yet-romantic high school student struggles in an alien field to impress classmate. Hilarity ensues. This, of course, doesn't give Inoue nearly enough credit. Main character Hanamichi is the best possible shonen hero, a character whose monumental ambition is directly proportionate to his equally monumental delusion; whose interest in the BIG SELF IMPROVEMENT GOAL is predicated on entirely self-serving (and yet kind of mundane) desire; whose solution for every possible problem is violence. And best of all, you don't actually have to like basketball to enjoy Slam Dunk! It's not that I have anything against basketball per se; I'd much rather watch it than a lot of sports (soccer, hockey, and golf spring immediately to mind) or nerdy blogger favorites like Dr. Who or Battlestar Galactica or whatever. But I've never been as interested in basketball as (American) football, baseball, or combat sports. Or even tennis, actually.

Which is why it's sort of strange that I actually preferred Real, Inoue's grown-up (big boy format and everything!) series about wheelchair basketball. The protagonists of Real are obsessed with basketball, unwilling or unable to give it up despite their circumstances. This is a book about absolute passion; you have to buy into Nomiya Tomomi and Togawa Kiyoharu's absolute obsession with the sport to appreciate Real. There are other obsessions as well; for instance, Nomiya is plagued by guilt for his role in a traffic accident which left a young woman paralyzed. Nomiya is actually kind of like an inverted Hanamachi Sakuragi from Slam Dunk: while Hanamachi only plays basketball to attract the attention of Haruko, Nomiya's obsession with basketball turns off even his teammates. Even after being expelled from school (thus depriving him of the competition he craves), Nomiya is unable to let go of his passion for basketball. It's this passion that leads him to take an interest in Togawa Kiyohara, an outstanding wheelchair basketball player.

This could all be very schmaltzy in the wrong hands, but Inoue has taken several steps to avoid this sort of thing. First, Nomiya is in no position to be a mentor to Togawa; he's about the same age and is too impulsive (and in contrast to Hanamachi, Nomiya loses his fights). As for Togawa and his cohorts, they're not the Mighty Ducks in wheelchairs; if anything, they're mentally tougher than Nomiya. But this isn't a story of Nomiya's self-discovery by way of learning from the disabled, either. Togawa is no magical paraplegic; he has his own problems and negative traits as well. So that seems to be setting us up for some kind of parallel story of growth, each protagonist learning from the other. But at the end of the first volume, Inoue introduces a wild card in the form of Takahashi Hisanobu, a former teammate of Nomiya's who is hit by a truck, thus paralyzing him from the waist down.

I haven't read the second volume of Real yet, but it's pretty clear that Takahashi will be somehow involved in wheelchair basketball, either as a teammate of or a rival to Togawa. I'm not sure about Takahashi yet. His character was the most stock of all these--there wasn't much to him besides "asshole jock," making me worry that his journey towards acceptance of his condition/determination to transcend it would be similarly generic. But his final scene in the first volume adds a degree of vulnerability and sadness that strips away the sentimentalism one might normally associate with this sort of character arc. His presence might change the dynamic of the Nomiya-Togawa relationship, and that could be better for Real in the long run.

So for right now, I do think Slam Dunk is more entertaining, but Real has more potential. There are a number of scenes where Inoue really seems to be onto something in his mixture of personal tragedy and sports obsession. In particular, a sequence involving a dying teammate of Togawa's is particularly affecting. The young man expresses the comfort he gets by merely holding a basketball, feeling the pebbled texture on his fingers. He thinks to himself that even this pleasure will soon elude him, as he will lose the strength to hold the ball over his head. The scene ends with him regretting his delay in buying a basketball, but resolving to cherish the remaining time he has to feel it in his hands.

I found this particularly moving, and it's the sort of thing I hope to see more of in future volumes. Even those with no interest in basketball or sports in general should be able to appreciate the tension between fleeting moments of pleasure and the tragic lurch of the future.

Yes, I am planning a trip to Portland next week

2008-11-13T12:27:00.005-08:00

-Does anyone know if Dark Horse's brick and mortar store (Things From Another World) offers discounts on their own material? I need to catch up on some Kurosagi Corpse Delivery Service.

-On a similar note, any restaurants in Portland anyone would recommend? Like something near the big Powell's location? A good Indian restaurant would be especially nice.

-I don't want to read too much into it, but since Marc-Oliver Frisch pointed it out, I did think it was kind of strange to see Dan DiDio mention his 2009 budget in this Newsarama interview. (Which is apparently a new biweekly feature at Newsarama? Amazing what you miss when you don't read the Newsarama main site unless somebody specifically links to one of their articles, as was the case in this instance.) DiDio's talking about cover prices here--sounds like $3.99 is bound to be the going rate by the middle of next year--but it's not the sort of language I'm used to seeing in these hype and gripe sessions. Granted, I haven't read one of these things in a while.

I'm not so sure I'd go as far as Marc-Oliver and link budgetary concerns to the frankly baffling decision to have Tony Daniel write what appears to be a pivotal Batman story arc. But there's definitely an unsettling mix of regret and shilling in this interview. And it doesn't do anything to dispel the notion that DC is totally reliant on Geoff Johns and Grant Morrison right now. I would still think that it's in DC's best interest to try to poach one of Marvel's top tier writers--Brubaker, Bendis (probably not very likely), Loeb, or Millar being the top bang-for-your-buck types. I guess Warren Ellis could make a big splash as well, but I'm under the impression that his willingness to write for Marvel's intellectual properties isn't a courtesy he'd extend to DC. Something about a personal fondness for Quesada, maybe? Anyway, of this group one would think Loeb or Millar would be the best bet, except (a) I don't know the status of their contracts, and (b) I'm not so sure Mark Millar's future is in work-for-hire. At one time I would have guessed he would put aside other interestes to write Superman, but I really do think that he thinks he has a shot at writing a Superman screenplay instead.

EDIT: Or Jesus, what about Straczynski? Marc-Oliver keeps pointing out how weird it is to assign freaking Brave and the Bold to your highest profile new freelancer in years. Maybe he's too busy to write anything else?

-Haven't done predictions for a UFC card in a while. Not so much out of indifference as forgetfulness. But I'm remembering right now, so let's give it a shot:

Randy Couture vs. Brock Lesnar
A good matchup from a variety of angles: youth vs. experience, athleticism vs. technique, past vs. future, etc. And by "past vs. future," I mostly mean that Couture helped put the "mixed" in "mixed martial arts" by purusing a strategy that blended his strengths into a coherent game plan: use greco-roman base to pin opponent against cage, then use dirty boxing to win on points.*

Couture has deviated from this plan when it made sense, most recently in his monumental upset of Tim Sylvia last year. In that fight, Couture used his superior ground skills to keep Sylvia on his back, grinding his way to a comfortable win on the judge's score cards. That's not going to work on Saturday, because there's no way that Couture can keep the much larger and stronger Lesnar on his back. In fact, it's going to be Lesnar who will seek to put the fight on the ground, where he can work his way to a decision or a stoppage via ground-and-pound. Couture surely has the better BJJ, but it's probably not enough to negate Lesnar's advantages on the ground.

So: if the fight is primarily contested on the ground, it's Lesnar's win. If they're mostly pushed up against the cage all night, that's probably Couture's win. BUT, what if the fight is mostly standing at a distance? What then? Lesnar surely has more firepower, but Couture surely has the better technique. I'm going to pick Lesnar because I think the weight/strength advantage is too great for Couture to overcome, but I would never bet money against Couture. Actually, I never bet money at all because I'm a chicken.

*BTW, I was thinking about this the other night: Lesnar went into professional wrestling out of college because there was no money in MMA at the time. One would be inclined to say he did himself a disservice, since he thus lost his prime years to botched shooting star presses and all the other wackiness that comes with the WWF/E. OTOH, if he had started in MMA in 2000, he surely would have relied on his excellent wrestling to the exclusion of improving his skills in BJJ, boxing, muay thai, etc. That would have worked for a couple of years, but he probably would have been exposed against a Fedor Emilianenko, Josh Barnett, or Antonio Nogueira (he still may yet be exposed against Nogueira!) in fairly short order. So maybe it's better that he got into MMA in 2006, when it was imperative that he train all the other crucial disciplines as well.

Kenny Florian vs. Joe Stevenson
The only other fight of note on the card. I don't think Florian's fought a mauler like Stevenson since he took on Sean Sherk a few years ago. Florian lost that fight, but he's really improved his game since then. I think Stevenson is an excellent fighter, but he's not as good as Sherk. I like Florian here. Should be a good fight.

Amir Sadollah vs. Nick Catone
CANCELED! So it's going to be a while longer before we get to see the TUF 8 champion (and surely one of the few dudes from that show you'd want to spend more than 30 seconds talking to) for a while.

Gabriel Gonzaga vs. Josh Hendricks
Don't know much about Hendricks (except that he's not Johny Hendricks, a much more interesting 170 lb. prospect with impeccable wrestling credentials). But it's hard to pick a guy who's lost to Travis Wiuff AND Sam Hoger, even if those fights were several years ago. Gotta go with Gonzaga, but it would be nice to find out that Hendricks has massively improved in recent years and is actually a legit HW contender.

Nate Quarry vs. Demian Maia
I guess I spoke too soon--I'm sort of interested in this fight. Not a big Quarry fan--he seems like a good guy, but I think the ceiling of his potential is Ultimate Fight Night-level gatekeeper. But since everyone in the crowd has also decided he's a good guy, we still see him on PPVs. I don't see how he beats Maia, unless his takedown defense is better than I imagined. Maia hasn't shown much standing, so Quarry could (and should) beat him there. But I'm assuming Maia can manage to get this to the ground. If not, he's not the potential MW contender UFC is dying for.

Dustin Hazelett vs. Tamdan McCrory
Oh wait, this is a pretty good fight too. And it's going to be on TV, since the Sadollah fight was canceled. Thanks, Amir! Hazelett is one of the fastest-rising talents in the welterweight division, and a personal favorite. McCrory is a good prospect, but probably not ready to beat the BJJ wiz Hazelett yet.

Jorge Gurgel vs. Aaron Riley
Aaron Riley still fights? Jose Gurgel still fights? Guys, this isn't an Ohio show--why is Gurgel on here? Don't care, no pick.

Jeremy Stephens vs. Rafael dos Anjos
Dos Anjos is on a nice win streak. Stephens is a guy who can beat someone like Cole Miller, but can't beat someone like Spencer Fisher. In these cases I try to make an optimistic pick, going for the fighter with the biggest upside. I think that's dos Anjos in this case.

Alvin Robinson vs. Mark Bocek
I like Alvin Robinson, and Bocek still hasn't done much in UFC.

Matt Brown vs. Ryan Thomas
Don't care, no pick

I guess it's not too early if you've got connections

2008-11-07T11:20:00.003-08:00

So as I'm going back through the stuff I've missed in the last couple of weeks, I see that Amazon and Publishers Weekly have both published their best-of lists for 2008. Lots of stuff on both lists I haven't read yet, but on first glance the PW list looks more attuned to my tastes. I'm now thinking the best perk about writing for a respected publication/website is the opportunity to read things like KE7 before unconnected people like me. Or did it show up at APE? Haven't worked my way through to the APE reports yet. (And yeah, I broke my plans to attend. Sorry, but you know how things are right now.)

Anyway, let me remind everyone once again to send me links to your best of 2008 list(s) so I can start adding and calculating the 2008 meta list. Umbrella Academy is #1 right now, I guess--if this is not to your liking, then make sure to make a list!

A few thoughts

2008-11-07T01:18:00.002-08:00

1. If Final Crisis #4 were a Pretty Things song, it would be "What's the Use." Finally got to read it tonight (DCBS shipment arrived Election Day), and I really kind of struggled just to get through it. Read like a run of the mill crossover, with just enough gratuitous cameos by b- and c-list characters to wear down my enthusiasm to where it's mostly hypothetical now. I should like this comic; I liked the first three issues, I like Grant Morrison, and I generally like JG Jones. But Jones and Morrison both seem kind of uninspired here. Especially Jones, who (dead giant dalmatian scene aside) seemed like just another artist this issue. And there was at least one confusing sequence which reminded me of the debate over Morrison's storytelling deficiencies from earlier this year. The Turpin-into-Darkseid stuff was good, but that's about all there is for non-Flash fetishists. I could understand the comic veering into train wreck territory, but it's hard to forgive it for becoming a typical bullshit event book. Since I've already paid for the next couple of issues, I have good reason to hope that this is just a plate setting issue and not Civil War-style entropy.

2. I guess it's possible that Final Crisis just seems shoddy compared to the other stuff I've been reading in the last couple of days: Popeye, Black Jack, Or Else #5. Not a fair comparison, to be sure. Segar and Tezuka aren't merely all-time greats; they're the sorts of cartoonists who make other all-time greats look weak by comparison. And Huizenga, while certainly not as accomplished as Segar or Tezuka, is probably one of the five best cartoonists active today. So no, not a fair comparison. But I've got so much unread stuff of comparable quality laying around that it's hard to make myself read the last couple of issues of Uncanny X-Men.* Don't know if this means that I'm ready to abandon superhero comics or what. But when you've got new stuff by Yuichi Yokoyama and Lewis Trondheim in the to-read stack, it's a little hard to muster up enthusiasm for the latest issue of Captain America.

*Needless to say, Greg Land's art doesn't much help.

3. I also passed on watching an episode of Justice League Unlimited I'd never seen before the other day. I liked that series even back when I wasn't reading comics a few years ago. Maybe I really do need a vacation from the cape and tights stuff. It's not like I expect Captain America to measure up to Trondheim, but I'm not even enjoying superhero comics on their own terms like I used to.

(FWIW, I think I ended up watching one of those ultra-meta NFL films things, like where Steve Sabol waxes nostalgic about the follies compilations of yore and makes fun of the sweaters he wore in the 80s. Can't get enough of the meta!)

4. I mostly played Saints Row 2 with music saved to our XBox 360 hard drive (see here for partial playlist), so I only rarely heard the music from the radio stations. But when I did.... I occasionally feel guilty for not keeping up with contemporary music, and I realize that it's no more fair to judge it by listening to middle-of-the-road emo than it would be to judge early 90s indie rock by listening to something like Collective Soul or Candlebox. But holy shit, is there ever some terrible music in that game. I don't know that I was ever going to read The Umbrella Academy, but I don't know if I could ever bring myself to do so after hearing "Teenagers."

5. On a more positive note (sort of), I can't get over how much I like the music from Life on Mars. There's a little too much Simon and Garfunkel for my taste, but I can't deny the pleasure of hearing tracks from Muswell Hillbillies on a network show. I'm not convinced that Life on Mars isn't a waste of my time yet--it mostly still seems like a dumb cop show at heart. And the bit with Jim Croce last week was Quantum Leap-grade idiocy. So yeah, I guess the soundtrack has successfully pandered to me, cause I'm not so sure why else I'm watching. Here's hoping we hear some Pink Fairies before the show gets canceled or I lose interest.

6. The internet is right about the awesomeness of Takehiko Inoue. More on this later.

I promise

2008-11-05T01:00:00.002-08:00

...to start posting again now that I'm not devoting every spare minute to following the election. Glad there was a payoff for all that obsessive checking of fivethirtyeight.com, pollster.com, etc.

Actually, I also have been devoting a lot of spare minutes, and will continue to devote a lot of spare minutes, to playing Fallout 3, which really kind of gets at a lot of the things I wrote about in the last post. More on that eventually, maybe, but I just wanted to note how much I'm loving it since Chris Mautner would probably ask in the comments. So I guess I'll turn the tables--how are you liking it, Chris? (Apologies if you've reviewed it on your blog already--haven't checked Google Reader in a looong time.)

Fun vs. art

2008-10-20T12:47:00.004-07:00

So I've been playing a lot of Saints Row 2, which kind of feels the first new game I've played since the Carter administration. I usually spend my summer gaming time catching up with older titles, which I did again this year--God of War 2, Digital Devil Saga 2, and Morrowind being the main titles. But it's good to play a current-gen game again, and it's good to play something as much fun as Saints Row 2.

Of special note is how much more fun Saints Row 2 has been than Grand Theft Auto 4, at least for me. I realize this puts me in a small minority. GTA4 boasts a substantially bigger map, better graphics, better music, and a better sense of immersion--after multiple sequels, gamers feel that this is a real world they're operating in, with recurring characters, institutions, radio personalities, and whatnot. But nothing in GTA4 compare the fun of blasting over dirt hills in a police cruiser to chase down litterbugs and not having to worry about cousin Roman's gambling debts.

The gaming media's meta-narrative to the release of GTA4 was that video games were finally graduating from mere entertainment to actual art.* The main character, Niko Bellic, is haunted by his past in the war-torn Balkans; he struggles between his desire to avenge the wrongs he's suffered in the past and his desire to start over in the United States, a land of opportunity where immigrants can transform themselves and blah blah blah. I'll admit, this is somewhat sophisticated for a video game, but it's downright hackneyed by any other measure. America as a land of opportunity for immigrants? An old, old trope which GTA4 lets stand without significant revision, or even interrogation. Compare it to the Godfather movies, where the plight of the immigrant pushes Vito Corleone to the world of crime as a means of advancement. Revenge/past vs. forgiveness/future? A very poweful theme, and the one which resonates the best in GTA4. Unfortunately--

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

The end of the game doesn't really give the player the opportunity to make their own decision. I was playing GTA4 in a future-looking way, letting Darko (the initial target of Niko's rage) live. The ending suggests another opportunity to choose revenge or forgiveness, but then pulls the rug out from under the player by forcing a final, revenge-oriented mission. It doesn't matter whether the player seeks revenge on Dmitri Rascalov (dig the absolutely appropos-of-nothing-other-than-Russianness literary allusion!) or not--someone close to you is going to die, and you're going to have to seek out revenge--or, as the case may be, even more revenge--anyway.

This is actually not a bad opportunity for GTA4 to reinforce a theme: no matter how forward-looking you might wish to be, the past will always return to haunt you. More specifically, an individual might choose to forget the past, but that's not good enough if others choose to remember the past and seek their own vengeance. Not a bad theme, especially when dealing with ethnic tensions and war. The problem is (a) this has nothing to do with war or ethnic tensions--the animosity between Dmitri and Niko is entirely grounded in the new world; and (b) it undermines the previous theme of personal choice that the game had gone so far to establish.

Consider, again, the decision to kill or spare Darko. When presented to Niko, he's a wreck: racked with guilt, ravaged by drug addiction, in no way a functional human being. No matter how you play it, there's no material reward for killing or sparing his life--no new missions, no new weapons, etc. From an emotional/story standpoint, there are greater rewards for sparing his life. If the player chooses to kill Darko, Niko will admit that he feels no better for having done so. If they spare him, other characters and Niko himself will suggest this is an emotional breakthrough, a real turning point in Niko's life.

There's nothing wrong, per se, with having this forward-looking message undermined by having Dmitri or Jimmy Pegorino (depending on how one plays the game) kill either Roman or Kate (again, depending on how one plays the game). But at this point, the game moves from player-controlled to cut scene-controlled; Niko's reactions are predetermined. At this point the player feels less in control and more along for the ride. In other words, GTA4 goes back to being a typical video game.

I think this problem has less to do with the shortfalls in the story and more to do with a failure to recognize and capitalize upon the unique features of video games. Does the player identify with Niko, playing the game as he would? Or do they seek the greatest possible entertainment? If the producers of GTA4 wished the former, then there's a lot more they could have done. Take the Darko revenge delimma again. There's no reason for the player to kill Darko other than sadism (which, of course, is nothing to underestimate in this context). But what if the game had started in the former Yugoslavia, the player exposed to the treachery and atrocities that shape Niko? What if they were forced to play through that betrayal? That would make the decision to spare Darko much harder to reach.

E
N
D

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

It's that tension between character and player which video games have not yet explored to the fullest. In its most simplistic (and most common) form, these usually amount to simple morality questions: do I kill an NPC to receive some kind of incentive (money, new missions), or do I spare them because that's what I think the character I'm playing would do? Do I help out these NPCs (thus opening a new mission), or do I ignore them? When confronted with these decisions, the player usually opts for whatever maximizes the entertainment quotient. Ironically, as more gaming genres incorporate elements of RPGs, they're failing to emphasize the "role playing" part of the equation.

Improving this role playing element is one path** toward making video games closer to genuine art, and it's certainly the more intriguing step from a formalist perspective. Video games are a unique medium in that they are played rather than read. There's a level of interaction just not possible in other media. Sure, in comics or novels, the reader is forced to use his or her imagination to fill in the blanks. But in video games, choices are left to the player. Or, rather, they can be left to the player, if the developer chooses to make the game that way.

As it stands, video game developers have relied on crude reward systems to provoke player reactions: more missions, better weapons, money, etc. A few games have aimed at a more sophisticated approach, like my favorite game of 2007, Bioshock. In Bioshock, the player chooses to either kill or spare Little Sisters. There's a material reward either way--can't forget the imperative to maximize entertainment!--but there's also an emotional reward. To harvest Little Sisters' energy (or ADAM, to be more precise), the player must observe their reaction--thrashing, the appearance of abject terror in their eyes. If one spares them, they become normal little girls again and thank you. Some reviews of the game were more impressed by the Little Sisters' reactions than others. I thought it was a good idea, but not perfectly executed; I chose to spare the Little Sisters, but I was unmoved by their protestations one way or another. There was also a not-especially-scintillating ending based on my decision to save the Little Sisters. But once again, it was the material reward (unlocking new attacks) which motivated me.

Bioshock gets a lot of credit for its BIG SHOCKING TWIST about 2/3 through, which calls into question the nature of free will in a video game. But, for my money, the most effective game I've encountered re: immersion into the character is Persona 3, a game developed very late in the life cycle of the PS2 (at which point, one presumes, development costs are no longer so monumental that ROI concerns overwhelm any hope of upsetting the entertainment:art ratio). I've never played a game that so successfully communicates its theme--in this case, the idea that life is precious, and should be savored no matter how ominous the future is. The player only has so much time to develop relationships with NPCs, level up the character (both in terms of the school simulation and the more traditional RPG quest), and complete the main quest. Spend too much time doing one thing and the others suffer. And the overwhelming sense of dread and defeat makes those moments of connection with other characters so much more meaningful; entertainment maximization starts to lose the battle with characterization.***

But I still think that entertainment trumps art in Persona 3, just as it does in Bioshock, Grand Theft Auto 4, Mass Effect, and countless other games which try to balance the two. To some extent this is understandable; given the outrageous costs of producing games for current gen systems, game developers must center their efforts on maximizing sales. There's not much room for narrowcasting, so it's no surprise that customer entertainment is the primary concern. I guess that's why so many people have pinned their hopes to smaller developers; perhaps, as is the case with film, certain types of innovation only occur in projects with a smaller budget, where ROI pressure is less daunting. And maybe the larger developers will pick up on these innovations and increase the sophistication of the medium across the board.

The biggest hurdle remains consumer expectations. Developers and publishers have conditioned players to view games as diversions rather than art, products rather than creative endeavors. It's going to take some reeducation to change these attitudes, assuming that the bigger publishers care to change them at all. And it's going to take something more than Grand Theft Auto 4's weak literary asperations and failure to capitalize on the inherent strengths of video games.

Maybe later in the week I'll try to write something about why comic books have been so much more successful in this regard than video games. Really, though, the biggest reasons are obvious: the price of producing a comic presents a much lower barrier to entry, the form has been around longer, there's less distance between creation and consumption. But there are certainly some parallels, so it might be worth thinking about in greater detail.

*Or, perhaps more accurately for GTA4, literature. But that sound weird, so I'll be sticking to "art" in this post.

**The other path is best embodied by games like Okami or Shadow of the Colossus: immerse the player in lush, beautiful environments. That's a valid approach, but one about which I don't have much to say yet.

***Though, to be fair, your character is a bit of a blank slate. These sorts of open ended games are a different beast entirely. It will be interesting to see if Fable 2 can live up to its promises; if so, that's another valid way to expand the horizons of video gaming. But Persona 3 doesn't really fall into this category, since the game's deep emotional atmosphere pushes the player into a specific direction. It's almost more impressive; you create the character's personality with your reactions to the game.

For the record...

2008-10-15T22:52:00.003-07:00

Mark Waid needs to grow up. It's time for a lot of comic book professionals to grow up, actually.

Ranking Breakdowns

2008-10-15T15:02:00.005-07:00

One thing I didn't mention in my review of Breakdowns was its positioning on my early best of 2008 handicapping. I had previously stated that I thought the strongest candidates to top this year's meta-list were (in no particular order) What It Is, All Star Superman, and Bottomless Bellybutton. It's pretty clear that Breakdowns will probably be in the running as well, partly because it's published by a traditional press, one which is (presumably) well-equipped to put review copies in the hands of mainstream critics. More importantly, Art Spiegelman is inarguably one of the most respected cartoonists in the world--I'd guess that he's actually the single most respected.* That reputation, along with the relative mainstream friendliness of "Portrait of the Artist as a Young %@&*!," might propel Breakdowns to the top slot on many year-end lists; it almost guarantees that it will appear on many, many lists from mainstream outlets.

I would consider this a good thing, inasmuch as I would agree with these hypothetical list-makers that Breakdowns is worthy of great acclaim. If I were asked to choose the best comic of the year from the current frontrunners, I would certainly pick Breakdowns. In fact, I'm sort of inclined to pick it as the best comic of 2008, period. It's one of those rare, absolutely essential books, and I don't say that lightly.

So then, why am I only "sort of inclined" to make it my best of 2008? For one thing, the year isn't finished yet--there's another couple of months of releases yet to come, and at least a couple of unreleased books are very, very strong contenders--Nocturnal Conspiracies, a collection of David B's short material from NBM, and Kramers Ergot 7.** But the stronger consideration is this: should I rank a collection of previoiusly published material at #1 for the year?

I had a number of reprints on my best of 2007 list. Actually, half the list consisted of books which contained prevoiusly published material: Notes For a War Story, Phoenix: Sun, Jack Kirby's Fourth World Omnibus, Town Boy, and Alias the Cat. Three of that group were the first available English translations of international work, so I don't feel too bad about including them. That leaves us with Alias the Cat and Jack Kirby's Fourth World Omnibus.

The former was originally published in serialized form by Fantagraphics (I think), making it largely inaccessible to most readers in 2007. I had never read it before, so I was very happy to see it in one collected edition, in a very clever package, reminiscent (at least to me) of The Cat in the Hat or other Dr. Suess books. And it's not all that high on my list at #8. As for the Fourth World collection (#5): on the original list I wrote, "I'm a little loath to include this new series of reprints, since Kirby's Fourth World material has been reprinted several times in numerous formats." That still sounds right. If I were judging these books purely based on quality of content, well, Kirby at his best beats just about anything, short of maybe Kurtzman, Kelly, or Crumb at their peaks. Or maybe Tezuka.

But notice that I didn't put Tezuka's Phoenix: Sun at #1 either. Again, in terms of quality, it would have been justified; no one on my list, with the possible exception of Lat, beats Tezuka as a pure cartoonist. But I'm just not comfortable putting collections of fairly old material so high on a list of this type, even if some of it had not previously been available in English. I'd be sending a message that I don't really agree with, that the best days of the comics medium are behind it. Is that grading on a curve? Yes, kind of, but not exactly. I'm a hopeless antiquarian in many ways, but I'm very bullish on the future of comics. As much as I cherish older, classic work (I'm enjoying the hell out of the Popeye collections, now that I've found time to read them), I'm more excited about the present and future. I want my lists to reflect that kind of excitement.

So, then, what about Breakdowns? All of the material from the original edition comes from the 1970s. The only new addition, "Portrait of the Artist as a Young %@&*!," is itself a couple of years old. I'm quite familiar with most of the older stories; "Portrait of the Artist as a Young %@&*!" is new to me, but that's only because I was too lazy/cheap to track down the issues of the Virginia Quarterly in which it originally appeared. In short, nothing in this book should come as a revelation in and of itself to anyone sufficiently engaged with the comics medium.

And yet, as I write this, I'm sort of leaning towards putting this in my (provisional) top slot for a couple of reasons. First, as I noted in my review, the pairing of "Portrait of the Artist as a Young %@&*!" and the original Breakdowns in a single volume greatly increases the impact of each. Actually, it goes a step further: it almost creates an entirely new work. But that's not so far off from what I had to say about Jack Kirby's Fourth World Omnibus: "Better yet, the sequencing of the stories in published order has given them a new power. You can see Kirby's deft world building, always present yet always subservient to his desire to entertain his readers. And maybe I'm just in a different state of mind 10 years after I last read these stories, but the Fourth World seems so much more vibrant in this format. The Paranoid Pill, Happyland, the Glory Boat, the Hairies--these are some of the best ideas in the history of comics, each one better than the last. It's enough to make me reconsider whether or not this is actually Kirby's best work. I can't recommend these books highly enough."

There's something else, however, that Breakdowns has going for it: Spiegelman is a living, working creator. "Portrait of the Artist as a Young %@&*!" isn't brand new, but it's not that old, either. It's more reflective of the present than the Fourth World omnibus. That's not to say that Kirby's comics are firmly relegated to the past: clearly he has an enormous impact on contemporary artists. Hell, the current Big Event at DC is based on his work. But that's the thing--none of this is an extension of his work; it's all reinterpretations or homages or pastiches. Jack Kirby's presence certainly looms large in 2008, but Art Spiegelman is alive and still producing great comics.*** That means a lot to me, and probably pushes Breakdowns to #1 on my best of 2008 list, barring any further revelations.

The next question: will I be able to resist putting Fantagraphics' new Pogo series at #1 for 2009? I'll probably avoid the temptation for the first volume or two. But what about the later ones, like once we get into Simple J. Malarkey and whatnot? Man, that's some awfully good stuff....

*Anyone want to try to list the other most respected living comics creators among the general English speaking population? After Spiegelman, I'd say (in no particular order) Joe Sacco, Dan Clowes, Chris Ware, Alan Moore, Marjane Satrapi, and Allison Bechdel are probably the top tier. Rutu Modan, Adrian Tomine, and Jaime Hernandez would round out the top 10, IMO. But am I underestimating the mainstream appeal of Gilbert Hernandez, Grant Morrison, Craig Thompson, or Posy Simmonds? What about Robert Crumb--does his history of misogynistic work cancel out his monumental accomplishments in the eyes of the general public (by which I mean the segment of the general public which is willing to think about comics, but not too hard and not for extended periods of time)? Is Stan Lee a part of this discussion? Do people still think about Matt Groening as a cartoonist, rather than a multimedia mogul? How about Gary Trudeau--would the public think to lump him in with the names above?

**Although...I didn't see it in Diamond's solicitations for November or December. I guess I might have missed it if it ended up in the merchandise section or something. Is it still supposed to debut at APE?

***This generally reflects my decision to put Notes For a War Story as high as I did. Coconino originally published it in 2004, only three years before its English translation. And Gipi is an active cartoonist, one of the best in the world. Hopefully one day these sorts of books will appear in an English the same year as their original release, but I'm not too worried about it in terms of list-making.

Breakdowns

2008-10-13T12:59:00.005-07:00

So I did a lot of book shopping for the first time in a couple of months this weekend, picking up a couple of Spurgeon-recommended titles along the way (a 1970s Doonesbury collection (guess they're more common in Oregon?) and a copy of Sick, Sick, Sick). And it was good to finally get a copy of the first issue of the reconfigured Love and Rockets, which I hadn't been able to find until this weekend. But maybe the best purchase was one I made impulsively, picking it up as I was walking to the cashier with a different book: the revised edition of Art Spiegelman's Breakdowns.

It's not like I didn't want a copy of Breakdowns, but it wasn't really a priority. Ten years ago I ached to have a collection of Spiegelman's earlier work, partly due to Scott McCloud's discussion of these strips in Understanding Comics. I eventually bought Art Spiegelman: Comix, Essays, Graphics and Scraps, a catalogue of a German (or maybe French?) exhibition of Spiegelman's art from throughout his career (highly recommended if you can find a copy; the text is in German and English, so it's doubly recommended for those trying to learn the German language via comics criticism). And so I came to read much of the classic, formally adventurous Spiegelman work of the 70s: "Ace Hole, Midget Detective"; the original "Maus"; "The Malpractice Suite"; "Don't Get Around Much Anymore."

The new version of Breakdowns includes a facsimile of the original edition, right down to a cardstock replica of the original cover. This greatly expands the early Spiegelman material currently in print; to the aforementioned short stories, we can add "Cracking Jokes," "Little Signs of Passion," "Day at the Circuits," and "Soap Opera Strip." Furthermore, and perhaps most crucially, "Prisoner on the Hell Planet" is now in available in a format which allows it room to breathe. Breakdowns is printed on nice, big pages, a vast improvement on the oversized thumbnails in Comix, Essays, Graphics and Scraps. That alone would probably be enough to make the revised edition an essential purchase for anyone who doesn't already own the original. Spiegelman's reputation for formal inventiveness is confirmed again and again in these pages. Re-reading "Don't Get Around Much Anymore," you can almost feel Scott McCloud's arguments about panel-to-panel transitions originating from a close examination of this one-page strip.

But what really ends up dominating the book is a different side of Spiegelman's artisitic persona, that which is forever linked to the Holocaust through the seminal Maus.* The only new material included in the revised Breakdowns is "Portrait of the Artist as a Young %@&*!," an autobiographical essay originally serialized in the Virginia Quarterly from 2005 to 2006. I had never read this story before. Those who did might be slightly less impressed, but for me, especially when paired with the original Breakdowns material, "Portrait" was a revelation.

"Portrait of the Artist as a Young %@&*!" is as deep and affecting a portrayal of dysfunctional comics obsession as I have ever read. Spiegelman echoes countless other cartoonists in portraying immersion in comics as a coping mechanism, an escape from the terrors of mundane reality. What sets "Portrait" apart are two crucial things: (1) Much of what Spiegelman is trying to escape is directly related to the permanent trauma his parents suffered during the Holocaust. (2) This is Art Spiegelman, the godfather of literary/art comics we're talking about here. When Spiegelman's alienation from his baseball-playing peers drives him into the arms of Harvey Kurtzman, there's something deeper going on.

Spiegelman depicts his parents as constantly suffering from the guilt and pain of Auschwitz, informing all their actions and helping to establish their son's mistrust for the outside world. At the same time, Spiegelman is an eager consumer of mass culture--comic books, television, coonskin caps. It's no surprise that he embraces Mad, splitting the difference between the two: a raucous attack on "the adult world," yet a product of the same. Even so, immersion in comics is also a way of courting parental--or, rather, materanal--approval. His mother buys him a cartooning kit under the condition that Spiegelman applies himself and becomes a competent cartoonist. Spiegelman obliges by replicating the goofball anarchy of Kurtzman and his successors in his homemade comics; later he produces interesting-yet-derivative underground comics. His father remains a distant presence throughout this, suggesting that his son's interest in comics--or even his capacity to laugh in such a fucked-up, evil world--indicates some sort of failing on his part. Then his mother commits suicide.

It's here that "Prisoner on the Hell Planet" becomes so instructive. We see a young Art Spiegelman somewhat alienated from his childhood obsessions (in the afterword, Spiegelman notes that, upon seeing R. Crumb's work, he "could leave this comics stuff in his [Crumb's] uniquely capable hands and pursue Enlightenment unencumbered."). Spiegelman continues to drift for a few years after this, producing relatively mundane underground comix and applying what he'd learned from Kurtzman ("MAD lessons") to desiging Wacky Packages for Topps. Spiegelman has essentially entered part of the "adult world" while thumbing his nose at it, while sticking to the bargain he struck with his mother to become a competent cartoonist.

But something triggers a breakthrough in 1972. Spiegelman confronts his mother's suicide with the audacious "Prisoner on the Hell Planet," a landmark story in which Spiegelman details his mother's suicide, his and his father's reaction, and the existential torment he continues to suffer afterward. While the original "Maus" preceded it by a year, "Prisoner on the Hell Planet" sees Spiegelman morph into the confident cartoonist who would change the medium. His expressionistic linework reflects his suffering, vacillating from tight, controlled crosshatching to wild, agonizing scrawls. It's a truly cathartic moment, captured in ink on paper.

Or so Spiegelman thought. Early into "Portrait of the Artist as a Young %@&*!," Spiegelman details the literal pain he felt when revisiting his mother's suicide 30 years later. In this light, "Prisoner on the Hell Planet" is less a temporary release of pressure so much as a dam break, encouraging Spiegelman to push the limits of the comics form. Spiegelman's ambitions are naked, from his annoyance at responses to "Don't Get Around Much Anymore" (peers were unmoved, readers depressed) to his decision to publish Breakdowns in the first place. Having already rewarded his mother by becoming a professional cartoonist, Spiegelman seems to be considering his father by becoming the most serious, important cartoonist of his generation.

The final sequence in "Portrait of the Artist as a Young %@&*!" is a reproduction of an earlier anecdote, in which a bully steals a toy belonging to young Art. When his mother tries to intervene, the bully spits in her face, denying her power to stop him. Spiegelman alludes to the original cover to Breakdowns by playing with the color register here, while substituting the original narration for word balloons quoting a passage on defamiliarization by Victor Shklovsky. Even as the text endorses the formalism Spiegelman embraced in Breakdowns, the images remind us of the acute emotional and familial connection Spiegelman feels towards comics: the one panel left intact is that which shows the bully spitting in his mother's face.

As a whole, the revamped Breakdowns is a postmodern masterpiece. The original Breakdowns serves as a sort of appendix to "Portrait of the Artist as a Young %@&*!," which in turn provides something of a key to Spiegelman's mindset when making Breakdowns. It's not unlike the sensation of reading "Day at the Circuits;" it's unclear which work is the ur-text, and which is the gloss, thus encouraging circular reading. Similarly, it's impossible to fully extract Spiegelman's formal adventurousness from his autobiography. In a sense, one can only evaluate Spiegelman's comics by considering his relationship to them. It's a tremdously effective way to restore immediacy to a collection of material from 30 years ago.

And on a similar note, here's a little speculation: Breakdowns might end up being the most accessible formalist comic ever released. With the possible exception of Watchmen**, Maus is the most widely read, serious graphic novel in the English language. This widespread familiarity with Maus, along with popular acceptance of its importance and literary legitimacy, might encourage some otherwise recalcitrant readers to pick up Breakdowns. What they will find is a first-rate introduction to the incredible possibilities in the comics medium. Which is not to say that everyone who enjoyed Maus will enjoy Breakdowns--not by any stretch of the imagination. But I really think that Breakdowns will prove a potential gateway into the world of truly great comics for some (hopefully many) readers.

As for those already familiar with this world (ie, most of you reading this), Breakdowns is an excellent reminder of why Spiegelman is so venerated in the first place. It seems that several factors have combined to reduce Spiegelman's relevance in the contempoarary alt comics landscape: the tepid response to In the Shadow of No Towers, the (hopefully temporary) diminishing importance of Maus in a world full of ambitious literary comics***, the previous obscurity of "Portrait of the Artist as a Young %@&*!," and Spiegelman's status as an elder statesman--maybe THE elder statesman, the oxymoronic comix authority. This book should convince those of us who had neglected Spiegelman--myself included--of his imporance to the comics medium.

*Most would probably say that there's a third aspect to Spiegelman's career, best exemplified by his work for Topps: the Mad-loving prankster (a persona which possibly includes his work as a cover artist for the New Yorker). This side is explicitly dismissed in "Portrait of the Artist as a Young %@&*!" There's probably a fourth part to Spiegelman as well: Spiegelman the historian/advocate for the comics medium, early 20th century comic strips in particular. That, too, is largely absent from the new edition of Breakdowns (perhaps fittingly, since Spiegelman had not fully established this identity when Breakdowns was originally published).

**"Possible exception" in the sense that (a) I'm not sure which is more widely read, Maus or Watchmen, and (b) it's certainly debatable whether or not Watchmen really deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Maus. Not to say that Watchmen is bad, but it's really, truly no Maus.

***Which I think often amounts to something like this: for years Maus was just about the only thing we had to point to, but now we've got ambitious, high-minded graphic novels coming out every week. So let's not think about Maus for a few years.

I'm probably opening myself up to charges of elitism here, but let's face it: those charges were coming anyway

2008-10-07T13:49:00.003-07:00

Just to clear up a few misconceptions about what I wrote yesterday:

-Anyone who took it to be another "buy what you like" rant greatly misunderstood me. I hate those rants, because they aim so, so low. I don't believe in reminding people not to waste money on comics they don't like. It's a problem, I'm sure, but who wants to try to reason with the people who suffer from it? It's just too depressing to contemplate.

-It was mostly aimed at people who write about comics, regardless of ambition or venue. Anyone who attempts to write a review of a comic amounting to more than a couple of lines complaining about continuity or giddily anticipating the return of a character (or a version of a character) previously thought to be rendered out-of-continuity. If you can't get past the idea that someone might not like your favorite superhero comics, this conversation isn't for you.

-Okay, I'll throw you folks a bone. Too many of you shut off part of your brain whenever you read anything which suggests that mediocrity/putridity dominates the comics industry. (And really, it's a little unseemly that so many of you immediately lapse into "but Mom, comics are serious!" mode whenever anyone questions the quality of popular comics.) This isn't "superhero hating snobs vs. regular folks." That's stupid. Anyone who reads Tucker's interview and comes away with that impression....

-But anyway, I was trying to aim a little higher than the Wednesday crowd, as Dirk Deppey calls them. Specifically, I meant the people who are aware of comics beyond the Image/Dark Horse/IDW level of ground-level indies, yet who continually reward mediocre comics with excessive praise. Which is not to say that these people aren't entitled to their own opinion--it's just that their opinion is, uh, questionable. And I think it's time we actually started questioning the value of these reviews.

-Look, it will all seem a lot clearer in a couple of months, when we start seeing best of 2008 lists with mediocrities sitting alongside genuinely worthwhile material. That's what really infuriates me--a list with Exit Wounds, Shortcomings, Aya, Y the Last Man, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. You're obviously exposed to the good stuff--why fill out the list with middling junk? (Part of this is an issue of mainstream press writers only including books they receive as comps; those lists drove me crazy.) I'm considering including a special sub-list only including trusted/legitimate critics, but I don't want to be the one who has to pick them out. Maybe I'll poll some of the critics I respect to get a sense of whose lists should be included on such a list. Please note: this won't replace the regular meta-list, which I would certainly still consider the definitive word on which comics were the best-reviewed in 2008.

-And I guess that's as good an opening as any to remind everyone that it's getting to be meta-list season. If you're one of those people who likes to make these lists way, way too early, please send me a link so that I can include it in the final tally.

Hruska Du

2008-10-06T13:33:00.003-07:00

The single thing I found the most compelling in Tom Spurgeon's list of things he would change about comics if he could, from item #16:

We criticize and receive criticism without reactionary defensiveness and accept others' ability to do the same with respect for their doing so rather than as an opportunity to press our agenda that much further.

Actually, I think the last half of the statement could use some clarification in the form of a concrete statement; I think I know what he means, but I'm not sure. But the first half is crucial, and a sentiment that seems to be building among those of us frustrated with the relationship between critics and cartoonists. I've seen too many creators freaking out in public over honest (if not always thoughtful) criticism. I don't know if it's a mentality endemic to comics or to a culture overlapping with comics. Kevin Smith's frequently callow relationship with his critics suggests the latter. (BTW, how funny is it that Smith's Wikipedia page cites the MTV Movie Award for "Dirtiest Mouth" (sponsored by Orbit gum!) among the awards won by Clerks II? Surely this is a joke, right? Or would Wikipedia's gestapo editors purge such levity?)

Even more cutting is this bit from Tucker and Nina Stone's interview with Chris Mautner (this being Tucker speaking):

Watchmen, Chris Ware, Daniel Clowes, Criminal, Carl Barks, Darwyn Cooke, David B, Lynda Barry, Charles Burns, Krazy Kat—those comics, those creators get real serious writing because they earned it, because they did something that’s worth talking about, that’s worth taking seriously. If you’re not getting really brilliant reviews, really incisive, intelligent response—it’s because you don’t deserve it. It’s because you’re a waste of time to the people who might write those reviews. Not because “it’s comics.” It’s because that thing you did was just middle of the road, and you can’t say anything smart about middle of the road. Because you didn’t earn it, and no sour apples begging will get it for you.

Comics readers seem to love the mediocre. I don't think the problem with comics criticism (in a broad, broad, very inclusive sense) isn't that it rewards terrible, bottom-of-the-barrell work; it's that it rewards second-rate work. Any stab at respectability, no matter how modest, is too-often greeted with hosannas. I've seen people laud Kingdom Come because it used foreshadowing--which I'm sure we all remember is an actual, honest-to-god literary technique! I guess that's a step up from those who think crying superheroes holding the charred remains of less-famous superheroes connotes respectability.

Look, there are certainly people out there who don't care about anything other than Wolverine slicing people up (or the 2008 equivalent, shocking events which will change everything you thought you knew about She-Hulk). But this isn't a Manichean struggle between those people and those who actually want some shred of readability or craft in their comics; I'm not lining up with people who think Starman is the greatest comic of all time in a struggle against those who pay exorbitant amounts to see Batman strangle the Joker with his own intestines, provided that it's in continuity. I want to read legitimately good comics; I want to be an advocate for legitimately good comics and nothing else. It's not enough that a comic doesn't cater to a narrow, dying audience. I want comics which are good, which aspire to something grander than "at least it's not as bad as Wolverine: Origins."

In film reviews, a middling review is often worse than a abysmal review. In comics, works desrving of a middling review win major industry awards. Joss Whedon may not insult your intelligence as egregiously as, say, Jeph Loeb, but he doesn't belong in the same company as Harvey Kurtzman. Many people are well aware of this, but it's always good to remind those who don't quite believe you. Especially in an environment where anti-intellectualism isn't just prevalent but normative. Don't believe me? Consider this comment from the Blogorama interview:

He [Tucker Stone] tried to show he was “down” with comics by saying he liked an issue of the Detroit Justice League that found by accident. But he immediately started espousing the glories of Chris Ware and the “Arty” comics that he can find in NYC.

See? What kind of fucked up culture are we in that familiarity with a terrible, terrible superhero comic confers expertise, while modest praise for a book regarded as instrumental in establishing a bridge to the literary world is evidence that one is out of touch and unqualified to judge the value of an issue of Nightwing? Christ, this idiot seems to imply that Acme Novelty Library isn't even a REAL comic! This is an absolutely outrageous statement, but it's sadly not unique.

We can't say or do enough to eliminate comics' love affair with the mediocre. It's so obvious. Don't make me allude to a certain national political figure here.

Don't start away uneasy

2008-09-30T14:39:00.002-07:00

I was sorry to hear about the falling out between Mark Andrew Smith and Paul Maybury (you can read about it here). I thought Aqua Leung showed a lot of promise, not just as a comic but as a successful model for drumming up publicity. Those guys managed to get interviews all over the blogosphere (including one at this very blog), released sample artwork at exactly the right moments and to the right sources, and generally set up a great deal of anticipation for the final product. It was a really great effort, one which should be a model to cartoonists in their position.

As for the book itself, it wasn't without it problems, but there were a number of really terrific moments. I'm not really a fan of mid-brow, ground level type comics, mostly because they seem to lack the energy of the trashier stuff and the sophistication of the artsier stuff. The worst examples end up being uptight but not especially deep (the vast majority of Vertigo's output springs to mind). However, a strong, art-emphasized approach can yield some very commendable results--I'm thinking Mike Mignola and Eric Powell here. I thought Aqua Leung was in this territory, with the promise of even better things to come.

Mark is obviously well-established in comics and probably has half a million other things in line right now. Paul is an incredibly talented cartoonist who I think will be producing absolutely jaw-dropping work in a decade. But it's too bad their relationship didn't work out, because I think Aqua Leung was a good venue for each to grow while producing quality work for public consumption. There's probably some lesson about the difficulty of producing work in collaboration here, but I'm not the one to figure it out today.

All right, fine

2008-09-29T15:15:00.002-07:00

Tom Spurgeon has one of those posts which naturally appeal to OCD-type comics fans, which is to say all comics fans: 50 things every comics collection needs to have. I agree in spirit with about 85% of what's on here (possibly because it casts my personal library in a good light), but some of the format suggestions strike me as a little...I don't know. Too nostalgia-oriented? Too book collector snobbish, as if to valorize antiquated formats which require some degree of searching over newer formats which (at least in my experience) are easier to find/more convenient/cheaper. Then again, I've never quite agreed with Tom's fascination with the American comic book as a format; I'm perfectly willing to read things on a computer screen if that's the only option available. Or if it's the most convenient, as is the case with a lot of minicomics which later show up on creators' websites. And minicomics are the ne plus ultra of a format-matters sensibility, so you can see where I'm coming from.

So, since Tom specifically encouraged it, here's my list of what I have, don't have, sort of have, and don't think I need. With frequent commentary because, well, you know. And I'm using the format Tom suggests rather than the one Alan and Matt use because I'm an argumentative kind of dude.

(EDIT: I don't want to sound too critical of what Tom's done with this list; I'd like to point you all to this comment I left at Sean Collins' blog. Specifically this:

...overall it's a great resource for someone looking to build up a collection (I wish I'd had access to it c. 1997), and yet another great conversation-starter.

Just wanted to make that clear!)

Bold = Things I do have
Plain = Things I don't have
Italics = I have some but probably not enough
Underline = I don't agree I need this
Some of these are combined in the list below. Yes, there are things which I own but don't believe are really vital. It's like I get to have an argument with myself AND Tom Spurgeon!

1. Something From The ACME Novelty Library
All pamphlet-format.

2. A Complete Run Of Arcade
There aren't that many issues of Arcade, granted, but a complete run is a little hard to put together. I've got all the Crumb stuff in other forms; additonal issues of this are a luxury, not a necessity. Great anthology, though.

3. Any Number Of Mini-Comics
It's not a large number, and there aren't any old ones. I'd like to remind the jury that I was 13 and living in rural South Carolina on January 1, 1990.

4. At Least One Pogo Book From The 1950s
I've got several of the Fantagraphics collections. Have I ever mentioned in this space that I think Pogo is the best comic strip of all time?

5. A Barnaby Collection
I like Barnaby just fine, but isn't Krazy Kat a more serious requirement?

6. Binky Brown and the Holy Virgin Mary
I even remember where I bought it: Criminal Records in Atlanta.

7. As Many Issues of RAW as You Can Place Your Hands On
I've only been able to place my hands on a couple of copies of the second volume, though.

8. A Little Stack of Archie Comics
Not an Archie fan, but I can see why someone might want them on hand for a complete comics library. Of course, it's that line of thinking that encourages people to buy Eagles albums, just for the sake of what-if-someone-comes-over-and-needs-to-hear-"Taking-It-Easy."

9. A Suite of Modern Literary Graphic Novels
Who doesn't have this? I mean, who doesn't have this and is still reading, rather than dismissing the whole endeavor as pointless, so long as Crisis on Infinite Earths isn't specified as a must-have? (Note: as I write this, Chris Mautner hasn't linked to this on Blogorama. But when he does, I'm guessing that at least someone will make this suggestion in the comments. UPDATE: Coming back to finish this up, I notice that Chris has linked to it, but no discussion of COIE yet. Who will pick up the slack? Comment-leavers at the Beat, which has yet to link to the story? Or, more likely, the often apoplectic comments field at Comics Should Be Good, which also hasn't covered the story, but probably will because it seems like it's totally in their wheelhouse?)

10. Several Tintin Albums
If by several you count one of those hardcovers containing three albums. Which I do.

11. A Smattering Of Treasury Editions Or Similarly Oversized Books
Do those old issues of Acme Novelty Library count? Or Goddess of War? Okay, I see that they would. Moving on...

12. Several Significant Runs of Alternative Comic Book Series
Hate, second volume of Love and Rockets, Jim, The Nimrod, probably a few more I'm forgetting.

13. A Few Early Comic Strip Collections To Your Taste
See #9 above.

14. Several "Indy Comics" From Their Heyday
I'm not sure exactly what qualifies here; I know Tom Spurgeon doesn't mean it this way, but his description reads as "books which aren't Marvel or DC (or, presumably, Valiant or Image or...what's the other one? Ultraverse?), but which aren't really good enough to count in #12 above." I think I probably have a few of these somewhere in one of my boxes, like an issue or two of American Flagg! or Scout, but I wouldn't fault anyone for not having any of these.

15. At Least One Comic Book From When You First Started Reading Comic Books
Again, I think I have a few of these lying around, but it's not because I planned it that way. I won't deny the pleasure of reading old issues of Who's Who, of which I have a nearly complete set. Ditto The Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe, except that it's way less fun to read because the art is so, so much nicer in Who's Who. Still: I know it's worded in a way to include those who started reading comics as adults, but there's the unpleasant whiff of nostalgia here.

16. At Least One Comic That Failed to Finish The Way It Planned To
I really liked Atomic City Tales. It's one of the comics I bought, along with issues of Hate and Underwater, on my first trip to a alt/indie oriented store.

17. Some Osamu Tezuka
I might suggest "as much as possible" as the proper wording here.

18. The Entire Run Of At Least One Manga Series
Dragon Head for me. I'm missing some volumes of Cromartie High School, and it's not clear that it will ever be printed in its entirety in English anyway.

19. One Or Two 1970s Doonesbury Collections
I was about to argue against the wording again, but I see that this is in reference to the peak of the strip itself, rather than the method of delivery. Okay. BTW, am I the only one who doesn't see a lot of these old paperbacks in used bookstores? I mostly run across the bigger collections from the 1980s.

20. At Least One Saul Steinberg Hardcover
I actually feel worse about the lack of Al Hirschfield in my collection.

21. One Run of A Comic Strip That You Yourself Have Clipped
What century are we in again?

22. A Selection of Comics That Interest You That You Can't Explain To Anyone Else
Does my larger-than-can-be-easily-justified Valiant collection count? I say it does.

23. At Least One Woodcut Novel
Yeah, I need to get some of these.

24. As Much Peanuts As You Can Stand
As much as I can stand = whatever I can find used or remaindered. I like Peanuts, but not like I like Pogo or Popeye.

25. Maus
(Somewhat) funny story: when we moved this summer, my two volumes of Maus got packed into separate boxes, reunited only when I finally got around to stocking the bookshelves. That's probably the most time they've spent apart in a decade.

26. A Significant Sample of R. Crumb's Sketchbooks
Remember when Gary Groth put this at #1 in that Comics Journal top 100 comics issue? I'm pretty sure it was Groth who did that; I could be wrong. Anyway, it's not such a ridiculous notion.

27. The original edition of Sick, Sick, Sick.
I actually don't own anything by Feiffer, one of the more gaping holes in my collection. What can I say, it's just not a priority right now.

28. The Smithsonian Collection Of Newspaper Comics
Bought at a used bookstore in Columbia, SC, in the same shopping center as Manifest and the old Heroes and Dragons. Also recommended: that two-volume slipcover thing from the 90s, which I bought at Heroes and Dragons.

29. Several copies of MAD
Underlined only because I would have worded this as "A chunk of Harvey Kurtzman's satirical work." Of course, anyone owning copies of The Jungle Book, Trump, or Humbug probably also has a lot of early Mad in their collection. You know what was awesome? The late 90s reprints of Kurtzman-era Mad which were sold on newsstands, each reprinting three issues of the comic. I basically have the complete Kurtzman run in Mad thanks to those things. Anyway, my point is this: Kurtzman Mad/Trump/Humbug/etc: absolutely necessary. Feldstein Mad: not so much, though it's not the worst thing in the world to have lying around.

30. A stack of Jack Kirby 1970s Comic Books
Yep, assuming we're counting reprints here.

31. More than a few Stan Lee/Jack Kirby 1960s Marvel Comic Books
See above. Oh wait, Tom specifies the originals here. Hmm. I almost want to agree on the basis that the recolorization/decolorization kind of robs these books of some of their energy. I don't actually own any of these in comics form, but my father does (when do I get that part of my inheritence, Dad?). But these comics are so good that I don't think it hurts the experience too much to have them in the various reprinted formats. I'm leaving this in bold.

32. A You're-Too-High-To-Tell Amount of Underground Comix
Again with the original format? I mostly own collections, but I'm not un-bolding this.

33. Some Calvin and Hobbes
The sort of thing I could talk my parents into picking up at Sam's Club back in the 90s. I think they were supposed to belong to the family, but they're in my garage/library now.

34. Some Love and Rockets
Well, of course.

35. The Marvel Benefit Issue Of Coober Skeber
I'd like to have a copy. I would have eagerly bought it when I came out, but there was that whole living in South Carolina thing I had to deal with.

36. A Few Comics Not In Your Native Tongue
Yes, but they're not good ones.

37. A Nice Stack of Jack Chick Comics
I would like to have more. I'm almost tempted to say that the proper way to obtain these is off of park benches, etc., but that undermines a lot of the criticisms I've been making here.

38. A Stack of Comics You Can Hand To Anybody's Kid
It's not quite 2 feet tall, though.

39. At Least A Few Alan Moore Comics
Even the "where's Crisis?" people would have this.

40. A Comic You Made Yourself
Yes, but I don't know if I think it's that important. The joke back in the 90s was that the only people interested in alternative comics were aspiring alternative cartoonists--Evan Dorkin did a story about it. Not a joke you'd expect to see today, thankfully.

41. A Few Comics About Comics
Doesn't everyone have a copy of Understanding Comics?

42. A Run Of Yummy Fur
I've got four collections containing material from this series (Ed the Happy Clown, The Playboy, I Never Liked You, The Little Man). I'm counting that.

43. Some Frank Miller Comics
I have Batman Year One and a few issues of Sin City, which is plenty. I might buy Daredevil: Born Again if I saw it for the right price. I don't think one necessarily needs anything by Will Eisner--I don't think I own anything besides Comics and Sequential Art--but I'd say Eisner is much more essential than Miller.

44. Several Lee/Ditko/Romita Amazing Spider-Man Comic Books
See the response to #31 above. Good point about Marvel Tales, but I'd rather have the high-end reprints or an Essentials collection, because I think the collision of classic Ditko art and advertisements for Bonkers fruit chews or Clearasil is a little unsettling.

45. A Few Great Comics Short Stories
I'd like to have the complete run of Rubber Blanket, though. Only two more issues and I'm there!

46. A Tijuana Bible
Where the hell do you find these things? At the local speakeasy?

47. Some Weirdo
Three issues, to be exact.

48. An Array Of Comics In Various Non-Superhero Genres
Everyone has this. I would probably specify EC here.

49. An Editorial Cartoonist's Collection or Two
I keep thinking about buying some Herblock (my all-time favorite), but never manage to do it.

50. A Few Collections From New Yorker Cartoonists
I would probably have framed this to include Playboy cartoons as well, but the point stands: I have no Charles Addams in my collection.

WHAT I WOULD HAVE ADDED:

-A collection of an alternative weekly strip. Everyone needs some Matt Groening and/or Lynda Barry in their collection.

-Some modern European comics. I'd recommend Trondheim or Sfar, of course. Actually, I'd recommend a lot more than them, but they're the best starting point.

-Some Krazy Kat collections. I mentioned this above, but I thought it was worth mentioning again.

-A collection of Crumb's non-sketchbook work. Preferably something from his late 70s/early 80s peak. I know the early psychedelic stuff was more influential/historically important, but I don't care. Oh, okay, you need that stuff too.

-At least a little American Splendor. Come on, now. This is obvious, isn't it?

-At least one long-ish work without words (or dialogue). Really, though, everyone needs a copy of Cave-In.

-Art Out of Time or a collection of work of a similar spirit: Everybody has a copy of I Shall Destroy All the Civilized Planets now, right?

Comics? COMICS?

2008-09-26T16:04:00.003-07:00

-Once again, the standard apologies about another stretch of not blogging. This time it's not that I've been busy, but more that I've been distracted. And not (entirely) by things as goofy as video games and MMA--more like politics. Instead of posting here, I find myself checking polls, spin, and whatnot. It's not like I actually have anything interesting or intelligent to say about any of this: you're either relishing Sarah Palin's public collapse or you're sweating it out, hoping that John McCain thinks of some new cockeyed plan to distract the press. Or, if you're like the people sitting behind us at the restaurant today, you're impressed by the paper Israeli flag stuck in the window somewhere in the Alaska Governor's Mansion.

-It's not that there haven't been things to talk about in comics, though, as the blogosphere has been dominated by two conversations: the very different endings of All Star Superman and the Minx line.

As to the former: I still don't quite get all the fanfare. ASS was certainly a good, entertaining book, but it was signficantly less interesting than what I expected from the Grant Morrison who wrote Seven Soldiers, the Grant Morrison whose involvement led me to read All-Star Superman in the first place. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop, something that would dramatically ramp up my enthusiasm for the book. In the end I was entertained, but not amazed.

WHICH IS FINE, but some of the reaction to this book...whew. The Lex Luthor in prison issue was very, very good, deserving of some of the praise I've seen for the work as a whole. The rest, I felt, was more like something you file away, maybe re-read a few years later for a chuckle, maybe forget forever. Still, given the circumstances, I'm half-planning to re-read all 12 issues to make sure I'm actually right, and not just cranky that All-Star Superman will quite possibly be the #1 book on the 2008 Meta-List. There's just no way in hell that will be justified if it happens; those who are already pencilling it in at #1 on your end-of-year lists, I beg you to reconsider, to deny it the nostalgia/superhero curve which made it the third best reviewed comic of 2007. I'm already prepared to see it place higher than most of the books on my own, highly idiosyncratic list, but there are probably at least two or three dozen books substantially more deserving of the top spot. And that's way, way, way more than enough politicking from the person who compiles these polls.

(For those interested, if I had to handicap the most likely books to place in the top five this year, I'd probably go with (in no particular order): What It Is, Bottomless Bellybutton, All-Star Superman...and that's pretty much as far as I can go. Breakdowns, maybe, assuming it doesn't come out too late in the year, so as to miss those who draw up their lists ridiculously early, like in October. Black Jack has a strong chance to consolidate the literary manga vote, barring a big showing for the (totally worthy of top 10 status) Disappearance Diary, which might be a bit too obscure to make much of a showing. Other possibilities: The Amazing Remarkable Monsieur Leotard, Kramers Ergot vol. 7 (I'm really dying to see how it does on these lists), Criminal (popular enough last year to come in at #6, and it's way better this year), Three Shadows (just a hunch, but I think it shows up on a lot of mainstream-type lists--wasn't it mentioned by name in that recent Washington Post piece?). And it's possible that Achewood: The Great Outdoor Fight will reprise the success of the first Perry Bible Fellowship collection. Any other possibilities I'm missing?)

-As for the Minx line: uh, too bad, I guess? My main interest in Minx was based on pure hypothosis/blind hope, in that maybe exposing young readers to western comics in addition to manga would convince them that they liked comics in general, and would thus gravitate towards the comics I liked, thereby making them more popular and easier for me to obtain in the the only bookstore in town which carries a decent selection of new comics which don't involve Superman crying. This was not, mind you, a reasonable expectation, but it was the only way for me to get interested in a line which (a) was obviously not intended for me, (b) featured a bunch of creators who I might call modest talents (with the exception of Jim Rugg, who's pretty good, and of course Derek Kirk Kim, who is very good), and (c) didn't have a publishing strategy which struck me as especially noteworthy.

So I guess I don't have too many strong opinions on Minx' passing, all things considered. I do regret that it's passing takes a paycheck away for some folks whose work I don't normally follow. I feel worse, however, about the possible impact on Hope Larson's excellent Chiggers, which by all accounts did what Minx set out to do exponentially better. As noted above, I'm not the audience for a book like Chiggers, but any idiot can appreciate Larson's impressive cartooning and writing, even if he's a 31 year old dude. It really is the sort of book you want to share with young people, and I'd hate to see it affected by the demise of Minx.

As for why Minx failed, I liked Katherine Farmar's and Christopher Butcher's explanations the best. I'd like to find out some day exactly why the books couldn't get stocked in the YA section of Borders/Barnes and Noble; it seems like it's either an indictment of byzantine book trade politics or a tremendous failure on some specific person's part. Not that stocking it in the right section would have helped if DC wasn't committed to the line beyond a year and a half, for whatever reason. Yes, Brian Wood, I guess I'm not really surprised that Minx didn't take off, though I hoped it would. For the totally selfish reasons outlined above, but still.

And now it's back to reading about politics. Will McCain stick to a more conventional strategy by talking primarily about Wookies during tonight's debate? Or will he really shake things up by having Kimbo Slice punch him repeatedly in the stomach? Only one way to find out for sure, true believers!

The grotesquely wacky world of event comics

2008-09-11T14:58:00.002-07:00

-Here's my pick for quote of the week, from Dan Nadel re: the awesome Rory Hayes collection he edited, Where Demented Wented:

I'm not interested in laudatory essays or bullshit celebrity endorsements. I don't like wacky design or people doing their own drawings on top of it. I just want serious attention to it. All we've got is the work, why fuck with it?

-Okay, I just read (most of) this article about Mark Millar taking over writing the Ultimates, or Ultimate Avengers as it will now be called. Wasn't Jeph Loeb supposed to be writing Ultimates 4 at the same time he was writing Ultimates 3? And Ed McGuiness was going to draw it? Am I imagining this? Or am I so out of touch with Marvel publishing news that I missed a months-old announcement that this project was canceled?

FWIW, I'll probably read the first couple of issues of Millar's Ultimate Avengers. What the hell, it's only money, right?

-I was thinking about Abhay Khosla's very funny recap of fans' questions at a Marvel panel during the San Diego con, and it hit me: is there any other reason to read Secret Invasion beyond the desire to know what happened? I mean, I understand that as of right now, right this minute, there's more money to be made on these you-won't-belive-what-happens-next, thank-god-nobody-cares-about-craft-anymore event-type comics than anything else going, except maybe 23 year old comics by Alan Moore. But here's the thing: if people are only reading it for knowledge of what happens, and there's a general acknowledgment that the actual product is no damned good, and these things don't appreciate in value anymore, then what's to stop people from saving money and just reading online spoilers to learn what's happening? (Or, if my understanding of Secret Invasion is correct, reading online spoilers to learn what didn't happen.)

I would take this opportunity to say that those who do choose to skip plot-driven event comics should consider buying [insert name of blogger's pet comic of the moment], but (a) I'm pretty sure I'm preaching to the choir, and (b) you might have better things to buy with that $3 (or is it $4?) you're saving, like the better part of a gallon of gas, or maybe a bottle of malt liquor and Moon Pie.

-Speaking of Secret Invasion, just how incomprehensible is it? I haven't tried to follow it or anything, but what I've read about it seems pretty much impenetrable. I'm assuming, however, that Secret Invasion compares unbelievably well to the various Countdown related miniseries, if for no other reason than continuity discrepancies with Final Crisis rob them of whatever meager value they might have possessed. But what about the Final Crisis tie-ins?

I've read a couple of issues here and there, and I haven't been very impressed. I didn't actually read the first issue of Revelations, mostly because I was fairly sure that the book wasn't for me, and couldn't be any less for me even if it contained pirate gorillas or robot ninjas or something. Requiem seemed even less essential, kind of like if there had been a toy for the GI Joe staff dentist or something (codenamed CHOMPERS or FLOSSY maybe). I mean really, Martian Manhunter's funeral? Even if you love irregularly-used second-tier characters, surely you must believe that the dude's going to come back to life, possibly within the pages of Final Crisis. This is Grant "superheroes are gods, and I may not mean that in a completely literary sense" Morrison we're talking about here.

Okay, what else have we got? Rogues' Revenge (is there an actual apostrophe there? Cause if not, DC is worse than Hitler): Not bad. I never much cared for most supervillain-oriented comics I've read, just because they seemed to tone things down too much in order to make the protagonist(s) likable. Not really an issue here. Plus Geoff Johns' prediliction for mayhem (in a literal sense) actually seems appropriate for the reason stated above. I've been up and down on Scott Kollins' art over the years, but it's pretty effective here. Maybe it's no coincidence that Kollins' best previous work was with Johns on the Flash? Haven't read the second issue yet, though.

Superman Beyond: Haven't read it yet cause the local store didn't have a copy; reviews aren't really encouraging me to seek it out at Borders, either. Legion of Three Worlds: Man, I thought this was really not good, and I'm a little suprsised at how positive the reviews have been. Bear in mind that I like the Legion of Superheroes and George Perez enough to offset any dislike of Geoff Johns. If ever there was a Johns-written comic that made me agree with Alan David Doane's criticism of Johns' writing as playing with superhero toys in the bathtub, this was it. The plot, which partly involves the United Planets shutting down the Legion, closely resembles that of the Mark Waid/Barry Kitson run on LSH, except Johns' version is much shoddier in that it transparently seems to be setting up the triumphant rebirth of the Legion after saving the future from Superboy Prime. Speaking of which--ugh, Superboy Prime again? Aside from that, you have a lot of fan service (in the non-sexual sense, at least so far), with lots more to come, I'm sure. Are you ready for three Brainiacs getting together to come up with an impossibly brilliant solution sometime around the fourth issue? I'm not. I won't be bothering with future issues of this comic.

-And to end on a much more positive note: a new Graham Annable cartoon (via):

Cats use bites in lieu of words

2008-09-10T11:43:00.004-07:00

-You know, I thought about doing a "50 things I hate about comics" list, but I really couldn't think of 50 things. I mean, I could probably fill out the list if I dug deep, but it seemed kind of jarring to put items about the failures of the Direct Market next to my disdain for wacky apes.* I could ~~probably~~ definitely do a "50 things I hate about comics blogs" list, but what's the point? The only meaningful effect would be putting me in a bad mood after reacquainting myself with all the godawful blogs I quit reading months ago.

*"Wacky ape comics" is a strong synecdoche for "Silver Age superhero comics which everyone likes for reasons other than their actual quality." Wacky ape comics are kind of like the anti-Art Out of Time.

-I used to think Tom Spurgeon's weekly list of new releases was posted too late to do me any good. Then I moved to the Pacific time zone, allowing me to read these posts long before going out to purchase comics. Then I realized that the only nearby store carries only a small, small fraction of the items of interest to me. Then I started ordering things online. Yes, I will share my thoughts once my first shipment arrives. I'm cheap and have plenty of stuff to read already, so I elected for a single, end-of-the-month shipment.

-Book no one is talking about but which I recommend you check out: Cowa! by Akira Toriyama. Well, maybe people are talking about it in the larger manga blogosphere; I find it hard enough to keep up with what's going on in comics, what with also trying to keep up with the NFL (go Eagles, BTW), MMA, and the increasingly depressing world of politics.

But still: I haven't read much about Cowa!, but it's probably the manga I've most enjoyed reading this year. A few caveats: I still haven't read Good-Bye, Red Colored Elegy or Cat Eyed Boy. I also haven't read any of the Takehiko Inoue material released this year. And Dororo is certainly better than Cowa! in most ways. I just enjoyed Cowa! more. It's actually very similar to Joann Sfar's Little Vampire series, both in tone and premise. Like Little Vampire, I found Cowa! to be uproariously funny. Actually, as much as I like Dr. Slump, I probably laughed far more frequently at Cowa!, which has far fewer poop-related jokes (not that I mind the occasional bit of scatological humor, especially if someone as consistently funny as Toriyama is doing it, but there are probably about seven poop jokes in every volume of Dr. Slump).

What I really didn't expect, however, were the similarities to Toriyama's biggest hit, Dragonball. There are several fight scenes in this book, including an almost-epic one of which features an antagonist very similar to Toriyama's Buu. Toriyama is one of the great action artists of all time, and the sequences in Cowa! are about as energetic as anything I've ever read in a comic. One might expect this to be somewhat jarring, given that the rest of the book is generally light in tone; if the manga was adapted to the screen, you'd almost expect Ice Cube to star in the "gruff adult gradually charmed by rambunctious children while on road trip" role. But Toriyama injects a melancholic note by giving a dark past to the protagonist, a former sumo/pro wrestler named (but rarely called) Maruyama. And the tonal shift is gradual; the fight scenes grow in intensity as the stakes get higher. Toriyama, however, consistently and effectively injects humor into each fight scene as well.

It's a pleasing combination, especially given Toriyama's strong cartooning skills. Toriyama is also quite adept at using gray tones to create compelling compositions. Still, one almost wishes that the entire book were in color, as was the first chapter. (One certainly wishes that the second chapter, obviously originally published in color, hadn't been converted into too-dark gray tones). Given recent discussion of the limitations of the standard North American manga format in attracting adult readers, I couldn't help but wonder if Cowa! might have been better published in a format more reminiscent of a traditional children's book. Toriyama himself notes that he was attempting more of a storybook style with Cowa!, so the idea isn't completely baseless.

Of course, most people buying Cowa! in North America will presumably be established manga-philes. One can understand Viz' decision to use their standard format, so Cowa! will rest alongside volumes of Dragonball. Those who usually neglect these shelves would be well-advised to at least flip through Cowa!, particularly if they have enjoyed similar work by Sfar or Lewis Trondheim.

-So Matt Fraction and Ed Brubaker are writing the Beast/Hank McCoy as Cornelius Bear, right?

Happy birthday...

2008-09-09T17:29:00.003-07:00

...to my brother, who turns 29 today. Enjoy that last year of your 20s while you can--as soon as you turn 30, your joints start to crumble, your hair turns gray, and you can't remember who inked Kirby's stuff in the 1980s*. Actually, your hair doesn't start to turn gray until you're 31, so enjoy those two years!

*Note to self: it was Greg Theakston.

RIP Evan Tanner

2008-09-08T22:16:00.000-07:00

See story here.

More posts about comics again soon.

More thoughts on potential best of 2008 books

2008-08-27T12:30:00.005-07:00

-I know I'm in a really small minority here, but I kind of think I might prefer a dark Superman movie. I've never been a fan of the character at all, and I always found the movies to be pretty dull and, frankly, dorky. In fact, I think it might have been those dorky movies which eliminated all my childhood interest in Superman, firmly placing me in the Batman (and, later, Spider-Man) camp. I'm still more interested in takes on the character which play around with his alienation from humanity, but not in a mopey "would that I were more like them" way, like the interminable Superman Returns. Actually, a few steps beyond that might be good. I think I find the character so boring that the only cinematic interpretation likely to hold my interest is the sort which destroys all licensing revenue for about a decade. (Tucker Stone almost convinces me that I should check out that Azzarello/Lee Superman comic here, but I'm not sure I care enough about Superman to read something which tears down his mythology. And that, plus the fact that I haven't seen either Iron Man or the Dark Knight, probably disqualifies me from further comment on the subject.

-On a similar note, do we have an up and coming blog commenter here? Like, at long last, a comics version of Raiderjoe? Let's see if he shows up in the comments at other blogs first. Please, no mention of names; we don't want him Googling himself and coming here, realizing he has an audience, then playing to us.

-Unpleasant comics bloggers (and you probably don't know who you are): motivated primarily by pettiness, or is pettiness the only discernible aspect of their online personalities?

-More of my ongoing efforts to think about a best of 2008 list: I posted a provisional best of 2008 list--really a best of the first half of 2008 list--back in May. Which means, I suppose, that it's not even a full half--more like 5/12. Anyway, as one would expect, there have been a lot of worthwhile books to come out since then. Here are my thoughts on those I've read which deserve consideration for a best of 2008 list:

Bottomless Belly Button by Dash Shaw
I really need to re-read this book. I liked a lot of the formal play in it, most notably the depiction of the youngest son. And, just as my brother had told me, it was rather reminiscent of Wes Anderson's films, most notably The Royal Tenenbaums. (I like Anderson's work, so I consider that a positive.) I thought it was good, but not quite as good as some people seemed to find it. I worry that missed something important--not just because other people whose opinions I respect liked it, but because it just felt like I missed something. Will try to re-read sometime between now and the end of the year.

Goddess of War #1 by Laura Weinstein
Another one which I liked, but not quite as much as other people did. I've become a bigger fan of underground comix in the last couple of years, and I appreciated the tonal similarities here. And, unlike some people (can't remember who--Jog, maybe?) I did like the extended (alternate) history lesson at the end. In fact, that's what pulled the whole book together for me. I enjoyed Goddess of War #1 quite a bit, but I think I'll like future issues even more.

Delphine #3 by Richard Sala
I've never read anything by Sala which I didn't like, but, naturally, some of his works (The Chuckling Whatsit) are stronger than others (The Grave-Robber's Daughter). Delphine #3 is the first transitional issue in the series, serving mostly putting everything and everybody in the right place for the final issue. Alternately, it also felt kind of padded out, as if Sala realized he couldn't finish the series in three issues, decided to make a fourth issue, but didn't actually have enough plot for four issues. That's not to say that I actually think this was the case, but it certainly read that way. It's still much better than nearly everything else on the stands, especially when compared against other periodicals/pamphlets (I know I'm stretching the definition a bit to include something with the frequency/format of Ignatz titles, but whatever). I just didn't think this was as good as the first two issues. Can't wait to sit down and read the whole story, start to finish.

Grotesque #2 by Sergio Ponchionne
This, however, was significantly better than the first issue, and I liked the first issue a lot. Ponchionne's art is even better than in the previous issue, just bursting with life, a real joy to behold. The story is a bit more straightforward, but doesn't exactly seem to line up with the previous issue. The characters in this issue, however, are much better realized, and perhaps better suited to Ponchionne's strengths as a cartoonist. Very impressive; maybe the most underrated comic of 2008 so far.

BTW, it's generally too bad that the lesser-known European cartoonists in the Ignatz line don't seem to be getting the attention they really deserve. I mean, it's not unexpected that artists who are relatively unknown in North America would be overshadowed by the likes of David B. or Kevin Huizenga, two of the five or ten best cartoonists working today. But Ponchionne is doing tremendous work on Grotesque, and Gabriella Giandelli's Interiorae is also excellent.

Disappearance Diary by Hideo Azuma
Some people--not just ill-informed superhero-only fans shooting off their mouths, but also people whose opinions are worth considering--seem deeply suspicious of autobiographical comics. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to this position, actually, but there are a number of autobiographical works I find compelling. This is one of them. Hideo Azuma has certainly lived an interesting life, and his approach to putting it in comics form is pretty interesting as well. Azuma includes a disclaimer warning the reader that the events depicted in Disappearance Diary will eschew reality for positivity. That's sort of true to an extent, especially for the first third of the book, but bits of darkness begin to seep into the second section. The third, dealing with Azuma's treatment for alcoholism, is actually quite dark. And there are certain prima facie issues raised by Azuma's life which the upbeat tone can't fully disguise. Is the manga industry so exploitative that it has driven Azuma to voluntarily choose homelessness, not once but twice, despite no apparent preexisting interest in this lifestyle? What do we make of the interview in the inside cover? And why does Azuma try to be so relentlessly upbeat? This is a much deeper book than one might assume by browsing it in the bookstore. (Not that it's readily available in most bookstores, being a Fanfare/Ponent Mon release.) I'd strongly recommend tracking this down if you haven't already.

Where Demented Wented by Rory Hayes; edited by Dan Nadel and Glenn Bray
This is probably the book I was most anticipating for 2008, and I was certainly not disappointed. If you've read the Nadel-edited Art Out of Time, you're familiar with Hayes' work. And, for that matter, you've read his best single story, "Evolve," which I consider one of the great short stories in comics history. That's here, along with the complete Cunt Comics #1, Boogeyman Comics #1, and assorted high points from the remainder of Hayes' career. None of it is quite as good as "Evolve," but there's plenty of essential material here which you can't easily track down anywhere else. Of particular note is an alternate version of "Terror From the Grave," all in pencil. The original, single page story from Arcade #6 crams dozens of panels onto a single page; here we see it at a more subdued pace, extending to four and a half pages. I would imagine this would be a valuable teaching tool for anyone interested in the mechanics of pacing in comics; more importantly, it reveals Hayes' sophistication and versatility as a storyteller. Hopefully this book will help reestablish Hayes as something much more than a primitivist shock artist; readers might even be surprised by his aesthetically pleasing line in some later strips. There's a lot to chew on here. It's inconceivable that I would place this outside my top 10 for 2008; I would bet that it will end up in the top five.

Tales Designed to Thrizzle #4 by Michael Kupperman
Has there ever been a funnier comic than Tales Designed to Thrizzle? As I've said before, I think this might be the funniest issue to date. Kupperman jams the pages with jokes, working in a text-heavy style that isn't always exactly comics. It really sort of reminded me of the much-lamented Motorbooty, unquestionably the greatest zine of all time. It was in that very zine, in fact, where I first saw Kupperman's work. Has anyone ever talked about Tales Designed to Thrizzle as a gateway comic? I showed it to a friend who (literally) only bought no-adjective X-Men, and he loved it, buying a copy for himself immediately. My wife voluntarily reads it. Why isn't Michael Kupperman rich yet?

The Rabbi's Cat vol. 2 by Joann Sfar
Possibly even better than the first volume. Actually, I thought the first story was a little weak in comparison, but the long, final story (concerning a Russian Jewish painter who accidentally arrives in Algeria) was as strong as anything I've ever seen from Sfar. His art is as good as I can ever remember, and the themes of the book all seem to come to a head in this final story. Some might complain that the cat is more peripheral in this volume, which is true, I guess. Is there enough additional material in France to support a third American volume?

Final Crisis by Grant Morrison, JG Jones, et al
I'd like to echo Sean Collins' recent comments on superhero comics vs. alt comics here. Or maybe go a step further. Final Crisis is good, potentially very good when all is said and done, but at present, it's nowhere near as good as anything above it on this list. It's not that Grant Morrison isn't capable of writing excellent comics; I would certainly put Seven Soldiers on a hypothetical 50 best comics of the 00s list, and I might put New X-Men on such a list as well. Probably definitely on a top 100. (I will likely make some sort of list of this nature when the decade draws to a close; I guess we'll see then.) See also: Tom Spurgeon re: Watchmen vs. contemporaneous alternative comics.

(I'm tempted to say something about Vertigo here, but...I'm not sure how to finish that sentence. I can say this: Vertical > Vertigo.)

Invincible Iron Man by Matt Fraction and Salvador Larroca
This is probably the superhero comic I'm enjoying the most so far in 2008, a worthy successor to The Order (my favorite superhero comic of 2007). Do see disclaimers in item above, however.

Still to come: Sammy the Mouse #2, Babel #3, Aya vol. 2, Black Jack, Kramers Ergot vol. 7 (see Tom Spurgeon's interview with Sammy Harkham if you're not convinced you want to shell out for it), Nocturnal Conspiracies (upcoming David B. collection; not getting that much attention, but there's a really good chance that this will be the book of the year), ~~Gemma Bovary~~ Tamara Drewe (North American release--thanks for the correction, Chris), Travel (new Yuichi Yokoyama book), Alan's War (upcoming Emmanuel Guibert--thanks again, Chris), Breakdowns (thanks yet again, Chris)

Haven't read yet: Abandoned Cars, MOME vol. 12, The Amazing Remarkable Monsieur Leotard, Typhon vol. 1

Haven't finished reading: Dororo vol. 1, What It Is. I know this is pathetic--these books have been out for months!--but I once again plead innocence by virtue of interrupted life due to move across country.

Own but have not attempted to read yet: Good-Bye, Red Colored Elegy. See excuses made in item above.

Almost forgot to title this one

2008-08-19T20:53:00.001-07:00

-After talking about the best superhero comics of the 90s, I started thinking about how that decade compares to the best offerings of the 70s and 80s. And upon further reflection, I was kind of surprised to realize that I wasn't as familiar with some of these comics as you would expect from a know-it-all blogger. I mean, it's not like I'm completely unfamiliar with Steve Gerber's Defenders or John Byrne's Fantastic Four--it's just that I've only read bits and pieces, enough to have an impression, but not enough to really say anything meaningful. It's the sort of thing that makes you want to get up the next day determined to begin the long, arduous process of filling in these many gaps, then you remember that you still have about 2/5 of Disappearance Diary to read, and you'll probably like it a whole lot more than anything Byrne's ever done. And that's just the tip of the to-read stack. Time, she is a cruel mistress.

-If you're out buying comics today, and you're lucky enough to be in a store selling Tales Designed to Thrizzle #4, you really have no choice but to buy it. It's got what I think is Kupperman's funniest gag yet--the first full page advertisement, maybe about 4 or 5 pages in. That's worth the price of admission by itself, and thankfully nobody's posted a scan of it yet (at least not that I've seen).

Also: you might already be planning on getting Delphine #3 and Where Demented Wented, and those would both be very fine purchases indeed (as would, I'm guessing, the latest volume of MOME, especially given the presence of the incomparable David B.; unfortunately, I did not pick it up last week, so this is merely an assumption, though a fairly safe assumption, to be sure). But don't forget Sergio Ponchione's Grotesque #2, which is even better than the last issue. In fact, you don't need to read the previous issue to understand what's going on here, since the first issue is just a prologue. Or maybe the entire series will be nothing but mysterious story fragments. Either way, you need this comic.

-I know some people are mad because Final Crisis contradicts Countdown, but I've interpreted this sentiment as a continuity cop type thing, rather than an expression of affection for Countdown. (In fact, it's usually the opposite--"I read all 52 (or is that 51?) stinking issues of this horrible comic, and now you're telling me it doesn't count?") But are there people out there who hate Final Crisis not because of any continuity "errors," but because it isn't enough like Countdown? Like, "There isn't nearly enough of the Monitors in Final Crisis"? Or "I was hoping for less Darkseid and more Lord Havok and the Extremists"? Or, "Countdown was perfect because it had almost all the characters from my erotic fan fiction--Kyle Rayner, Jason Todd, and Donna Troy. The only one missing was Alfred Pennyworth!"

Maybe that was the real problem with Countdown--too many characters primarily identified by their civilian names because they can't lay exclusive claim to their superhero names. I guess "Donna Troy" sounds better than "the Silver Age Wonder Girl," and "Kyle Rayner" sounds better than "the Chromium Age Green Lantern," and "Jason Todd" is better than "the BitTorrent Age Red Hood."

-That new Kramers Ergot looks sort of interesting, but I bet it's no Toupydoops.

-And, uh, speaking of this kind of thing, I'm not sure if there's been enough attention paid to this highly entertaining comments section. Special bonus: a completely irrelevant and mostly counterproductive run-in by the immortal Alan Coil, the Raiderjoe of the comics blogosphere! Well, not really, sadly enough. Comics need their own Raiderjoe (scroll to bottom)--maybe someone who's a dogged and delusional fan of Judd Winick or Wonder Man.

Seriously, what were the good superhero comics of the 90s?

2008-08-18T14:15:00.001-07:00

The title to my previous post was mostly a joke, but Alan David Doane answered it seriously in the comments field, suggesting three runs I've never actually read (though I've always meant to read Joe Casey's Wildcats--in fact, there was a copy in a used bookstore which I always considered buying, but I thought they were priced too high). But it's a good point--what were the good superhero comics of the 1990s?

As I've mentioned here before, I quit reading superhero comics somewhere around spring of 1995, and didn't start up again until the middle of this current decade. So that's about half of the 1990s supehero output that I've only read after the fact, if at all. As for the first half of the decade, I was reading way fewer comics than most (I didn't have such a huge allowance, you see), plus my taste ran a bit towards cool, hot artist of the moment.

So what follows is an almost certainly incomplete list of well-regarded superhero books below (I'm hoping some of you will fill in the blanks in the comments), with my thoughts on them. I'm not going to try to do any kind of summary on the decade as a whole, mostly because I think I'm kind of grossly underqualified to do so. My general impression is that it was a pretty terrible decade for superhero books, even (especially?) after the worst of the Image excesses had passed. It was a pretty great decade for alternative and non-superhero independent comics, though.

What follows is a more piecemeal set of thoughts, beginning with an awful lot of Kurt Busiek:

Avengers by Busiek, Perez, et al.
I've read the first of the hardcovers, and part of the second (never read the Ultron story, which is widely considered the zenith of the run, IIRC). These are solid, generally entertaining stories, from what I recall. But they're awfully mannered, almost self-consciously neo-Classicist. That's a strange approach to take towards old superhero comics, since the best of them shine with an incandescent stupidity that's half the appeal. At least for me--if you're more interested in the idea of superheroes (both broadly or specifically, as in "I specifically like Wonder-Man"), I could see this being an all-time favorite. My impression is that its reputation is largely due to readers' joy of having access to a solid team book featuring A-list characters after enduring six or seven years of toxic sludge from Marvel.

Astro City by Busiek, Anderson, et al.
Probably the best of Busiek's work in the 90s. It's the sort of thing which requires substantial familiarity with the original characters and stories being referenced; otherwise, most of the unexpected plot twists carry way less weight. Since I'm reasonably well-versed in superhero mythology, I'm not really complaining. Anderson's art has a sort of living realism--there's a lot of realistic detail, but the Spider-Man analogue bounces around like you would expect. (As opposed to someone like Alex Ross, whose work exchanges liveliness for cold, dead realism.) I don't think Astro City suffers from the kind of poisonous nostalgia I usually associate with these books, but there is a prevalent sort of baby boomer navel-gazing. Like, it's not that far off from Forrest Gump, except instead of Gump meeting Lyndon Johnson you have Average Joe characters interacting with Captain America. Or his stand-in. I'd much rather read this than most of the other stuff on this list; in fact, I've been meaning to check out the more recent volumes from the library. But it's not the sort of comic I feel obliged to actually own. I don't feel its absence on my bookshelf.

Marvels, by Busiek and Ross
I've always thought this was dreadfully boring, but that might be partly due to Alex Ross' art. Tim O'Neil recently said something about Marvels being a successor to Watchmen in a sort of interesting way. I'd re-read it to see what he's talking about, but I got rid of my copy before our recent move.

Thuderbolts by Busiek, Bagely, et. al.
I've read the first issue of this and came to the conclusion that this series' primary appeal is to those who were suckered in by the first issue, or who were suckered in by the hype surrounding the title after the first issue. That goes double for fans of Fabian Nicieza and Tom Grummett's New Thunderbolts, one's enjoyment of which is directly proportionate to one's willingness to repeat the mantra "Baron Zemo is the best character in comics today" on various message boards and blogs.

The Flash by Waid, et. al.
I think I've read two volumes of this, and I still can't figure out the appeal. It just seems like a competently-written (but cliche-laden) superhero book with bad art (in some cases by people who would go on to do much better art a few years down the road). I seem to recall Mark Waid, in the introduction to one of the TPBs, saying that the heart of the comic was the love between Wally West and Linda Park. I guess you'd find that relationship compelling if your only other exposure to human romance was the robotic love Barry Allen shared with Iris West in the Flash comics of the 1960s.

Kingdom Come by Waid and Ross
Everyone here hates this, right? We don't really need to go into it again, do we?

JLA by Morrison, Porter, et. al.
Okay, so I didn't like Rock of Ages. How about the rest of the run? I remember two good stories--the angelic invasion of earth and the original story with Prometheus. I can't remember anything about the evil sun (or whatever it was) story that closed out Morrison's run. Again, I can't emphasize enough how much Porter's art dragged everything down.

Incredible Hulk by David, et. al.
I actually read this when I was a wee lad, mostly because I liked Dale Keown's art (it was the 90s and I was 14, so give me a break). Even at the time, I remember thinking how lame all the Illiad/Odyssey stuff was--I mean, the Hulk was wearing a jump suit, for chrissakes! David's solution for tying up all the Hulk's various manifestations was fairly clever, although the sort of thing which you knew would eventually get reversed (you can't keep the raging green Hulk down forever). I'd certainly rather read David's Hulk than Waid's Flash, but I'd have to be rather desperate for entertainment to read either. In other words, I'd be all over this if it were in an otherwise poorly-stocked prison library.

Batman: The Long Halloween by Loeb and Sale
This is alright I guess, as far as less interesting/more commercially viable versions of Batman Year One go. I think most of the hoopla surrounding it was due to its being a more classic Batman story in an era of Bat-quakes and whatnot. Better than Hush, for whatever that's worth.

Starman by Robinson, Harris, et. al.
This is probably the most sacred of cows on this list. I read the first six or seven issues as a teenager and liked it, but generally found it to be inferior to Hellboy (the art, which was the sole reason I tried Starman in the first place, begged the comparison). I tried re-reading these issues a few months ago, in hopes of writing a review to commemorate the announcement of Robinson's return to full-time comics writing. I've got a bunch of notes, so maybe I'll go back to it one day. For now, I can say that I thought those first few issues were fairly good, but not as good as some things on this list (like Astro City). Harris and Robinson each had significant craft problems at this time; the former had numerous storytelling lapses, while the latter wasn't much for writing dialogue. The main thing setting those early issues of Starman apart from contemporary superhero comics was the attempt at some thematic depth beyond "here's what Superman means to Metropolis" or the like. I did find the execution a little ham-fisted, though. Maybe I'll try to read a few more issues--maybe up to #20 or so--and write a couple of long reviews.

The Golden Age by Robinson and Smith
Sort of the spiritual sibling of Kingdom Come--lots of stern hand-wringing about the nature of power and costume-wearing, but none of the guts to show the protagonists doing anything too unheroic. And wasn't the villain the Ultra-Humanite or something? You know, instead of the paranoia inherent in humanity? It's kind of like finding out that pathetic old supervillain was the mastermind at the end of Watchmen.

Stormwatch/The Authority by Ellis, et. al.
I wrote about it here. Wow, I was talking about moving even back then. Geez, how little I knew back then. Dick of three months ago, did you suspect that the sedatives you had acquired to give your cats would magically stop working about halfway through the trip, thus subjecting you to two long days of near-constant crying and attempted cat carrier escapes? Did you know that cleaning your apartment would take approximately twice as long as the period you spent living there? Would you have expected that the mechanics who fixed the air conditioner in your car would leave a tool in it approximately the size of a golf putter? Could you have ever guessed that Iowa would have so many bugs in it? That Nebraska would have so many trucks in it? That no human beings actually live in Wyoming? What a wonderfully horrible adventure you have before you, young man!

So, were there any good superhero comics in the 90s?

2008-08-14T14:15:00.000-07:00

So I went to the local comics shop last week hoping to buy two comics, with the faint glimmer of hope that I might buy three (I suspected, based on experience that the store doesn't buy copies of Criminal for the shelf). I left the store having only bought a copy of Final Crisis #3. Based on this and previous expeditions to this store, I considered myself lucky to come away with even that. And it's not like the other comic (Invincible Iron Man) was obscure or anything--it's just that this is a store which basically requires you to set up a sub list in order to receive the comics you want to buy. I haven't done that for a few reasons that I'll explain at some point in the near future. (Short version: I'm trying out a mail order service.)

But I was happy to have the new issue of Final Crisis, and I read it pretty soon after getting home. As I've said before, I enjoyed the first couple of issues quite a bit. This one, however, was a bit of a disappointment, partly because of the reasons Jog mentioned. More worrisome, for me at least, was how the (SPOILER) end hinted back to Morrison's previous work on the Rock of Ages story in JLA.

Now, for all I know, message boards across the internet are ablaze with similar complaints, accusations that Morrison is out of tricks, reduced to rehashing his older work (and, I'm guessing quite a few people are saying, his better work). If you were to use the spectrum of visible light as a metaphor for comics bloggers' devotion to Grant Morrison, with red being Douglas Wolk or Brian Cronin and violet being the sort dude who will never forgive Morrison for contradicting some old issue of New Mutants, I'm probably somewhere around school bus yellow. I'm deeply skeptical of the adulation All-Star Superman has received, and I'm sympathetic to the argument that Morrison is kind of weak as a visual storyteller (more on that in a minute). On the other hand, I think Morrison's New X-Men is the only truly meritorious run featuring those characters, and that Seven Soldiers was about as good as modern superhero comics get.

I don't think Morrison is rehashing his past work in those final pages of Final Crisis #3; if anything, he's probably deliberately referencing it. I can't help but think of Morrison's interest in superheroes as contemporary gods and comics as their modern myths. One could thus see Final Crisis as an alternate telling of the myth of how superheroes traveled through time to a future where Darkseid conquered Earth. (I assume that Final Crisis, like Rock of Ages, will also tell how superheroes were able to prevent this potential future.) This fits in with Morrison's explanation of continuity errors between Final Crisis and Countdown/Death of the New Gods as temporal disruptions (or whatever) caused by humans' inability to process the events taking place. Likewise, Final Crisis and Rock of Ages could be different tellings of the same story.

Hurting this theory is that Rock of Ages is not actually very good, leading one to wonder why would anyone want to retell that particular story. Rock of Ages didn't really go anywhere, didn't really have any lasting consequences, and didn't really have any larger message to impart. At least that's how I remembered it; but since it had been a while since I last read it, I decided to reacquaint myself with the story which (if memory serves) helped establish Morrison's reputation among superhero-only readers. Sadly, it turns out my memory was correct; Rock of Ages really isn't all that good.

The first thing that stands out about Rock of Ages is the terrible, terrible art. Howard Porter, though never a favorite of mine, has certainly improved dramatically over the last ten years. Unfortunately, this is the Howard Porter of the late 90s we're dealing with here. The art in Rock of Ages is inept in every way. I remembered Porter as being at least capable of drawing a cool splash page, but it seems that I was thinking of his later work on JLA. There is absolutely nothing commendable here. Porter's storytelling is just about as abysmal as one would guess, but his rendering is almost as weak. Look, I don't have a problem with distorted anatomy if it works to emphasize the themes of a comic, but Porter is working directly against the aims of the comic. There's nothing heroic about a bunch of Hobbits dressed like Aquaman.

Especially if we're talking about the ridiculous angsty Aquaman of the 90s. Is there any ill-advised revamp that combines ridiculousness and visibility on such an epic scale? This is the version of Aquaman that an entire generation of children came to know, via the Justice League cartoon--a shaggy blond dude with a harpoon for a hand.* But the dated visuals don't stop there! We also have that stupid mask that Green Lantern wore back when he was another guy in the 90s, plus electric blue Superman. Almost every superhero comic looks dated once you're far enough away from its original publication, but harpoon Aquaman, electric Superman, and crab mask Green Lantern are quite the trifecta.

But I'd wager that the vast, vast majority of people reading Rock of Ages today are doing so less out of love for the characters and more out of love for Grant Morrison's writing. Unfortunately, that's rather problematic as well. Rock of Ages is as convoluted a superhero story as I've ever read (bearing in mind here that I'm not all that well-versed in mid-90s X-Men comics). Part of that is due to the time traveling angle, in which several JLAers are hurtled into a future where Darkseid rules the earth. But before then, they are coerced by Metron (who, as it turns out, is an evil future version of Metron) into trying to destroy the Philosopher's Stone/Worlogog, a borderline MacGuffin which is in the hands of Lex Luthor, who is busy with the destruction (or "corporate takeover"**) of the Justice League back in the present. Fake Metron convinces Aquaman, Green Lantern, and the Flash that they must destroy this titular rock in order to prevent a future ruled by Darkseid. He sends them through time and space to do so. Why this is necessary is unclear, since Superman, back in the present day, destroys the Philosopher's Stone to keep Lex Luthor from using it. But, AHA!!, this was apparently what Darkseid wanted all along, since somehow or another the destruction of the Philosopher's Stone paves the way for his takeover of earth.

How? I have no idea--it certainly is never explained here. It's also never explained why Evil Future Metron needs to send anyone on this wild goose chase for the stone, given that Superman destroys it without any aid or abetting. But that's not all: the Philosopher's Stone is largely peripheral to Luthor's "corporate takeover," which mostly relies on the powers of a reformed Injustice Gang. But wait--despite his access to the infinite powers of the Philosopher's Stone, Luthor's takeover is somehow foiled by Batman, who Morrison (as in every issue of JLA he wrote) imbues with godlike mental prowess. Batman's plan is implemented mostly off-panel, BTW.

Somehow or another, Batman, Superman, and Aquaman (in a rare portrayal as the equal to Batman and Superman) decide that this all means that the JLA is broke, and thus needs to break up and reform into a more efficient unit. (As is explained in the subsequent issue (not included in the Rock of Ages collected edition), Batman thinks the group needs more "thinkers.") Thus, it appears that this entire story mostly serves to set up the next phase in Morrison's run on JLA (plus Aztek, and maybe the DC One Million event). Not exactly the stuff myths are made of.

I can live without MINDBOGGLING CHANGES TO THE STATUS QUO from my superhero comics, but I do expect a certain standard of execution that Rock of Ages lacks. The Injustice Gang plot ultimately feels like an excuse to set up Darkseid's dystopian future, but it takes about half the book to get to that point. Worse yet, this dystopia seems rather off-the-rack. Aside from a few references to the Anti-Life Equation, this could really be any other "heroes face future in which evil wins" scenario. The Fourth World stuff is basically window dressing; with a few minor changes, this dark future where Darkseid won reminds me of the dark future where the villain won in about a million other comics and cartoons. There are a few interesting touches, such as the helmets which enslaved humans are forced to wear (three pairs of hands covering eyes, ears, and mouth), but mostly this is generic supervillain dystopia.

Once again, most of that is down to inadequate visuals. Much of the blame rests at the feet of Porter, whose Darkseid mostly resembles a gorilla made out of rocks, and whose urban hellscape tends to just look like darkened city streets--the sort of thing you would expect in an early issue of Spawn. But Morrison also deserves much of the blame for writing a script with so much shit in it that only the most accomplished artists could create an evocative sense of doom. If decompression is responsible for eliminating stories like this, then I would like to absolve it of all its other sins. Rather than give us a chance to learn what exactly this terrible future entails for Earth, Morrison keeps throwing future versions of superheroes at us--which is exactly what most of JLA's readers were probably eagerly expecting. But it makes for a confusing, overstuffed story. I'm still not sure what's up with Batman and Desaad (the former having replaced the latter at...some point? And then continued to imitate him for a number of years?).

I'm also kind of shocked at how poorly written many of the characters are. Morrison doesn't seem to have a clue how to write the Joker, who's in full-on manic gab-bag mode here. Plastic Man is pretty much intolerable. And Darkseid is reduced to uttering lines like "No. My zombie factory" (as he watches his zombie factory on the moon explode, naturally).

Which isn't to say there aren't a few rewarding moments here. I like that Morrison subtly suggests that Green Lantern didn't fall prey to Circe's mind control because his willpower was too strong--this is the sort of plot point which other writers would hammer into the ground. And Wonderworld is the sort of thing which I read Morrison's comics for--crazy, mythic, and kind of funny as well. And it's an appropriate tribute to Jack Kirby, given the presence of his characters in this issue. Still, I have to complain that the art keeps Wonderworld from being quite as wondrous as the name implies. The scene with Adam One certainly imparted an appropriate sense of scale, but otherwise, Wonderworld looked like the JLA headquarters. Or Darkseid's headquarters. Or every other setting.

Of course, the failings of Rock of Ages won't necessarily befall Final Crisis. One immediately obvious improvement is in the pacing; there's actually some breathing room here. While the first issue didn't seem to resonate with the masses, I appreciated the way it set the tone for the rest of the series (to date). Morrison also seems to be juggling multiple plotlines with a bit more ease, giving us time to savor the creepiness of Libra, the mixture of hope and fear surrounding the return of Barry Allen, and the emergence of new heroes (and, presumably, New Gods) in Sonny Sumo and Shilo Norman. It's not all so compelling--I'd echo Jog's complaints about Green Lantern and Superman. But there are none of the flat-out storytelling failures we see in Rock of Ages.

A lot of the credit for this has to go to JG Jones, who is a much more accomplished artist than the Howard Porter of 10 years ago. It's certainly easier to establish atmosphere when working with an artist so easily able to capture a variety of settings. Jones' designs (which presumably featured substantial input from Morrison) are excellent as well; the new Female Furies (with the possible exception of Catwoman) are phenomenal. Improvements in coloring technology probably don't hurt either, and Alex Sinclair certainly uses them well in establishing a much more convincing dystopia than that which appeared in Rock of Ages.

Most important of all is Morrison' improved handling of the Fourth World characters and concepts. Darkseid was essentially the only representation of Kirby's vision in Rock of Ages, and he was brutally generic there. Here, we have a variety of unsettling New Gods, both in original form (like Mokkari) and the new manifestations. The reincarnation of the New Gods is turning out to be a remarkably successful strategy by Morrison. This is much closer to Kirby's vision than almost any subsequent version I've ever read; more importantly, it really works for this story.

Though I'm quite impressed with Final Crisis as a whole, I'm still curious to see how Morrison handles its similarity to Rock of Ages. I wouldn't really be disappointed to see no mention of the similarities, but I don't think it's Morrison's nature to ignore it. Maybe Morrison will provide his earlier attempt at an apocalyptic Fourth World story with some ex post facto fortification. Until then, Rock of Ages is totally inessential to all but the most devoted Morrisonologists.

*Which is not to say that the smiling, orange-and-green Aquaman from Superfriends is any less ridiculous. It's funny that this character's presence on said show made him so recognizable as to ensure endless revamp attempts, yet it's the stupidity of Aquaman's portrayal on Superfriends ("I'll be in the ocean if you need me!") which ensures that practically no one between the ages of 25 and 50 will ever take him seriously. And now those younger folks unfortunate enough to read any recent comic featuring Aquaman will be wondering why he's wearing that stupid orange shirt instead of that stupid metal harness.

**Apparently Morrison has Luthor use this term because he plans on replacing the soon-to-be-deceased Justice League with his own "corporate" League, led by largely-forgotten Morrison creation Aztek. This is only briefly mentioned, and mostly seems to be here in order to set up a new storyline in Aztek's own ongoing comic.

Review: Fatal Faux-Pas (plus: more on my convention phobia)

2008-08-07T22:12:00.003-07:00

Fatal Faux-Pas
Samuel Gaskin
Secret Acres

I've repeatedly mentioned here how much I hate the idea of comics conventions. Not so much the reality--the only noteworthy convention I've ever attended was the 1994 Heroes Con in Charlotte--but the very idea of spending time in an enclosed space with people who know more about Red Tornado than me (not that my knowledge of Red Tornado is especially deep by internet standards, but I surely possess greater knowledge of the character than the sort of person one might typically describe as living a rich, fulfilling life). I don't even like shopping in a comics store on a busy day; the last thing I want to do is spend hours with such folks in an environment which encourages them to completely surrender to all their nerdly impulses. And that's not even counting all the industry schmoozing, the presence of G4's on-air personalities or Star Trek extras, or any of the other things about San Diego which made me too depressed about comics to write anything here for several weeks.*

And, frankly, there's some social anxiety at work as well. I don't like crowds, I'm sort of shy with folks I don't know, and I'm kind of suspicious of using alcohol as a social lubricant, mostly because I'm sentimental and long-winded when drunk. And so I have no idea the last time I was drunk in public. I'm not really sure when I was last drunk--probably when I last made risotto. Cause, really, there's not much else to do besides drink a beer or two when you're trying to cook risotto. Oh, and I don't like bars. So nothing about a convention seems as unpleasant to me as hanging out in a crowded hotel bar with a bunch of people I just met, just drunk enough to start pontificating on the role of comics in my childhood relationship with my father within the earshot of any other living human being.

But, having said all that, I'm still planning on hitting the two big west coast alternative comics cons (APE and Stumptown) because I really like the idea of a convention from the perspective of a consumer. I can completely understand why the folks at IDW are skeptical about the advantages of a convention--even the horrible comic store in my new city of residence** carries IDW titles, so it's not like they really need the exposure or sales that come with a convention appearance. But a small press show (theoretically) exposes you to material you wouldn't normally find in a local comic shop, no matter how good.

And that, at long last, brings us to Samuel Gaskin's Fatal Faux-Pas. This isn't a comic you will have to go to a convention to track down--it's on Amazon--but it seems like the sort of amazing discovery you read about people making at shows like SPX. Actually, it seems like several amazing discoveries put together, as Gaskin works in a number of veins. There's heavily ironic, pop-culture referencing strips, sketches, avant-garde passages, satires of other comics (most notably John Porcellino's King Cat), and a couple of longer, funny stories as well.

Those two stories probably are my favorite out of everything in the book, but they're really nothing alike. The first, "My Kinski," deals with a mainstream filmmaker who decides to make an "independent" film by copying the worst excesses of Werner Herzog. The latter, "Escape," is the story of someone escaping from prison; maybe it's because I recently read Boy's Club, but I found it somewhat reminiscent of Matt Furie, especially a scene in which the protagonist eats the filling out of a taco. The very loose plot primarily serves as a venue for Gaskin's humor, much of which involves grotesque/surreal body manipulation. "My Kinski," however, has a much tighter pace, delivering precise gags intended to highlight the absurdity of the situation.

I thought both these stories were pretty funny, which speaks well for Gaskin's range as a cartoonist. Perhaps even more impressive was the success of the strips referencing pop culture. I generally hate this kind of humor, especially if it's the lazy, Seth MacFarlane-ish recognition humor. (You know, "Hey, do you remember old toothpaste commercials? So do I! Awesome!") These were much funnier, not entirely reliant on the reader's familiarity with pop culture artifact (with the possible exception of the Harry Potter/Black Sabbath strip, which probably makes no sense at all if you aren't familiar with Sabbath and at least one other band (I won't spoil who), and which is probably even better if you are more familiar with Harry Potter than I am; my wife, who is familiar with both Harry Potter and Black Sabbath, seemed to really like it).

I was especially impressed with the Saved By the Bell strip. I've never seen an episode of the show, and my knowledge of it is limited to knowing that Screech is the one who is a nerd. But Gaskin keeps my interest with some pretty clever formal play and off-kilter execution (for instance, all the speech balloons snake around, the tails exiting the speaker's mouth in a somewhat unsettling way). And it was still funny.

Fatal Faux-Pas has a very tossed-off feel to it, the more developed strips sitting alongside sketchbook material and short, hastily-drawn comics. I guess you could interpret this approach in two ways: you could think of this as a hint of Gaskin's potential, or you could appreciate its loopy, eclectic charm. I'm kind of in the latter camp, even though I thought the more polished material was generally much stronger. So I guess I do expect greater things form Samuel Gaskin in the future, but there's plenty here to enjoy right now. If you appreciate the work of Michael Kupperman or Sam Henderson, or possibly even CF or James Kochalka, you'll find Fatal Faux-Pas well worth your time.

*Also I was busy. And distracted--we get Boomerang and NFL Network now. I never thought I'd be having conversations with my wife about the merits of Jabberjaw vs. Muttley, or Brett Favre's unwillingness to put in time in the film room.

**More on that in a few days. Man, am I bummed about this situation.

Review copy provided by publisher

There used to be something I did here, right?

2008-07-22T17:27:00.003-07:00

Well, here we are, a month later and 2000 miles west of where I last typed. It's been a long, grueling process, acquiring boxes (thanks Diamond!), packing them, labeling them, watching other people move them, cleaning the apartment, loading the cats and various possessions into a car, driving for several days, waiting for the delivery truck, watching it being unloaded, unpacking all our belongings, and waiting for various pieces of furniture to be delivered so that I can finally quit sitting in dining room chairs--you shouldn't have to watch MMA while sitting in a dining room chair, man. I miss couches. Not my old couch, which sucked (quick tip for anyone moving into an apartment on anything other than the ground floor of a building: you don't need a sleeper sofa, no matter what your circumstances are), but couches in general. We haven't owned a couch for weeks, as the monstrous sleeper sofa we used to own was one of the first things to go on the curb. We were so excited by its impending demise that we rose out of bed early to watch the garbage truck eat it, its 700 lbs. of wood and steel creaking one last time. See you in hell, old couch.

And now we're happy to be here in Oregon, where we're still a few months away from the rainy season. If I seem a bit more, I dunno, Greg Rucka-ish than usual come October, you'll know the seasonal affective whatever has kicked in. In the meantime, I did get the chance to visit Cosmic Monkey in Portland, which was just as nice as I expected. Very low key and well-stocked; I'll be spending quite a bit of money there, I think. I still need to check out Floating World, which I will probably do next time we're in town. Which probably won't be for a while since Portland's kind of a drive from here.

I'm not sure what exactly is going on in the world of comics right now, aside from San Diego coming up this weekend. I've repeatedly stated my apprehension at the idea of spending several days packed in jowl-to-jowl with other comics enthusiasts, so I won't belabor the point here. All I can say to all attendees is better you than me (and I don't mean that in a malicious way--if you're planning on going, chances are that you're significantly more open to the mega-convention experience than I will ever be, and would probably prefer rubbing shoulders with fellow fans to sitting around the apartment wondering when your new couch is going to arrive). I'll keep you all in my thoughts as I attempt to assemble the countless pieces of furniture we acquired from IKEA* last weekend.**

*That is properly spelled in all caps, right?

**Said shopping trip being something like a trip to the San Diego convention, only with a significantly higher proportion of 35 year old dudes wearing capri pants. And adults dragging around severely bored kids--that trip was a strong advertisement for vigilant use of birth control. Is that our reward for working so hard to claw our way into middle class-dom? Spending Saturday morning wandering around the furniture store, trying to keep the three year old from crying and the six year old from breaking shit, while some heavily tattooed guy old enough to be your uncle sneers at you while standing in line at the (admittedly very inexpensive) cafeteria, waiting for Swedish meatballs?

The first two stages of unexpectedly low sales grief

2008-06-19T07:30:00.001-07:00

-Sorry about that gap in posting. I was out of town (meant to mention this before leaving, but things were hectic), and it's been chaos ever since we got back. On the plus side, we found a place to live. On the minus side, there's a million things to do before we can leave, like working out a bunch of stuff with the mover, setting up utilities, packing, cleaning, and who knows what else. And once we've arrived, there's all the unpacking and furniture buying and whatnot to do. So posting isn't going to be much more regular until, I don't know, mid-to-late July. Once again, sorry about that.

I do have a small but growing review pile to get through, so posts in the near future will probably be more review-oriented. If you've sent me something recently, chances are I have it (I think there's just one outstanding package I'm sort-of-expecting). If you plan on sending me things in the future, please note that I am moving and will no longer be at my current address as of some time in July. If you've sent something off in recent days, I'm sure it will arrive in time or else get forwarded to my new address. I'll make a more formal announcement with more specific info once we get everything sorted out with the movers.

-I guess I was as shocked as anyone that Secret Invasion #2 outsold Final Crisis #1 by an estimated 37,000+ copies. We all know that the sales charts aren't perfectly accurate, but that's a big, statistically significant number. I thought it was even a bit more shocking to realize that Secret Invasion #1 outsold Final Crisis #1 by over 100,000 copies according to ICV2's estimates (250,263 vs. 144,826). Even the harshest critics of sales chart-watching should be able to admit that's not a sales gap so much as a sales chasm.

Reactions have been kind of predictable, including some amateur handicapping of the candidates most likely to succeed DC editor-in-chief Dan DiDio. (I had no idea Jimmy Palmiotti was such a popular choice; I'm not sure if he would do any better than DiDio in terms of sales, but I think he would improve things on the creative end pretty significantly.) On the other side of the spectrum, people trying to come to terms with this sales imbalance seem to be stuck somewhere between the denial phase ("these charts are meaningless") and the anger phase ("stupid comics fans are stupid for liking stupid Brian Michael Bendis and stupid Leinil Yu").

I'm not exactly disappointed by these numbers (it's not like I'm getting a cut of the profits), but I am a little dismayed by them. I certainly have had my reservations about Final Crisis, but I found the first issue to be pretty good, mostly due to the pervasive, foreboding atmosphere that Grant Morrison and JG Jones established. Of course, my reaction to the comic has very little to do with Direct Market sales, but it's still kind of surprising to see this kind of differential. I was under the impression that folks were underwhelmed by the whole Skrull infiltration storyline, especially compared to the prospect of a Morrison/Jones epic. And DC has been promoting Final Crisis as the culmination of several years worth of stories for quite some time now, whereas Secret Invasion just seemed like the sort of by-the-numbers crossover that would have been relegated to a summer's worth of annuals back in the early 1990s.

But maybe that's what people want right now, for whatever reason. I think it's worth considering that something as simple as an Invasion of the Body Snatchers rehash might seem somewhat appealing compared to what DC has been dishing out over the last year or so. In fact, it's probably time to consider the damage done by the Countdown miniseries and its related spinoffs. As Marc-Oliver Frisch and others have noted, a book selling 70,000 copies every week is nothing to sneeze at, even if DC expected those numbers to be about 15,000-20,000 higher. On the other hand, Countdown may have done some substantial harm to DC as a brand in the Direct Market.

When buying comics this week, I wanted to ask the owner of my local store what he thought about the large gap in sales between Secret Invasion and Final Crisis--especially since, at least as of last summer, Countdown sales were outpacing those of 52 at his store. So I was somewhat surprised when he told me that this was what he had expected. According to my retailer friend, Final Crisis was a hit only among the hardcore DC devotees, largely due to the popular impression that Final Crisis was nothing more than unnavigable continuity junk. What's more, this seemed to be the opinion of both the store owner and his assistant manager. I tried to explain that this wasn't really the case for Final Crisis #1, but neither of them were convinced. They did, however, praise Secret Invasion #1 for having a strong story hook and two interesting cliffhangers.

This, of course, doesn't mean that my conversation reflects anything other than one particular retailer's experiences; at least one retailer leaving comments at the Beat seems to be doing very well with DC's superhero line right now. And, lest you think otherwise, the owner of this store is not a Marvel fanboy, nor could anyone reasonably detect a pro-Marvel bias when shopping at the store. If anything, I've always thought the guy was maybe slightly more into DC characters. Plus, as far as I can tell, the store's aggregate clientèle doesn't really favor one company over the other.

One bias that might be relevant, however, is a prejudice against the work of Grant Morrison. I know that the owner of my local shop isn't really a fan of Morrison, aside from All-Star Superman. But he's a professional with over 30 years of experience selling comics; he wouldn't let his personal preferences get in the way of fulfilling his customer's wants. Still, it might be worth considering anti-Morrison sentiment in a more general way. I wonder to what extent the potential readership for blockbuster summer events might be turned off by Grant Morrison's writing. Morrison obviously has a strong following, which presumably includes people who are buying Final Crisis in spite of it being a big event comic. (I'm in that camp, for sure.) It's unclear how large this following is, or even if store owners took it into account when ordering copies of Final Crisis #1. Still, my hunch is that sales to rabidly pro-Morrison readers did not make up for sales lost to anti-Morrison readers.

But really, when it comes to an earth-shattering event comic, prejudice against the creator probably shouldn't make a 100,000 copy dent in sales. It could simply be that 145,000 is the upper boundary of what DC can expect to do in the current sales climate. And realistically, 145,000 is a lot of copies to sell in today's market. It's a little unnerving to think that there are 40% more readers interested in a Marvel crossover than a DC one, but, as Tom Spurgeon wrote, being Avis to Marvel's Hertz isn't necessarily such a bad deal for DC.

Or is it? One wonders how much this sales gap will matter to readers of Final Crisis. Critics of sales chart analysis have long hinted that the perception that a series is bleeding readers can result in even worse sales, creating something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course, no one in their right mind thinks Final Crisis will be canceled due to low sales. However, some creators have blamed poor sales on comic shop culture, particularly the behavior of biased store owners badgering their customers about their purchases. I've always been skeptical of either of these phenomena, however. Future issues of Final Crisis will surely lose sales, as do all series of this type. But I doubt we'll see low enough sales to send DC into outright panic mode.

That probably won't stop people from looking at Marvel's increasingly distant lead and calling for DiDio's ouster.* I don't know anything about the internal politics at DC or Time Warner. It could be that this was DiDio's last straw, or it could be that his superiors are happy so long as DC is making some kind of profit. No matter what happens, though, I would expect DiDio to keep his job through the end of Final Crisis. Firing DiDio would send the message that Final Crisis is a lame duck event with questionable lasting consequences. And since the current market is (tragically) built on publishers' promises of NOTHING WILL EVER BE THE SAME AGAIN, I think you could expect DC's sales to tank line-wide if that happened.

But it's a strange world we live in. Some people get fired in the most illogical and classless of manners, while others manage to remain ensconced in positions they are obviously grossly unqualified to fill. I doubt that Dan DiDio is totally coated in teflon, but it's also unlikely that Paul Levitz is going to toy with DiDio's future in the press. But, frankly, it's hard to imagine that things are going to get any better from here, sales-wise. That might not really matter in the short term, though, and it certainly shouldn't stop you from enjoying Final Crisis if it's your kind of thing.

*This is not to say that there aren't plenty of reasons to encourage DiDio's replacement, the most obvious of which is the terrible quality of most of the mainline titles. This undoubtedly is the product of DiDio's managerial style and overall plans for the company. And it's probably also related to the public airing of grievances by Grant Morrison and Chuck Dixon in recent weeks.

-Good to know MarkAndrew is doing fine. We had a lot of heavy rain up here, and some flooding fairly nearby, but we weren't personally affected. Hope things turn around soon in Iowa.

Review: Chiggers

2008-06-17T09:47:00.004-07:00

Chiggers
Hope Larson
Aladdin MIX/Atheneum

I know that lots of folks question the wisdom in reviewing something based on how you would expect its intended audience to receive it. The dangers to this approach are clear: by taking it, one runs the risk of ignoring one's own responses, concentrating on the more dubious proposition of trying to guess how someone other than yourself would react to a book. It's not really a problem, of course, if the reviewer is part of the target audience, or if it's the kind of thing where marketing concepts like "target audience" are of reduced importance. I don't generally have to worry about this sort of thing for most of the comics I read, since I either belong to the target audience (eg, dudes who know who the Terrible Turpin is), or the author isn't really concerned with narrowcasting or the like (an approach I would associate with most of the stuff on this list).

It is something I have to think about when considering Chiggers, however. This is clearly a young adult title, presumably intended for an audience of teenage or preteen girls. That's obviously not me. Furthermore, I don't have any great expertise as to what kinds of comics someone in this target audience would respond to. I could take the approach I've seen in most reviews of DC's Minx line or various shojo titles--just give my reaction to it, ignoring any consideration of who it's intended for. I'd do that if I could, but I'm not sure that my brain works that way. From the moment I picked up Chiggers all the way through the end, I couldn't help but think about how my understanding of the book would necessarily differ from that of the folks who will (hopefully) be buying it or checking it out from libraries.

Complicating all this were my high expectations for the book, given Hope Larson's reputation. If I had read any of her earlier work I probably would have approached Chiggers differently. In fact, I wish I had read some of her earlier work, since I found Larson to be a very talented cartoonist. I especially appreciated the ongoing symbolic content to the work, sort of like a low-key David B. Which is good, since a YA title probably doesn't need a full-force David B. type of approach. See, I'm still thinking about this in terms of target audience.

Despite this reviewer's cognitive shortcomings, I still found Chiggers to be quite enjoyable. Besides the aforementioned symbolic content, I also found Larson's linework and storytelling to be quite charming. The real strength, however, is in the character work. The various denizens of Larson's summer camp are all strongly-defined in every possible way--design, body language, dialogue, and motivation. It's strong enough work to warrant a comparison to Jaime Hernandez, which is about the highest compliment I can imagine for this sort of thing.

Of course, this being a YA title, the stakes all seem a bit mild to my jaundiced, adult eye. I'm not so old that I can't recall a time when the events at summer camp (or, in my case, the summer program for the South Carolina Governor's School for the Arts) seemed like life-and-death propositions. But that was a long time ago. Larson's incredible execution overshadows this, however. And besides, I'm not the target audience, right? None of this seemed inappropriate or corny, and I'd imagine it's tougher than you'd think to navigate a path avoiding those pitfalls.

I certainly hope Chiggers does well, because it's kind of the ideal entry-level comic. One could envision a generation of young comics readers with incredibly high standards based on their experiences reading Chiggers. Then again, they might be disheartened to find that other YA offerings aren't nearly as strong. What's really important, however, is that Hope Larson has produced a book which one can enthusiastically recommend to young female readers to for years to come. It's a shame that there's nobody in my family in the correct age group for this book, because I'd love to give a copy as a gift. As for myself, I really need to read Larson's other books.

EDIT: Please note the comment from my brother, who actually does have a background on how young girls process visual culture. It's good to think about these things in a more academically rigorous way.

(Review based on an advance copy.)

Halfway point (more or less) best of 2008

2008-05-27T15:30:00.003-07:00

-Couple of quick plugs before getting started:

(1) Alan David Doane is selling a bunch of comics at absolutely ridiculous prices. Looks like a lot of it is gone already, so check it out pretty soon. $20 for all of Grant Morrison's Seven Soldiers is staggeringly low, and I would have bought it myself if I didn't already own it all.

(2) Tucker Stone will be live-blogging his way through the first Uncanny X-Men Omnibus on Saturday. I'm a bit of a skeptic when it comes to the classic Claremont X-Men--I like Dave Cockrum pretty well (more for his work on LSH), but this run of X-Men seems like the root of many things wrong with mainstream superhero comics. So I'm eager to see Tucker sink his teeth into this massive, hernia-inducing volume.

-Everyone who is aware of this blog probably knows by now that I'm greatly interested in various forms of discourse, especially year's best discourse. I like best of the year lists because it gives the writer a chance to look back on a year's worth of comics after several months of contemplation; these are opinions that have been stewing for some time. On the other hand, they're also opinions that are of the moment. Many list-makers will admit that their best-of lists would look quite different if made a year or two, or even a month or two, down the line. I thought it might be useful, then, to make a best of 2008 list at the year's halfway point. Sort of. We're not quite halfway done with 2008, but I'm not sure if I'll have the time to do this at the end of June.

I'm basing my reactions entirely on first reads, with no additional perusal for the sake of this article. When the time comes for me to make a final best of 2008 list, I obviously will re-read the books I'm considering, but I wanted to rely on my early (and alarmingly hazy) impressions for now. I assume that this list will look similar to whatever I come up with in January 2009, but I'm interested to look back then and see how my opinions have changed in the interim. So if these opinions seem a little half-baked, as well they might, please bear in mind the rough nature of this project.

1. Little Nothings by Lewis Trondheim
Still my favorite of 2008 so far; it's going to take one hell of a comic to unseat it. I haven't looked at this in a few months, but I do read Trondheim's French-language Les Petits Riens when it gets updated. Even with my rather anemic understanding of French, you can still kind of pick out the jokes just based on the pacing and cartooning. That tells me a lot about Trondheim's cartooning skills. I'm also struck by just how vibrant these strips are--I don't think Trondheim's art has ever looked better.

2. Paul Goes Fishing by Michael Rabagliati
I was meaning to email Tom Spurgeon to discuss his review of this book, but I guess I'll do it here instead. Tom argues that Paul Goes Fishing is weakened by two things. First, Tom argues, Paul is too likable a character, especially compared to other characters who are denounced as "creeps" or the like. I have no real response to this, but I'll be thinking about it when I re-read Paul Goes Fishing.

Tom's second criticism is that the book "fails to cohere...you'll remember a string of incidents more than an overall arc." I bring this up because it's the exact opposite of what I thought after finishing the book. I felt that Rabagliati effectively played with the theme of nature vs. technology throughout the book, beginning with Paul's objection to the modern hunting/fishing tourism industry. We also see his brother-in-law's alienation from a changing workplace, where his natural talents are held back by a company adopting Japanese "just in time" production strategies. As a result, he increasingly finds fishing, a communion with nature, as his only respite from work. On the lake, Paul's brother-in-law's natural fishing talents eclipse those of his fellow fishers, who rely on more technologically advanced forms of angling. There's a very pro-nature, anti-technology message.

But then the ending seems to reverse course. After Paul and his wife (Lucy, I believe?) twice try unsuccessfully to conceive, they find themselves turning to technology to solve their fertility problems. I couldn't help but think back to Paul's earlier disgust at fish-stocking and bear-bating. Fertility drugs are not "natural," but they do allow Paul and Lucy to find happiness in having a child.

I do wonder if drawing parallels between commercial hunting/fishing and childbearing is somewhat warped; I need to re-read the book to fully flesh out my thoughts here. And it's certainly true that the extended sequence in which a teenage Paul runs away from home doesn't seem to be relevant to anything other than perhaps establishing Paul's thoughts about parenting. I thought it was the weakest part of the book. Maybe there's a thematic connection with an overall parenting theme, just as Paul Moves Out had a marriage/long-term monogamy-related theme. Another thing to consider is that these books have a forward narrative thrust in detailing Paul's life; Rabagliati doesn't always completely succeed in linking this meta-narrative to individual themes in single volumes of the Paul series.

I did think this volume improved on establishing this kind of thematic coherence, even if it Rabagliati might not quite be all the way there yet. As it is, I was impressed enough with the power and skill with which Rabagliati explored these themes. And, of course, Rabagliati is one of the more distinctive craftsmen in comics, working in a style simultaneously timeless and idiosyncratic.

3. Criminal by Ed Brubaker and Sean Phillips
I liked Criminal enough to put it somewhere in my top 20 or so for 2007, but there's been an astonishing degree of improvement this year. The larger page count seems to be allowing Brubaker to craft deeper, richer single issues. He's also better taking advantage to the pamphlet format, creating a Rashomon-style narrative which seems to be unfolding in a very subtle way, rewarding multiple re-readings. As Jog and others have pointed out, the storytelling has also taken a great leap forward, particularly in an issue dealing with an alcoholic character suffering from frequent blackouts. As much as I like Brubaker's work on Captain America and Daredevil, we might retrospectively consider the opportunity to write Criminal as the most significant aspect of his relationship with Marvel.

4. Jessica Farm v. 1 by Josh Simmons
I was ambivalent about last year's House. There were a bunch of interesting sequences, but I didn't think Simmons consistently established the sense of place necessary (IMO) for the persistent atmospheric dread he was going for. Jessica Farm, however, does much more to deliver on this promise. Where House felt overly calculated, Jessica Farm feels dangerous, oozing with inexplicable characters and settings, all tied into the title character's murky psychology. There's a lingering dread and mystery which I really appreciated. And I'm happy to say that Simmons' much-publicized production/release schedule for the book isn't just a gimmick--it seems like a good way to ensure that Simmons will resist the urge to go into any single direction for an extended sequence. That hopefully will mean more of more of the weird, loopy pace we see in the first volume. Of course, we'll also get to see how Simmons changes as an artist and writer over the next, uh, forty years. Hopefully I'll still be alive to see the end. For now, Jessica Farm volume one provides plenty of disturbing, exhilarating thrills in its 96 pages.

5. Ganges #2 by Kevin Huizenga
I like the dot com boom/video game subject matter for this issue. I especially appreciated the way that Huizenga depicts the events in the game in more-or-less the same manner as the real-life parts of the book, rather than in the first person perspective which define the actual game(s) Glenn and his colleagues are playing. It serves to break the illusion of immersion one gets when playing an FPS, which is appropriate when paired with the (from our perspective, inevitable) dissolution of Glenn's employer. I'm not so sure what to think of the sequence involving the other players'/employees' tribute to Candypants. It seemed lame and pathetic when I initially read it, the kind of cliched, impotent gesture you see in bad sports movies.* That might have been Huizenga's point, but it didn't seem as cutting as I would have expected. It's something to focus on when I re-read this issue.

*Is that redundant?

6. Three Shadows by Cyril Pedrosa
I seem to recall reading a review of this (by Chris Mautner, maybe? I try not to read reviews too closely before reading a book myself) which mentioned a major stumble in the last third of the book. I definitely concur; Pedrosa set up the situation well enough, but I thought the resolution was way too external to the established plot and themes of the book. Still, I thought Three Shadows was excellent overall. Pedrosa's composition is as good as anyone actively working in comics--page after page of dazzling birds eye views, beautifully spotted blacks, and curvy city streets. Add in some absolutely stunning (and varied) linework and attractive character design, and it's hard for me to dwell too much on the missteps. Pedrosa is basically the best Disney alum possible, taking the very best aspects of his experience and none of what you might imagine the negatives could be (like overly cutesy design work or unabashed sappiness).*

I'm also impressed that, even with the aforementioned narrative hiccup, I still thought that Three Shadows was a pretty moving commentary on coping with loss. I probably would have placed it somewhere on the list for the incredible art alone, but I'm happy to say that its virtues are not limited to that. Hopefully Pedrosa's subsequent work will see a quick release in North America from here on out.

*I must admit, however, that his page on Lambiek suggests that his working in black and white might have tempered a tendency towards Flight-style over-slickness. Hopefully some more of his work will make its way to these shores so I can figure it out first-hand.

7. Never Been by Stuart Kolakovic
I read Never Been when several blogs linked to it a month or two ago, and it really knocked my socks off. I'm not really well versed in the world of webcomics, but this strikes me as a terrific example of the "infinite canvas" approach which Scott McCloud and his followers often speak of as the overwhelming advantage of digital comics. I particularly appreciated the way that the form of the comic reinforced the theme of seasons passing. Plus the whole thing was terribly entertaining, frequently very funny and always charming. And since it's free, there's no excuse for not reading it before making your own list.

8. Aqua Leung by Mark Andrew Smith and Paul Maybury
It's kind of amazing to think Paul Maybury is still relatively new at the comics game, cause there are some absolutely jaw-dropping storytelling moments here. I'm specifically thinking about Aqua entering the giant monster's mouth and a sequence involving archery. Mark Andrew Smith gives him a lot to work with, with a menagerie of bizarre allies and enemies for the title character to interact with. The trilogy structure leads me to think the next volume will be a bit more dramatic, especially given the hints that Aqua Leung will take a turn toward the dark in volumes yet to come.

9. Haunted by Philippe Dupuy
I found this similar to, but less successful than, Josh Simmons' Jessica Farm. Haunted largely consists of vignettes framed around Dupuy's jogging--presumably the sort of half-formed story ideas which percolate in his mind as he's running. As one would guess with a book of this nature, some sequences work better than others. I'm having a hard time remembering a few of them less than a month after reading Haunted. I also wasn't crazy about Dupuy's sketchy line here. It seems appropriate, at least in theory, for a book of this type. Still, it seemed surprisingly disharmonious with the overall tone--too self-assured, almost self-consciously informal. And it just wasn't aesthetically pleasing, something I never thought I would say about a comic drawn by half the creative team of Monsieur Jean. Still, I did quite like a number of the vignettes (especially one dealing with anthropomorphic forest creatures trying to cope with their friend's misfortune and subsequent alienation), and I sort of expect to like this better on subsequent readings.

10. Achewood by Chris Onstad
I'll probably be putting this on year's best lists until the day when Onstad finally gives it up, unless there's some unexpectedly steep decline in quality in the years ahead. I still think 2006 might have been the peak year for the strip, but I'm liking 2008 better than 2007 so far.

Partially read: Little Vampire by Joann Sfar. I'm actually pretty sure this would make the list if I had finished it. As it stands, I've only read the first story, and I thought it was awfully good. Sfar is actually at the peak of his comedic talents here, and his art is as charming as usual. I'm also impressed that Sfar adds a fairly hefty pinch of tragedy and bitterness to a children's comic. It's an obvious slam dunk for anyone who enjoys cute horror (like, say, Scary Godmother or The Nightmare Before Christmas), especially since I'm having a hard time thinking of anything which succeeds so well at pulling off this sort of thing. Not sure where I would put it on the list based on a first read. Probably somewhere between #4 and #6.

Own but have not read: Rabbi's Cat 2; Dororo v. 1; Hieronymous B., 1997-2007

Do not own but plan on reading: Bottomless Belly Button

Bought from ADD: Kaput and Zosky

Also do not own and plan on reading, but am not sure if I should count it as a 2007 or 2008 book: Tamara Drewe. Any thoughts on this? I think it technically came out in December, but I don't think I remember any North American list-maker including it. A lot will depend on how many people are including it on best of 2007 lists, so we might be revisiting this question in January or February.