“I’m not that impressed by his opinions or insights about comics.”

I responded by explaining why I enjoy Jeet’s essays.

“I tend to be a lot more interested in research than opinion, so while I’m interested in peoples opinions, I couldn’t say I’m impressed by analytical commentary on art.
It’s the artists, and their work which interests me, I have my own opinions, and I’ve never seen a review or analysis which I’d say “impressed” me because of it’s insight. This isn’t to say I won’t on occasion look at analytical criticism, but it’s only in an effort to find information mixed into the opinion.”

Since Jeet has written about Crumb’s Genesis I wanted to toss in something that ties into the various topics.
It’s facts/context that I’m looking for from a commentator or historian.
In reading a review of the Crumb Genesis book the reviewer’s opinion of the book would be of practically no interest to me no matter if I agreed with it or not. The value of a review from my perspective would be if the reviews author had some expertise (knowledge of Crumb or Genesis) which would add to my understanding of the book and it’s historical context.
A review of the Crumb book by a biblical scholar is of interest to me not because of how they see the book in terms of it’s “success” or “failure,” but because they might point out something based on their knowledge. For example they could compare Crumb’s Genesis to any number of past Genesis biblical commentaries, they might have specific background information on the texts Crumb based his work on.
Crumb described his “illustration job” as a conscious attempt at neutrality.
Certainly it’s impossible to remain completely neutral as an artist, but Crumb was specific that he wanted to reinforce the text, that describing the text with pictures invites the uninitiated to confront the text and it’s “ancient weirdness”
Crumb is aware even the majority of Bible believers have never read the full text.
The reader with less than a full knowledge of the text might well page through the book, and be curious about the lurid images, with the reinforcing text directly linked to the image any “attempt” to ascertain the veracity of the images is easily done, and again the illustration (as Crumb intended it) trys hard to adhere to the text as written, and uses a graphic vocabulary which is more or less familiar to the average reader. Crumb’s God looks very much as most people would expect, not unlike the Michelangelo template.
Crumb’s “illustration job” is in my view a brilliant piece of work, one which is subversive, yet difficult to attack from a “word of God” perspective, because of the pains he takes to be “faithful.”
The book is also something which may have no antecedent in art or illustration as far as I am aware. Has any full text which comes even close to the length of Genesis ever been illustrated in this way before? The comparisons to Blake and Wolverton don’t work, because their intent was not Crumb’s intent.

“She says, “I know you’re an artist, draw a picture of me!”
I say, “I would if I could, but
I don’t do sketches from memory”
“Well,” she says, “I’m right here in front of you, or haven’t you looked?”
I say, “All right, I know, but I don’t have my drawing book!”
She gives me a napkin, she says, “You can do it on that”
I say, “Yes I could, but
I don’t know where my pencil is at!”
She pulls one out from behind her ear
She says, “All right now, go ahead, draw me, I’m standing right here”
I make a few lines and I show it for her to see
Well she takes the napkin and throws it back
And says, “That don’t look a thing like me!”
I said, “Oh, kind Miss, it most certainly does”
She says, “You must be jokin’.” I say, “I wish I was!”
Then she says, “You don’t read women authors, do you?”
Least that’s what I think I hear her say
“Well,” I say, “how would you know and what would it matter anyway?”
“Well,” she says, “you just don’t seem like you do!”
I said, “You’re way wrong”
She says, “Which ones have you read then?” I say, “I read Erica Jong!”
She goes away for a minute
And I slide up out of my chair”

Okay, I should really stop. I apologize to each and every one of this blog’s readers, if any remain.

Suggesting we don’t have a point doesn’t get you out of the anti-terrorism discourse at all, unfortunately. Pointlessness is one of the standard reasons given for not negotiating with terrorists, actually — neo-cons argue that terrorists have no demands and just commit violence out of a love of chaos. So…the terrorism/troll link is actually really smart. I hadn’t thought of it before. And yes, if you’re going to continue to be persistently insightful, I’ll probably stay around for a while longer, at least.

How long does it take to starve a troll, anyway? You need less sustenance than I expected, I have to admit. Three days later and still at it!