What’s Wrong With This Picture


by

Friday, January 11, 2008



I spent Christmas with my girlfriend’s family, who very thoughtfully got me a couple of books, not knowing what an ungrateful wretch I really am. I already have (and still haven’t read) the Schulz bio. But I hadn’t even heard of Shooting War, a newish graphic novel by Anthony Lappe and Dan Goldman initially serialized online. Shooting War is the story of Jimmy Burns, a video blogger in 2010 who finds himself in even-worse-Iraq and, naturally, embedded in a fanatical military unit, kidnapped by a terrorist, and rebelling against the news establishment.

Let me digress for a minute. There are a few tendencies in contemporary culture that seem somewhat deadly:

1) A nerd-driven flippancy that signals: “I know more than you do, and I’m right all the time” (see: most blog-driven magazines).
2) The replacement of actual character-driven dialogue with TV or noir-shorthand. (see: any “adult” comic published by DC or Marvel in the last few years).
3) The inevitable “wacky” appearance by a previously “respectable” celebrity figure, in order to set it all in “perspective” (see: Bill Murray lately).
4) The substitution of photoshop technique for compelling images.
(see: most contemporary graphics).

Shooting War revels in all four of the above tendencies, in the process making the following points:

1) War is dumb
2) The news media is biased
3) Sometimes people need to grow up
4) Corporations are taking over America
5) There are fanatical Christians just like there are fanatical Muslims
6) Some old news guys still have integrity, and we can learn from them!

I suppose that it’s enough for a lot of books make the above points and walk away. What bothered me about Shooting War was, of course, that these points are boring and have been said a billion times on comedy shows, in newspapers, magazines, Doonesbury, etc etc. There’s not a single new idea in the book. It’s all recycled, media-driven stuff. And neither is there an original character. Jimmy is the (now) classic angry nerd typified in current culture–the glib, smart, and resourceful boy-man who learns some important lessons and gains maturity over the course of the narrative. And all of this is in the guise of a “revolutionary” narrative. The worst offense committed is throwing Dan Rather into the mix as a newly bad-ass father figure to Jimmy — Bill Murray in a Wes Anderson movie, or John Wayne in a Preacher comic. It’s all so damn easy. The art by Dan Goldman is equally tough to stomach: an undigested photoshop stew with no rhyme or reason to it. Goldman poses inexpressive figures littered with a ton of marks I suppose could be considered rendering against the most basic photoshop filter backgrounds. Anatomy is out the window, and for a supposedly character driven, issue-focused book, there’s not a single telling facial expression or body movement in the book. It’s all just poses. You can cover up a lot with a wacom tablet and CS3, but Goldman’s flimsy grasp on the most basic drawing and storytelling skills is pretty glaring. All the blur effects and shadows in the world can’t cover that up.

All of this is so much the worse because, if you’re going to do a fiction comic about a new media maverick in a warzone, you have to measure up to Brian Wood’s DMZ at the very least. That comic, while still possessing some of the faux-cool mannerisms of Shooting War, is at least smartly satirical and possessed of multi-dimensional characters. Shooting War is a slick, packaged product. It rails against mass media, while presenting something as homogenized and unthinking as the very thing is criticizes. It’s rebellion in a package — a kind of grotesque reflection of what passes for satire these days. Things like Shooting War are the inevitable byproduct of an increased interest in graphic novels (read: glut), but then again, the culture in general is full of them. It’s fake smart, fake rebellion. Seek out something real, something with meaning, instead.

Labels: , , , ,

8 Responses to “What’s Wrong With This Picture”
  1. Brian says:

    I get that Shooting War is a bad comic, but I’m not sure how much the criticism about inserting figures as characters holds weight with me. Sure, the idea of citing Dan Rather as some kind of a paragon/figurehead seems misinformed and a product of lame thought processes, but only because it’s Dan Rather. Completely different than Bill Murray continuing to get work, which I can find no fault with.

    If you’re making broad statements against that sort of thing, you would have to also include some of the cartoonists you publish. Is the use of Kurt Cobain in Cold Heat that different from the use of John Wayne in Preacher, even if Paper Rad’s use of Garfield can’t be considered in the same way?

    (I hadn’t even heard of Shooting War until Douglas Rushkoff named it one of his five favorite comics of the year at the Daily Cross Hatch, which I noted because his seemed like the worst list on the page by far.)

  2. Frank Santoro says:

    Yeah, Paul Gravett had it on his list and that surprised me.

  3. Dan says:

    Well, I think it’s actually very different. The use of Dan Rather is ironic, in the mid-90s sense. The Cobain reference in Cold Heat is, for one thing, somewhat oblique (even if the PR copy is otherwise) and not at all ironic, and Garfield is used as a totem for Paper Rad–a potent symbol, not an ironic twist for a story.

  4. Brian says:

    Okay, fair enough- I haven’t read the book in question. I’ve only read a chunk of Preacher though, (not the John Wayne bits) but my impression from that made me think that, were John Wayne to show up, it would be a somewhat sincere invocation, (in terms of the western and masculinity) and I certainly don’t think the use of Bill Murray is ironic.

    I just think that that distinction critics make between something being ironic and sincere, is almost always an ascribing of motives, and frequently projecting a writer’s own biases- There’s no shortage of people thinking PR are ironic, and while it’s obvious to me that’s not the case, some people can only see certain imagery in that way.

  5. Chris Mautner says:

    Spot on review. I agree a hundred times over and am completely flummoxed over the good reviews this book is getting. I suppose merely being about Iraq is somehow good enough for people. The subject matter triumphs the execution.

  6. K. Thor Jensen says:

    I actually was being considered to draw this book (having not seen the whole script), but didn’t get the gig. When it came out and I finally had a chance to read it I felt like I’d very nearly dodged a bullet. The guy’s pitch was good! But yeah, what a boring, Gen-X (in the worst way) mess.

  7. Luke Pski says:

    Rushkoff has really bad ideas and really bad taste.
    Just for the record…

  8. Van says:

    Have you looked at the book in its original online form? The only reason I didn’t trash it quite as harshly in my review was that the online version had some things going for it. The story was more immediately responsive to the news and the art worked better.

    Making a physical book of it (months later) just took away what the online strip had going for it and exposed all the many weaknesses. I’m also very confused as to how it made any best of lists.

Leave a Reply