Shake It Records in Cincinnati is hosting a month-long art show for the great undersung genius Justin Green, with an opening this Saturday night. Apparently, Green will be selling prints of his “Perpetual Calendar”, which you may remember from the back of Comics Comics 2.
Magical Mike Reddy, Comics Comics designer, husband, father, and hamburger-lover has released a fab new book in collaboration with The Fiery Furnaces: Blueberry Boat. It’s an excellent collection of illustrated fantastic lyrics for that record. Fans of great drawing and wordplay should not miss this one. You, kind audience, can get it from PictureBox, natch.
See if you can catch the several (not-important-at-all-oh-no) mistakes I’ve cleverly hidden in my replies to Tom Spurgeon’s interview questions over at the Comics Reporter. If you can find all five (or are there more?), I will reward you with a look of embarrassed panic.
[UPDATE: To paraphrase General Petraeus, the Spurge is working — and the mistake I allude to in the headline of this post has now been fixed. No more freebies in this contest.)
I enjoyed Rich Kreiner’s review of Comics Comics. It was, as Tim noted, too kind. So this isn’t an argument, thank heavens. In a long parenthetical thought, Kreiner wonders about our criteria for coverage, and also about our seeming fascination with the fact of something existing, as though the effort alone was enough to qualify our interest. I can’t speak for Tim or Frank, but, as for me, well, Kreiner might be on to something.
Sometimes I see things so sublime or so ridiculous that I have to just wonder about them. It’s not that I like them, per se. I don’t like Dave Sim’s Collected Letters, but what drives a cartoonist to undertake such a project is interesting to me because (a) Sim is clearly a man with his own vision and (b) he’s a hugely important cartoonist, no matter what you might think of the quality of his work. And, on the other hand, there are artists like like Steve Gerber or Michael Golden, both beloved Comics Comics figures.
Let me digress for a moment: During the most recent SPX, me, Frank, and Tim went out to dinner with a large group that included Gary Groth, Gilbert Hernandez and Bill Griffith. Gary ribbed us about Steve Gerber, etc., and Frank, in a moment of comics euphoria confessed his love of Michael Golden’s work to the entire table. I don’t think Bill even knew who we were talking about, and Gary seemed duly horrified, while Gilbert smiled beatifically, as if to say, “I love that this guy loves Golden, but I’m not saying a word”. I mean, Gary’s fought for sophistication in comics for 30 years, and now he has to listen to three knuckleheads talk about Golden and Gerber. Oy vey. See, all three of us were formed, in a sense, by The Comics Journal, and to an extent, by Groth’s own sensibility as a publisher and editor. But we also came up at a time when we didn’t (and still don’t) have to choose between art and hackwork. We can like both, and enjoy both on their own merits, precisely because Gary won the battle for sophistication and seriousness. His efforts have allowed us to sit back a bit and examine the things that got passed over, shunted aside or simply spit at. That means that Frank can talk about Michael Golden because he’s fascinated by his figuration in the context of action comics. Frank wouldn’t, at least, not sober, make a case for Golden as an artist in the same way he does for Gilbert. But then again, he did just post about Nexus. I guess what I’m saying is that a central tenant of Comics Comics is a kind of enjoyment of something within its context. Steve Gerber is an interesting comic book writer. That is enough to make him worth examining for us. And, he, like Golden, like Rude, et al, is someone who has willingly labored in a field with few rewards and a lot of creative restrictions. Those “rules” that these guys bump up against make for an interesting friction and can produce, accidentally or intentionally, interesting work. And part of is also that, to an extent, we take the greatness of someone like Dan Clowes for granted. He’s been written about, been hashed over. For us, it’s perhaps more fun to dig through a body of work that has yet to be poured over, and to find artists whose visions carried them into strange places under odd restrictions.
So, Rich Kreiner, yes, we, or at least I, sometimes like things just because they exist in an odd space, and occupy a strange little niche. And while I’ve never been a proponent of confusing effort with merit (i.e. the praise for something like Persepolis is primarily because people were impressed enough that a comic could be about Iran that they ignored how slight the actual content was), sometimes noting the effort is worthwhile. And I thank Kreiner for making the effort to write about us. Now if we can just make enough time to do that next issue….
I just got around to picking up the new Comics Journal, and was surprised to find an extended, thoughtful, and kind (too kind, really) review of Comics Comics written by Rich Kreiner.
It’s never a good idea to respond to critics, I know, especially overwhelmingly positive ones, but I do have to say that it’s a little unfair to use a quote from Dan’s Moebius review as an example of my “more directed and workman-like” prose. Dan‘s the one who’s more directed and workman-like than Dan, not me!
Also, in general, Kreiner likes Dan and Frank too much. Otherwise, good article!
Because we’re basically a bunch of morons, we forgot to ever mention that Comics Comics 3 is now available for online purchase (and has been for some time). Check out the link on the right sidebar if you can’t find a copy at your local store.
And you might want to make it quick, considering how long it took for the first two issues to sell out.
The otherwise basically sold-out Comics Comics 2 is apparently available for sale for at least a brief period (along with a lot of other things) at the newly re-opened and kind of awesome Catastrophe shop.
Oh my god. Get your copy while you can!
UPDATE: More on the Catastrophe shop here.
Sorry if this post is boring, but I want to highlight one recent comment from Jon Hastings, partly because it makes a really good point, and partly because it gives me an opportunity to make clear something that I haven’t been trying to say over the past few days. Hastings writes:
I find myself agreeing to all of your points, but can’t help being, emotionally at least, on Noah [Berlatsky]’s “side”. For me at least, there’s so much baggage from old internet arguments over the merits of super-hero comics vs. alt/art comics that I find it is really easy to make the kinds of mostly baseless, sweeping judgments that Noah is making here. My beef was never really with alt/art cartoonists, but rather with those comics critics (self-appointed or otherwise) who I saw as using the work of those alt/art cartoonists to attack my beloved super-hero books.
I’m not at all unsympathetic to this view, and couldn’t be less interested in using “serious” comics as a cudgel against other kinds of comic book stories. I think it’s understandable for long-time comics readers to occasionally get a bit defensive when it sometimes seems like only relatively straight, self-evidently serious works approaching “proper” subject matter (Maus, Persepolis, Fun Home, etc.) are seen as respectable in the wider world. (I don’t think this is actually altogether true, mind you, but it can feel that way.) Maus, at least, I think fully deserves its high reputation (I haven’t read the other two, which I guess should be my next homework assignment), but really, this is one more reason to say God bless Robert Crumb, the one artist to have broken through who can’t by any means be separated from the comic book’s anarchic and fantastic roots.
Over on the Fantagraphics blog, the great designer Jacob Covey also commented on this sort-of-stupid blog fight, and his take is really pretty smart, though I’ll admit I had to read it a couple times before I got some of it. Covey writes, “The subject is ‘art comics’ versus superhero comics– a distinction I already find vague and silly seeing how the two ideas rely on a black and white separation though I see a vast overlap. Not to mention that this [precludes] the one genre from ever being considered art, which is a bit presumptuous.” I agree with that comment entirely, except to say that I wasn’t trying to argue that “art” comics are inherently better than superheroes.
Covey also very kindly describes Comics Comics as “the definitive fringe art-comics periodical”, while admitting that with PictureBox as a whole, he can’t help but feel “there’s a bit of validity-through-outsiderness going on at times.” I can’t speak for PictureBox (though I imagine Dan might take some issue with that), but at least in terms of Comics Comics, that couldn’t be further from our intention. That’s why we’ve covered so many “mainstream” subjects in the first place, from Dick Ayers and Steve Gerber to Alex Raymond and the Masters of American Comics show. Whether or not we’re successfully realizing our goals is of course for others to judge.
In his second post, Berlatsky made at least one point that I really agree with: “The cultural space within which a work is produced, and the way it is received, has a lot to do with a medium’s health.” If critics are capable of doing anything at all (and they may not be), they can help shape that cultural space. There are many great traditions in comics, from the Harvey Kurtzman legacies of comic satire and unglamorous war and historical stories, to superhero tales (which at their best can be wonderfully surreal and pregnant with political subtext and sometimes just silly fun), to less easily classifiable work like that of Fort Thunder and Jim Woodring, and a whole lot more besides. All the various contributions of Japan and Europe and elsewhere should be included, and yes, I think that comics that deal with real life in an at least somewhat realistic and serious manner should be, too. Few readers will, or should, find all kinds of comics equally to their taste, but the cultural space I would like to encourage has a place for all of them, and will judge each work on its own individual merits, not on arbitrary generic guidelines.
Again, I apologize for this kind of boring stuff, but I don’t want to be misunderstood, and thought it might be good to have this on the record.
The ultimate mark of COMICS COMICS is that I can hand it to any comics fan, and no matter their interests or depth of knowledge, they will both learn something new and have an established belief challenged.
As most of you know, this is the week Comics Comics 3 is supposed to be shipping to finer comic stores, and early reviews are in!
Tom “The Comics Reporter” Spurgeon calls it “lovely-looking … full of engaging essays where writers stake out a unique aesthetic position and then defend it. A lot of comics coverage leaves off that first part. The third and best issue.”
Joe “Jog” McCulloch (who, as a contributor to the issue, is perhaps not completely trustworthy) calls it a “fine newspaper of comics information and festivity”, and further claims, “It’s a scientifically proven fact that a copy of Comics Comics can heal a multitude of diseases if pressed against the offending portion of the body, though it’s gotta be a sick body part, not just offending.”
Last but not least (well, technically, I guess it is least), Newsarama’s Chris Mautner ranks the issue as “pretty good”. But he also says there are “lots of crack reviews”, which sounds very good to me.
Next post: less hype, more blog.
