(This is labeled Part One as this really is just a review of 'Part One' of the book. It really is as far as I have read.)
Not at all what I thought my next post was going to be. I just started reading the new paperback edition of fellow blogger Douglas Wolk's READING COMICS: How Graphic Novels Work And What They Mean, and I find myself unsurprisingly enjoying it. I really only discovered Wolk via Savage Critic, and am glad for it. Down to earth, critical, articulate, and not lost in academic blather (I get to read that and write like that enough in university). His style reads, well, like someone I would actually like to talk to.
First, his examples of comic book covers as a visual means of development from the Silver Age to 'Now' are fantastic (they are Showcase#4, Amazing Spider-Man #31, Cerebus #44, and Big Numbers #1). I'm not sure if it was lifted from elsewhere, but it is so well explained it really sets up the rest of Part One well.
Second, I was completely unaware of Jess Lemons until reading this, and when I went online to read some of the original Lemons reviews (here are some examples), I couldn't believe the comments and response to the whole matter. I was even amazed to find out, through other forums, a lot of people who I have seen post before quite frequently respond in ways I wouldn't have expected. My thoughts on the Lemons stunt? A great piece of satire, The Beat editors did nothing wrong in executing the concept as they did, and it stands up really well.
Third, and the reason why I decided to write this post now. While discussing the parallels between the clarity (or existence) of metaphor in relation to the endearing popularity of certain superhero characters (ie. Spider-Man as the conflict between 'want' and 'should'), and superhero comics movement toward "maturity", Wolk approaches the issue of morality and its handling in superhero storylines. Naming successful incorporations of morality in Brubaker/Phillip's SLEEPER, and even Mark Millar's THE AUTHORITY and ULTIMATES runs, Wolk name checks IDENTITY CRISIS as 'awful but very popular'. I laughed, because I had just recently put together my posts on Meltzer's Crying Superheroes, but I became really excited when Wolk really delved into matters.
For the purposes of the review, and why I am posting in the first place, hopefully neither Da Capo Books nor Douglas Wolk will mind my quoting here his precise, couldn't agree more, explanation of why IDENTITY CRISIS was so terrible, and demanded me putting together my first two posts dedicated to that awfulness.
"...there are comics in which writing-for-superreaders, misguided "realism" and "adultness", questioning the morality of "heroes", the contemporary demand for the illusion of change, and the commerical draw of "event" stories add up to the extraordinary awfulness. I'm speaking, of course, of DC's IDENTITY CRISIS, the most egregiously terrible comic book of all time. There have been many more inept comics, of course, and more unpleasant comics, but no others that suffer from quite as pungent a combination of deafening hype and resolute refusal to offer any kind of gratification at all to their readers." -Pg. 107, Wolk
Remember how I said IDENTITY CRISIS was marketed as, basically, in-continuity WATCHMEN? Well where WATCHMEN is written so that anybody with a head on their shoulders could pick up, enjoy, and take away something from its telling, IDENTITY CRISIS is nothing but decades of continuity reference that is both embraced and ignored, depending on the cheap thrills or shock needed scene to scene. What always pops into mind thinking back to IDENTITY CRISIS is Grant Morrison laughing about 'shredded lycra' and the 'hammering away at Sue Dibny’s ruptured rear end' by Dr. Light. I swear, I had no idea going into IDENTITY CRISIS who the hell Sue Dibny or Jean Loring were by name only, and I've worked at a comic store for 10 years, and read comics for even longer.
"There's no pleasure in IDENTITY CRISIS, no sense of the adventure or triumpth of run that its characters were created for - only violence, betrayal, and witless flailing. It's relentlessly, hideously grim and melodramatic, from Superman shedding a tear on the original cover of the first issue to the dribbling pathos of its ending." -Pg. 109, Wolk.
Something I do find problematic with Wolk's view on IDENTITY CRISIS is its inconsistency withWolk's view of Grant Morrison's FINAL CRISIS (DC likes their Crises). In the first issue, we have DCU staple Martian Manhunter indiscriminately killed off. Morrison's reason for this?
"GM:...we wanted to open with a nasty, execution-style death of a superhero as a way of demonstrating how far behind us the Silver Age is. We’re conditioned to expect the hero to fall after a noble struggle or to give his life saving the universe but this had to be different. The scene was very much about calling time on expectations and letting our readers know up front that the rules have changed. Evil is getting away with it. Things are going to get nastier and grubbier and scarier before it’s over, just like in the real world. There’s more of that kind of thing in issue #2."
It should be noted that Douglas Wolk's review of FINAL CRISIS over on Savage Critic boiled down to a 6/7.
"FINAL CRISIS #1: No, it's not a slam-bang opener like the first World War Hulk or Infinite Crisis or Secret Invasion; nobody punches anybody through a building. The tone is more of a slow slide into hell, the tipping point where the whole system becomes too badly screwed up to salvage. Morrison's described FINAL CRISIS as a take on the eschatology of this cultural moment, which seems about right. It's also true that the character who gets killed doesn't get a heroic exit, or much dramatic context for it: this is about a world where all it takes is some stupid with a flare gun to ruin everything. The story's full of stuff that rewards repeated looks and consideration, and it keeps circling back to the distinctions between gods and men, between enormous powers and the people they crush for sport or advantage. (The missing kids aren't just smart, they're poor, and I bet that's significant.) I pretty much loved all of it except for the tedious scene with the Monitors--which is, I think, the only part whose sense is directly contingent on Countdown. Jones and Sinclair's artwork is exquisite, too: body language, details of color (the rippling water reflecting the red sky!)... This isn't quite what I was expecting, but after a few readings, I'm finding it Very Good indeed. (I've annotated it at length over here.)"
I don't know if it is a bias toward Morrison (at least 30 pages of READING COMICS is dedicated to discussion on Morrison), but I find very little difference between IDENTITY CRISIS and FINAL CRISIS save some crying and who gets burned (I shit you not, Sue Dibny gets TORCHED, as Martian Manhunter gets TORCHED, both in their first issues). Both to me at this point are suffering from same problems of misguided maturity. I was also really taken aback at how much 'continuity' it seemed one would have to be aware of to get the full effect of the comic. The reason Martian Manhunter was killed? The Human Flame, a character who first appeared in a backup story in Detective Comics #274...From 1959!! Also along for the ride is Libra, who first appeared in Justice League of America #111...from 1974!! Plus, why the sudden change from Morrison of presenting a "day-glo" shiny superhero world for a concept of "Evil Won", which he derided so in IDENTITY CRISIS? Perhaps setting us up for a cleansing of the dark, "mature" comics DC has been giving its audience? Is this just outright a very sly, intended parody that is being sold as otherwise? Way too early to say that for certain, we're only one issue in, but it isn't off to a good start. It just seems like Morrison is getting a free pass on inferior work based on previously fantastic work.*
So...um, fourth? Probably the first misstep with the book so far is in Chapter Five, where Wolk spends far too much time discussing the effect and use of the passage of time in panels, and how it works. I think anyone who has read Scott McCloud's UNDERSTANDING COMICS will feel their eyes sliding off the page as I experienced. If anything, the entire 'Decorating the Blank Walls of the Fourth Dimension' section of Chapter Five (maybe all of Chapter Five) could have appeared earlier in the book as anyone who has reached Chapter Five should damn well know how comics work and how to read them. The good thing that did come out of Chapter Five for me though was the reminder I frequently need of how critical the actual drawing and cartooning is. Even in my DAREDEVIL review I don't even name the artists of the book!
That all I said, I do highly recommend READING COMICS. For me it has really got my mind running full on about comics, as audience, critic, and creator. Part Two, the larger section of the book, looks to be a collection of essays, reviews, and commentaries on comics that Wolk doesn't necessarily 'recommend' or 'suggest', but works he personally finds 'interesting' and worthy of discussion.
Also will add this interview between Tom Spurgeon and Douglas Wolk regarding Wolk's book.
-Jarrett
* Not to be unfair to Wolk alone, as there are a fair number of people who seem to be giving Morrison a pass on the first issue of FINAL CRISIS based on his name alone, and the promise that name holds. I will wind up reading the whole storyline, regardless of its quality, crossing my fingers that a point to what has transpired so far will come to be.
0 comments:
Post a Comment