Reading Comics: How Graphic Novels Work and What They Mean
Posted by: Hal Johnson on August 21, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Douglas Wolk, Da Capo Press
Look, this is a comics review column, not a book review column, so I’m only going to mention in passing Douglas Wolk’s new book of comics criticism, Reading Comics. It’s divided into two sections: in the first (“Theory and History”) he says everything I’ve always wanted to say about comics but never quite managed to get out right. In the second (“Reviews and Commentary”) he praises comics I like. What a great idea for a book!
The only exception I would take is that he devotes an entire chapter to Grant Morrison, while I would have dismissed him as “the poor man’s Alan Moore” and moved on.
R. Fiore’s long-promised collection of columns has yet to appear and Daniel K. Raeburn goes bankrupt when he tries to publish something, so Wolk as far as I’m concerned is the reigning king of comics criticism. His book may not stake out any bold new theoretical ground or propose any sweeping new theoretical concepts, but he approaches comics intelligently and thoughtfully, and, in this the Wizard age of comics, that just may be radical enough.
9 Responses to "Reading Comics: How Graphic Novels Work and What They Mean"
1 | Adan Jimenez
Okay, look. Grant Morrison cannot be the poor man’s Alan Moore, as the two do not try to do the same things in their comics.
Morrison has been all about the metafiction for as long as I can remember (even a little bit in his mainstream superhero stuff), and Moore has only barely skimmed metafiction. Whether you like the Invisibles or not, you cannot say it resembles anything done by Moore.
Also, while I enjoyed this book a great deal, there are some things that I think he gets wrong. First and foremost is this alleged division between mainstream and art comics on the basis of what’s more important: character/plot or creator/author. According to Wolk, character/plot is more important to mainstream comics, whereas the creator/author is more important to art comics. I feel this is a spurious division that doesn’t make any real sense.
2 | Hal Johnson
While I wouldn’t want to propose an identity between the two writers, they are both drugged-out British magicians who came to the US in the ‘eighties writing weird second-string superhero comics.
I don’t think Wolk’s definition is flawless, but it’s a fair approximation of what I believe to be a consensus division in the comic world. Although there are always going to be borderline cases, we all know that X-Men is “mainstream” and Eightball is “art,” and we also know that X-Men will sell whoever writes it, and Eightball will only sell if Clowes writes it. Although it’s becoming more and more common to be a superhero reader who follows “talent,” this is not yet (I believe) the majority readership. After Grant Morrison left X-Men, the X-Men kept going, and they’ll keep going no matter who writes it. When the Hernandez Bros. stop writing L&R, no one’s going to take up the mantle. At the end of the day, mainstream comics are licensing properties and art comics (I don’t like that term much, but I don’t have a better suggestion) are creator vehicles.
3 | Adan Jimenez
Isn’t every British writer a drugged-out magician who came to the US in the eighties to write weird second-string superhero comics? Warren Ellis, Bryan Talbot, Garth Ennis, Alan Davis, Neil Gaiman, Dave McKean, Barry Windsor-Smith, etc.
Advantage: Me.
While true, I don’t think that’s a division between mainstream and art. I think that’s a division between corporate and creator-owned. If Ed Brubaker and Brian K. Vaughn stop writing Criminal and Y the Last Man, those books will end, even though they’re published by Marvel and DC. Yes, the Hernandez Bros. are popular in the art world, but I think a case can be made that Hopey and Maggie are just as popular. If somebody else wrote and drew a Hopey and Maggie story, would it not sell?
In the same vein, when Joss Whedon stops writing Astonishing X-men and Warren Ellis takes over, while the book will of course still sell, it’ll be a completely different audience, as all the Whedon-whackers will leave the book.
An even better example is Morrison and Kubert’s Batman. After their initial arc, Ostrander and Mandrake took over, and there is a severe dropoff in readership (see: The Beat). It came back when Morrison, and then Kubert, came back.
Advantage: Me twice!
4 | Hal Johnson
Well, Windsor-Smith came to the US in the ’70s, Ennis, Ellis, and Talbot in the ’90s, Davis and McKean are more artists, and I have no evidence that any of them are magicians. You may or may not have something of a point with Gaiman, but it’s not necessarily the case that I’ve never called Gaiman the poor man’s Alan Moore as well. (Cough cough.)
Deuce.
I’m not saying that creators are unimportant for Batman’s sales, but the dropoff in sales when Morrison left Batman is nothing compared to the dropoff in sales when they changed the title to anything other than Batman.
I agree that there’s a significant break between corporate and creator-owned, but this is simply an economic manifestation of the mainstream/art division. Marvel and DC are going to be very leery of letting a creator get bigger than the character–they remember what happened when Image started–but Spider-man will never abandon them.
There are still going to be strange or gray areas, such as Gaiman’s Sandman. But most books have this map: mainstream/corporate owned/character driven vs. art/creator owned/creator driven.
I’m not sure we disagree here on much except emphasis. Is there a better way to define the difference between art and mainstream comics? Is it ownership? What about Spawn then?
5 | Adan Jimenez
See, now you’re just being mean. Gaiman is a poor man’s Moore? I know he’s insulted you on multiple occassions, but let’s be fair here. Morrison, Moore, Gaiman, and all the rest of these guys do very different things with their comics. Moore explores genres, many diverse and varied genres, in all his work (look no further than his ABC line, but also things like Watchmen, From Hell, and V for Vendetta) and he pushes the preconceived boundaries of these genres as far as they can go. Morrison (and Gaiman) have never really done this. As I said, Morrison is mostly concerned with metafiction, and how a creator, the work of fiction in question, and the reader relate to and inform each other. Gaiman is just a fantasy writer, I think, who isn’t as good as Moore or Morrison, but neither does he resemble them in the least.
Yes, what about Spawn? And it’s not just Spawn that doesn’t fit in this schema; almost everything doesn’t fit in this schema. In the same book (possibly in the same chapter), Wolk argues that creators are not important to mainstream comics (or at least, not as important as the character/plot) and that mainstream comics are using marquee creators to sell their books, going so far as poaching creators from different mediums. If Batman doesn’t need Morrison (or Dini or Miller or Moore), why doesn’t DC just let any schmuck write Batman?
6 | Hal Johnson
It’s true, it’s true. Gaiman is not the poor man’s Alan Moore, Morrison is. (I also think Gaiman’s better than Morrison, even if he did call me fat. But Morrison’s pretty good, to, to be fair.)
I’m afraid you’ve kind of lost me here on the Morrison argument. I pointed out some similarities between Moore and Morrison, you claimed that everyone else shared these similarities, I demostrated pretty conlusively (I think) that this was not the case, and then you ignored the similarities outlined above…? Their names start with the same three phonemes. Promethea is a Morrisonesque book; Arkham Asylum is Mooresque. They’re not the same person, to be sure, but I think at the very least they are close enough to be compared to each other, close enough that a comparison comes naturally.
You are right on one thing, though: I was just being mean.
Far be it for me to suggest that you may have a history of demanding absolutes while running roughshod over ambiguities, but…um…are you sure “almost everything doesn’t fit this schema”? Take a look at the top fifty or so comics on this list; how many do you find ambiguous?
Spawn, I shoud point out, doesn’t fit the creator-owned model, but fits Wolk’s model fine. As do the vast majority of books. I’m not just being a wise acre when I ask if you have a better definition, I’m actually looking for a better definition. Could we say that art comics strive to emulate fine art or literature while mainstream comics strive, at best, to make an enjoyable pulpy story?
Your final question above, is, I think, misplaced. DC needs someone good to write Batman or Batman will suck and sales will go down. Even people who don’t know creators’ names make an esthetic judgment when reading a comic. Superman: For Tomorrow had two name creators on it but didn’t sell well, because no one liked it.
Or, to flip it around: If Morrison doesn’t need Batman, why isn’t Sea Guy a bestseller?
I don’t think Wolk would claim that creators have no impact on superhero sales, just that they’re not the most important, driving force. I think we both agree that X-Men without Morrison will sell better than Vimanarama with. (We do, don’t we?) But Marvel or DC will do anything to sell more comics, and if Morrison’s name helps, his name helps. If putting Wolverine on the cover of Power Pack will sell more issues, Marvel will do it, but I woud hardly say that the point of Power Pack is to have Wolverine covers. I notice that we’ve (I’ve?) fallen to talking of sales, because they are at the very least an objective measure, but I’m not even sure that’s what Wolk was talking about in his book. he was talking about importance, no? And…
…I…I can’t help but think that I must be misunderstanding you. Are you seriously suggesting that in Batman comics, the Morrison is more important than the Batman?
7 | Adan Jimenez
I ignored those similarities (or made a joke about them, which amounts to the same thing) because I assumed you were being facetious. “They are both drugged-out British magicians who came to the US in the ‘eighties [sic] writing weird second-string superhero comics” is a ridiculous argument to give as to why their writing is similar. Phonemes? Come now. I think I’ve given ample examples as to why it’s impossible for Morrison to be the poor man’s Moore when their writing is so different. And one of Moore’s works being Morrison-esque and one of Morrison’s works be Moore-esque does not an ironclad argument make.
As for comparing them, sure you can. The same way one can compare the Rolling Stones to the Beatles, Judd Apatow to Mel Brooks, or Richard K. Morgan to William Gibson. These pairings work in the same medium, the same genre even, and one is usually considered better than the other, but that doesn’t mean the former tries to do the same things as the latter within their medium/genre. You can call Morrison many things, but I don’t think copycat is one of them.
Maybe I was a bit rash with the “almost everything doesn’t fit” assertion (you can tell, because I would have written “almost nothing fits” instead, as it is more grammatically correct), but I think your list has more ambigous titles than you think. I will not deny that the vast majority of the titles on that list sell because they are superhero books with hardcore fans, but Justice sells because of Alex Ross, Buffy sells because of Whedon, and Omega Flight sells because of Oeming.
And Batman is perhaps the wrong title to say “needs” a creator, but Eternals certainly needed Gaiman, Daredevil certainly needed Miller, Swamp Thing certainly needed Moore, and so on, and so forth. Whether Marvel and DC will it or no, creators can and will become bigger than the creations. When Bendis leaves Ultimate Spider-Man, you don’t think sales will go down? Until the next big name creator brings them back up, anyway.
I don’t mean to downplay the importance of characters or plot. Frankly, I can’t. They are important. Some people will buy Batman no matter who is writing them, but some people will buy Morrison no matter what he is writing. So I guess my point is that it is no longer clear cut which is more important in mainstream comics. Yes, mainstream comics will probably sell until the end of time, but as you yourself pointed out, only if they are written well. The Battlestar Galactica comic will sell because it is Battlestar Galactica, but only for a little while. Once fans figure out that it’s far inferior to the show, they’ll stop.
And you’ve done nothing to convince me that a Love & Rockets comic without the Hernandez Bros. (or an Eightball issue without Clowes or an Acme Novelty Library issue without Ware) wouldn’t sell just as well as with.
And yes, we have to talk about sales figures because it’s the only objective criteria available to us, but I think it’s important to not cross-compare. Batman will always sell better than Vimanarama, but both will sell better when Morrison is writing them. Does that make sense?
8 | Halifax
September 1st, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Moore and Morrison both started out pushing mainstream superheroing about as far as it can go (Swamp Thing & Animal Man), and subsequently began dividing their time between more straight genre heroics (JLA & Wildcats) personal work. Both like to revive old, forgotten characters. Both have a penchant for hallucinatory weirdness perhaps for its own sake. Is this adding up to anything?
I sometimes think all the arguments we have are arguments of degree. It’s clear there are some prallels between Moore and Morrison (let’s agree on the magic angle, for example); it’s also clear they are not indistinguishable. Somewhere between these two poles lies the trtuth, and we are simply disagreeing on the lattitude. I don’t mean to say that Morrison copies Moore (the Moorish Morrison work I cited preceded a good decade the Morrisonish Moore work, so you could argue there that Moore is more mimicking Morrison), but, although perhaps you see fewer, I can’t help but see a great many similarities between the two writers. Let me put it this way: can you think of a major comic book writer more like Moore than Morrison or more like Morrison like Moore? If somebody has to be the poor man’s Alan Moore, who is more deserving of the title?
The creator/character dichotomy is another example of an argument of degrees. Obviously for many series both character and creator are important. But I certainly believe that the vast majority of mainstream comics are character driven. Daredevil certainly did not need Miller–its sales may have gone down when Miller left (I assume this is true) but the title has marched on, sometime limping, sometimes strutting cocksure despite its mediocrity. Eightball has no really popular characters, and clearly couldn’t survive without Clowes (what would it be about?) but your point about Maggie & Hopey is relevent. But Maggie got fat and Hopey disappears for long stretches of time, and the Maggie and Hopey you get as a tattoo haven’t been in the series in over a decade; and I really don’t think fans are as devoted to the two as they are to Jaime’s Maggie and Hopey. Are people clamoring for someone else to start churning out Buddy Bradley stories now that Bagge is not? Do you think anyone wants Jim Lee to draw Julie Doucet’s autobiographical comics? Maybe for the novelty…
Basically, Fritz the Cat film watchers are Bakshi fans, not Crumb fans. Crumb fans watch Zwigoff’s documentary. His documentary about Crumb.
Of the top ten comics on the list linked to above, the only one where the creator matters at all is #10, Buffy, and frankly Frey did not sell so hot. 11-20: zip. 21-30: what, maybe Bendis on Ultimate Spider-man. Bendis may have a big name, I’m not denying, but Spider-man’s name is bigger. Which sells better, Amazing Spider-man by not-Bendis or Torso?
Please note that at no point am I saying, “Creators are nothing, and serve no importance in mainstream comics.” The writer and the artists are not like the letterer, someone who can screw up sales if he is totally incompetatnt, but otherwise, although a valuable contributor, not a seller. Creators are important, but characters are more important No matter what happens to Bendis, Spider-man will sell books. No matter what happens.
If you had to take all the comics you consider mainstream and identify each as character-driven or creator-driven, which do you think would be in the majority? Howsabout for comics you consider “art” comics?
Outside of math, it’s hard to make a definition that is perfect. Dolphins aren’t furry, walruses aren’t quadropeds, and naked mole rats aren’t exactly endothermic, so good luck defining what a mammal is. I’m serious about seeking a better definition for mainstream and art comics. But we can’t afford to toss out a working definition because it is not perfect, any more than we can refuse to use an anesthetic that is not perfectly numbing. Use what you’ve got, doc. Finding a definition will be hard, but we cannot afford to say, Chaos! Chaos! Because of an exception, the system has fallen!
This definition works, I believe, on the margin.
