Ahoy, readers.
In just a few weeks, I will have completed my first year in graduate school. This semester I have been lucky enough to work with Don Ault (and he has agreed to become a member of my thesis committee, which is very exciting). The paper I'm currently writing for my class with Dr Ault may be of interest to other comics scholars, so if I am not successful in finding a journal to publish it in, I will be posting it (at least in part) here. At the very least, I'll post the abstract.
I'm excited to report that I've decided to expand the paper I presented at UF's comics conference in 2008 into my Master's Thesis, as well, and over the summer I plan to do research at both the Cartoon Research Library (at my undergraduate alma mater, The Ohio State University) and the Museum of Cartoon Art (in San Francisco, California). Watch for updates on chapters for the thesis and abstracts for conference and academic papers I may generate over the summer as well.
To think I thought I'd be able to update and maintain a blog on top of my graduate work, hah!
1.16.2008
WOW, ACTIVITY!
Hey! I'm delighted to inform everyone that I recently submitted an Abstract to be considered for presentation/publication at ImageSexT, the University of Florida's annual convention for comics scholarship.
My abstract, shockingly, was accepted! The conference is in March of 2008, in Gainesville, Florida, and there I will be bowing to the keynote speakers (Gail Simone and Phoebe Gluckner, among others). While I'm there, I'll be giving a presentation of about 15 minutes to cover my paper (about 8 pages). I'm thrilled, because I'm an undergrad, the U of F is my top choice for my grad school applications, and they said that they had a particularly high volume of submissions this year so they had to be even more demanding during the review process.
My abstract is copy/pasted below for your enjoyment (and it is my intellectual property, naturally, so no steelin'!):
How to Draw the (DC and) Marvel Way: Changes in Representation of Female Bodies and Attitudes are Changing "Superheroine Chic"
This article strives to engage and analyze the changing expectations about women and girls in mainstream superhero serials in two parts. It defines the genre's once-homogenous method of representing women as "Superheroine Chic," and goes on to describe the way in which DC and Marvel both subvert and reaffirm that method. Its focus in the primary half lies in representational progress made by both companies, specifically with regards to the portrayal of Barbara Gordon as Batgirl and Oracle and of Gertrude Yorkes as Arsenic and Heroine. Issues of body type, body dysphoria, disability, and empowerment are central to the first section. Secondarily it deals with recent regressions made during the same period, especially with regards to the Black Canary and Heroes for Hire's Misty Knight. Exploitation, visual and textual contradictions regarding women in positions of powerful- and powerlessness, and the effects that both progressive and regressive methods of representation have on how the characters are received by fans drive the latter portion of the essay. Dealing with internet-based fan communities, official Marvel and DC drawing guides, and the comics themselves as primary sources, it endeavors to show that, despite the common stance that comic book readers expect their heroines to fit a certain visual type, there is not only room but demand for heroines that push the boundaries of "Superheroine Chic".
I can't wait!
My abstract, shockingly, was accepted! The conference is in March of 2008, in Gainesville, Florida, and there I will be bowing to the keynote speakers (Gail Simone and Phoebe Gluckner, among others). While I'm there, I'll be giving a presentation of about 15 minutes to cover my paper (about 8 pages). I'm thrilled, because I'm an undergrad, the U of F is my top choice for my grad school applications, and they said that they had a particularly high volume of submissions this year so they had to be even more demanding during the review process.
My abstract is copy/pasted below for your enjoyment (and it is my intellectual property, naturally, so no steelin'!):
How to Draw the (DC and) Marvel Way: Changes in Representation of Female Bodies and Attitudes are Changing "Superheroine Chic"
This article strives to engage and analyze the changing expectations about women and girls in mainstream superhero serials in two parts. It defines the genre's once-homogenous method of representing women as "Superheroine Chic," and goes on to describe the way in which DC and Marvel both subvert and reaffirm that method. Its focus in the primary half lies in representational progress made by both companies, specifically with regards to the portrayal of Barbara Gordon as Batgirl and Oracle and of Gertrude Yorkes as Arsenic and Heroine. Issues of body type, body dysphoria, disability, and empowerment are central to the first section. Secondarily it deals with recent regressions made during the same period, especially with regards to the Black Canary and Heroes for Hire's Misty Knight. Exploitation, visual and textual contradictions regarding women in positions of powerful- and powerlessness, and the effects that both progressive and regressive methods of representation have on how the characters are received by fans drive the latter portion of the essay. Dealing with internet-based fan communities, official Marvel and DC drawing guides, and the comics themselves as primary sources, it endeavors to show that, despite the common stance that comic book readers expect their heroines to fit a certain visual type, there is not only room but demand for heroines that push the boundaries of "Superheroine Chic".
I can't wait!
12.01.2007
Abstracts and applications!
Goodness! I'm workin' through the grad school application process slowly but surely, and the impending deadlines are looking more and more frightening every day.
In other news, I just submitted my very first abstract. I've never written one, and I'm a little afraid it shows, even though I used a format I found online. Hopefully it'll go over well! The conference I submitted to is called ImageSexT, and it's being hosted by the University of Florida, one of the schools I'm in the process of applying to. Since in a year or so I will be writing abstracts just like this for review when I'm in grad, I figured even if they aren't keen on accepting undergraduate submissions, I'd toss in my hand for practice, and good practice it's definately been.
My proposal is below.
HOW TO DRAW THE (DC AND) MARVEL WAY:
How Changes in Representation of Female Bodies and Attitudes are Changing "Superheroine Chic"
This article strives to engage and analyze the changing expectations about women and girls in mainstream superhero serials in two parts. It defines the genre’s once-homogenous method of representing women as “Superheroine Chic,” and goes on to describe the way in which DC and Marvel both subvert and reaffirm that method. Its focus in the primary half lies in representational progress made by both companies, specifically with regards to the portrayal of Barbara Gordon as Batgirl and Oracle and of Gertrude Yorkes as Arsenic and Heroine. Issues of body type, body dysphoria, disability, and empowerment are central to the first section. Secondarily it deals with recent regressions made during the same period, especially with regards to the Black Canary and Heroes for Hire’s Misty Knight. Exploitation, visual and textual contradictions regarding women in positions of powerful- and powerlessness, and the effects that both progressive and regressive methods of representation have on how the characters are received by fans drive the latter portion of the essay. Dealing with internet-based fan communities, official Marvel and DC drawing guides, and the comics themselves as primary sources, it endeavors to show that, despite the common stance that comic book readers expect their heroines to fit a certain visual type, there is not only room but demand for heroines that push the boundaries of “Superheroine Chic”.
Here goes nothin', right?
In other news, I just submitted my very first abstract. I've never written one, and I'm a little afraid it shows, even though I used a format I found online. Hopefully it'll go over well! The conference I submitted to is called ImageSexT, and it's being hosted by the University of Florida, one of the schools I'm in the process of applying to. Since in a year or so I will be writing abstracts just like this for review when I'm in grad, I figured even if they aren't keen on accepting undergraduate submissions, I'd toss in my hand for practice, and good practice it's definately been.
My proposal is below.
HOW TO DRAW THE (DC AND) MARVEL WAY:
How Changes in Representation of Female Bodies and Attitudes are Changing "Superheroine Chic"
This article strives to engage and analyze the changing expectations about women and girls in mainstream superhero serials in two parts. It defines the genre’s once-homogenous method of representing women as “Superheroine Chic,” and goes on to describe the way in which DC and Marvel both subvert and reaffirm that method. Its focus in the primary half lies in representational progress made by both companies, specifically with regards to the portrayal of Barbara Gordon as Batgirl and Oracle and of Gertrude Yorkes as Arsenic and Heroine. Issues of body type, body dysphoria, disability, and empowerment are central to the first section. Secondarily it deals with recent regressions made during the same period, especially with regards to the Black Canary and Heroes for Hire’s Misty Knight. Exploitation, visual and textual contradictions regarding women in positions of powerful- and powerlessness, and the effects that both progressive and regressive methods of representation have on how the characters are received by fans drive the latter portion of the essay. Dealing with internet-based fan communities, official Marvel and DC drawing guides, and the comics themselves as primary sources, it endeavors to show that, despite the common stance that comic book readers expect their heroines to fit a certain visual type, there is not only room but demand for heroines that push the boundaries of “Superheroine Chic”.
Here goes nothin', right?
10.03.2007
LET'S TALK ABOUT ART FOR A SECOND, HERE.
I had been planning to post today's review about Richard Reynolds' Superheroes: A Modern Mythology, and spent the week preparing accordingly. Two days ago, however, I picked up a book by James Elkins called The Object Stares Back. I think that the Elkins books offers some interesting ideas that can be applied to comics and graphic novels (though I doubt they were intended that way), and will thus spend this next week preparing both articles.
That is to say, both a review of the Reynolds book and a review of the Elkins book will be posted on Wednesday, October 10.
Thanks!
That is to say, both a review of the Reynolds book and a review of the Elkins book will be posted on Wednesday, October 10.
Thanks!
9.26.2007
DOUGLAS WOLK; READING COMICS
Douglas Wolk is a freelance journalist and writer who has written about comics, music, and other pop-cultural mumbo-jumbo. His articles have been published in the New York Times, Rolling Stone, and a number of other well-known newspapers and magazines. He has also been interviewed at Newsarama. You can find more information about him at his website (linked above and here again), which includes links to many of his articles online and shops that sell his books.
Enough about him. Let's get to what he says, andmore importantly what I think about what he says.
Reading Comics: How Graphic Novels Work & What They Mean is a deliberately-argued (though occasionally contradictory) and engaging collection of essays, and because unfortunately I can't review the entire book as thoroughly as I'd like to here, I've decided to stick with the opening three chapters. I hope this will give you readers a fair taste of the book, so you can decide if the points he raises and the questions I ask about them make you want to read the book or make you want to hit the "back" button.
I think I should also say that the real meat - the part where Wolk really gets into his element and delivers some of his best ideas - is the second half, which is comprised of a series of reviews of individual artists and one or more of their works. Because I am dealing here with only the first part of the first half the book - the part where he deals primarily with theory - I don't want to give you readers the impression that this is a cross-section of the entire work by any means.
The title of the book itself makes it an ambitious project, and when I first picked it up I was skeptical as to whether or not Wolk was really capable of discussing the whole of "comics" in about 400 pages. The sub-title is far more important: this is a book that focuses on the graphic novel. Wolk goes to great lengths to explain why he doesn't focus on mainstream comics, and contradicts himself a few times in the process. While he says that he enjoys a number of mainstream and superhero comics, the message he ends up giving us is that superhero books are mostly trashy, and not really worth talking about. Since superhero and collaborative mainstream books are what primarily interest me as a comics scholar, I naturally take issue with that, but I still feel like Wolk's book offers a number of valuable insights.
The reviews of particular artists and their work (none of which I can talk about here) are all intriguing, often funny, and very readable. Even so, all the books he expresses interest in and discuss fall under the category of what he calls "art comics", and he focuses primarily on authors who are also artists (with a few exceptions).
Wolk's first chapter describes the situation of comics today with a little back-story on how the 70s and 80s got things moving and shaking in the comics industry. In particular what struck me was his assertion that pop art influenced comics to "[reach] for an effect that wasn't merely entertainment -- and maybe not quite [get] there." On the one hand, there's a certain amount of truth there - many mainstream comics (and art comics) aspired and aspire to a greatness that they never manage - on the other, I'm tempted to ask why a comic book shouldn't be merely entertainment, or at least why it can't be. Some books are made to move us, others to entertain us. If each manages to do what it set out to do, isn't it enough for a comic to be successful?
But then, that's not really the point of the chapter; what Wolk seems to want to say is that because of this reaching attempt, comics are getting better. I agree with him. For all the baggage that comes with comic book terminology (and what little terminology there is), Wolk's observation that the industry today is producing consistently better work does encourage me to agree with him that the real "Golden Age" of comics is right now.
In defending his choice to (and apparent interest in) discuss only "art comics", though, Wolk falls into a trap he himself describes. The idea that "high-brow comics are not really comics but something else (preferably with a fancy name)" is clear in the title of his book. The "graphic novel" dominates academic and most "serious" discussion of comics, and even though Wolk identifies himself as a consumer of comics that don't meet current academic standards, he brutally restricts discussion of them in such a way that reiterates current scholarly prejudice against the mass-marketed, workshop-produced serial that he claims to enjoy.
He says -- in a fit of snarky brilliance -- that "demanding (or wishing for) a place at the table of high culture is an admission that you don't have one; the way you get a place at the table of high culture is to pull up a chair and say something interesting." What boggled me was that even after this, after his defense that some truly great work can come from a shunned and stigma-surrounded field, he chose not to be the person to say something interesting in favor of the mainstream.
He repeats over and over again, throughout the first three chapters, that what he is interested in is not necessarily the "good"-ness (a term he admits is loaded with subjectivity) or even snob-value of any particular work, but style. He maintains that the books that are most likely to have a distinct style, effective storytelling, and worthwhile content are also the books that are most likely to fall into the category of "art comics". He defends this by describing the mainstream comic workshop as "ad-hoc", and asserts (totally incorrectly) that the goal of the mainstream comic is to maintain a bland type of non-style that can be easily transferred from artist to artist. His primary example of such shoddy stylistic tendencies involves Steve McNiven and the likes of Greg Land (who doesn't draw at all, really), completely ignoring the vast and diverse amount of talent that Marvel and DC have working on their books. There is rich variation there, and either it isn't apparent in the books he's picking up, or he doesn't see it in the same light as his categorically arty books.
Interestingly enough, his chapter on art comics and their unifying tendency toward art that is somehow alienating (the thought being that pretty art is something everyone is perceived to enjoy, but the act of enjoying something that is not immediately pleasant isolates the reader) is mirrored somewhat in his fourth chapter on "Superheros and Superreaders." The idea that finding value in something that is not inherently or obviously valuable (be it through the confusing aesthetics of visually or emotionally ugly yet intellectually beautiful works or the belief that so-called "trash" or "low-brow" comics are as worthy as art comics of serious academic study) can intensify one's relationship to, enjoyment of, and interest in that thing resonates well. I'm not sure that Wolk was even aware of the implication he was making, that perhaps one of the reasons "Superreaders" - especially those of us who are academically inclined - might want to pursue study of mainstream "ad-hoc" works because of the same sense of isolation experienced by the champions of "graphic novels" as art and literature.
He even quotes one writer on auteur film in the chapter where he instructs us on "How to Look at Ugly Drawings", likening the interest in comics as they are most commonly known to overzealous study of certain types of film as a way of "becoming connoisseurs of trash". I find that I do "love some frankly trashy comics" and want "to understand whats' meaningful about them and why they have the power that they do." This strikes me as yet another resonant but confusing thing for Wolk to say, it being that his interest in scholarly discussion lies exclusively here with "art comics".
It doesn't help me that his arguments against discussion of the mainstream seem to lie in the same areas that draw me to them: the idea that a series is passed from one group of collaborators to the next, the idea that any writer or artist will be "playing with someone else's toys", the idea that they are meant to be entertaining.
Isn't part of the "good"-ness of the mainstream finding the variation in it, in terms of writing, art, storytelling techniques, use of characters or devices, all coming together into something that isn't just entertaining but also of artistic merit?
It's true that the idea of individual style in comics is a fairly new idea - be the comics commercial endeavors, artistic ones, or a little of both - and Wolk's focus is on the individual creator. The reviews in the second half of the book all focus on the creator, the creator's process, and the creator's mark on the work he or she creates. They are funny, accessible, informative, and best of all, they -- like the rest of the book -- incite discussion. I think that may be (for me, anyway) the greatest value of Reading Comics; it may not say everything I want it to say, and it may not address everything I want it to talk about, but it sure as hell makes me want to pull up a chair to that high-culture table and start talking.
You can get your own copy of Reading Comics: How Graphic Novels Work & What They Mean through your favorite locally-owned bookshop, online through a number of brand-name distributors, or in the graphic novel section at your local Barnes & Noble.
Enough about him. Let's get to what he says, and
Reading Comics: How Graphic Novels Work & What They Mean is a deliberately-argued (though occasionally contradictory) and engaging collection of essays, and because unfortunately I can't review the entire book as thoroughly as I'd like to here, I've decided to stick with the opening three chapters. I hope this will give you readers a fair taste of the book, so you can decide if the points he raises and the questions I ask about them make you want to read the book or make you want to hit the "back" button.
I think I should also say that the real meat - the part where Wolk really gets into his element and delivers some of his best ideas - is the second half, which is comprised of a series of reviews of individual artists and one or more of their works. Because I am dealing here with only the first part of the first half the book - the part where he deals primarily with theory - I don't want to give you readers the impression that this is a cross-section of the entire work by any means.
The title of the book itself makes it an ambitious project, and when I first picked it up I was skeptical as to whether or not Wolk was really capable of discussing the whole of "comics" in about 400 pages. The sub-title is far more important: this is a book that focuses on the graphic novel. Wolk goes to great lengths to explain why he doesn't focus on mainstream comics, and contradicts himself a few times in the process. While he says that he enjoys a number of mainstream and superhero comics, the message he ends up giving us is that superhero books are mostly trashy, and not really worth talking about. Since superhero and collaborative mainstream books are what primarily interest me as a comics scholar, I naturally take issue with that, but I still feel like Wolk's book offers a number of valuable insights.
The reviews of particular artists and their work (none of which I can talk about here) are all intriguing, often funny, and very readable. Even so, all the books he expresses interest in and discuss fall under the category of what he calls "art comics", and he focuses primarily on authors who are also artists (with a few exceptions).
Wolk's first chapter describes the situation of comics today with a little back-story on how the 70s and 80s got things moving and shaking in the comics industry. In particular what struck me was his assertion that pop art influenced comics to "[reach] for an effect that wasn't merely entertainment -- and maybe not quite [get] there." On the one hand, there's a certain amount of truth there - many mainstream comics (and art comics) aspired and aspire to a greatness that they never manage - on the other, I'm tempted to ask why a comic book shouldn't be merely entertainment, or at least why it can't be. Some books are made to move us, others to entertain us. If each manages to do what it set out to do, isn't it enough for a comic to be successful?
But then, that's not really the point of the chapter; what Wolk seems to want to say is that because of this reaching attempt, comics are getting better. I agree with him. For all the baggage that comes with comic book terminology (and what little terminology there is), Wolk's observation that the industry today is producing consistently better work does encourage me to agree with him that the real "Golden Age" of comics is right now.
In defending his choice to (and apparent interest in) discuss only "art comics", though, Wolk falls into a trap he himself describes. The idea that "high-brow comics are not really comics but something else (preferably with a fancy name)" is clear in the title of his book. The "graphic novel" dominates academic and most "serious" discussion of comics, and even though Wolk identifies himself as a consumer of comics that don't meet current academic standards, he brutally restricts discussion of them in such a way that reiterates current scholarly prejudice against the mass-marketed, workshop-produced serial that he claims to enjoy.
He says -- in a fit of snarky brilliance -- that "demanding (or wishing for) a place at the table of high culture is an admission that you don't have one; the way you get a place at the table of high culture is to pull up a chair and say something interesting." What boggled me was that even after this, after his defense that some truly great work can come from a shunned and stigma-surrounded field, he chose not to be the person to say something interesting in favor of the mainstream.
He repeats over and over again, throughout the first three chapters, that what he is interested in is not necessarily the "good"-ness (a term he admits is loaded with subjectivity) or even snob-value of any particular work, but style. He maintains that the books that are most likely to have a distinct style, effective storytelling, and worthwhile content are also the books that are most likely to fall into the category of "art comics". He defends this by describing the mainstream comic workshop as "ad-hoc", and asserts (totally incorrectly) that the goal of the mainstream comic is to maintain a bland type of non-style that can be easily transferred from artist to artist. His primary example of such shoddy stylistic tendencies involves Steve McNiven and the likes of Greg Land (who doesn't draw at all, really), completely ignoring the vast and diverse amount of talent that Marvel and DC have working on their books. There is rich variation there, and either it isn't apparent in the books he's picking up, or he doesn't see it in the same light as his categorically arty books.
Interestingly enough, his chapter on art comics and their unifying tendency toward art that is somehow alienating (the thought being that pretty art is something everyone is perceived to enjoy, but the act of enjoying something that is not immediately pleasant isolates the reader) is mirrored somewhat in his fourth chapter on "Superheros and Superreaders." The idea that finding value in something that is not inherently or obviously valuable (be it through the confusing aesthetics of visually or emotionally ugly yet intellectually beautiful works or the belief that so-called "trash" or "low-brow" comics are as worthy as art comics of serious academic study) can intensify one's relationship to, enjoyment of, and interest in that thing resonates well. I'm not sure that Wolk was even aware of the implication he was making, that perhaps one of the reasons "Superreaders" - especially those of us who are academically inclined - might want to pursue study of mainstream "ad-hoc" works because of the same sense of isolation experienced by the champions of "graphic novels" as art and literature.
He even quotes one writer on auteur film in the chapter where he instructs us on "How to Look at Ugly Drawings", likening the interest in comics as they are most commonly known to overzealous study of certain types of film as a way of "becoming connoisseurs of trash". I find that I do "love some frankly trashy comics" and want "to understand whats' meaningful about them and why they have the power that they do." This strikes me as yet another resonant but confusing thing for Wolk to say, it being that his interest in scholarly discussion lies exclusively here with "art comics".
It doesn't help me that his arguments against discussion of the mainstream seem to lie in the same areas that draw me to them: the idea that a series is passed from one group of collaborators to the next, the idea that any writer or artist will be "playing with someone else's toys", the idea that they are meant to be entertaining.
Isn't part of the "good"-ness of the mainstream finding the variation in it, in terms of writing, art, storytelling techniques, use of characters or devices, all coming together into something that isn't just entertaining but also of artistic merit?
It's true that the idea of individual style in comics is a fairly new idea - be the comics commercial endeavors, artistic ones, or a little of both - and Wolk's focus is on the individual creator. The reviews in the second half of the book all focus on the creator, the creator's process, and the creator's mark on the work he or she creates. They are funny, accessible, informative, and best of all, they -- like the rest of the book -- incite discussion. I think that may be (for me, anyway) the greatest value of Reading Comics; it may not say everything I want it to say, and it may not address everything I want it to talk about, but it sure as hell makes me want to pull up a chair to that high-culture table and start talking.
You can get your own copy of Reading Comics: How Graphic Novels Work & What They Mean through your favorite locally-owned bookshop, online through a number of brand-name distributors, or in the graphic novel section at your local Barnes & Noble.
8.17.2007
Itinerary for Wednesday, September 26
This coming Wednesday, I'm going to discuss Douglas Wolk's Reading Comics: How Graphic Novels Work & What They Mean, a series of essays on comics and comic-book culture.
At this time, I intend to focus on the first two or three chapters: "What Comics Are and What They Aren't", "Auteurs, the History of Art Comics, & How to Look at Ugly Drawings", and "What's Good About Bad Comics and What's Bad About Good Comics".
Looking forward to it!
At this time, I intend to focus on the first two or three chapters: "What Comics Are and What They Aren't", "Auteurs, the History of Art Comics, & How to Look at Ugly Drawings", and "What's Good About Bad Comics and What's Bad About Good Comics".
Looking forward to it!
8.16.2007
Beginnings.
Hello, internet.
I'm a student, reader, and collector of comics, here to share my thoughts and ideas about any- and every-thing comics-related that I happen to come across. You can expect anything from reviews of comics and graphic novels to books on comics to open questions and discussions about comics.
This blog will be updated weekly, on Wednesdays, so you can get your regular fix of comic-related opinions here (and anywhere else you like) on schedule.
Cheers!
I'm a student, reader, and collector of comics, here to share my thoughts and ideas about any- and every-thing comics-related that I happen to come across. You can expect anything from reviews of comics and graphic novels to books on comics to open questions and discussions about comics.
This blog will be updated weekly, on Wednesdays, so you can get your regular fix of comic-related opinions here (and anywhere else you like) on schedule.
Cheers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)