Simone's BOP "doesnt' have an aesthetic of its own"

[Gothos]

So says Douglas Wolk in his book READING COMICS, in the midst of making about a two-page comparison between BOP and the Bendis/Maleev DAREDEVIL, which, if I understand Wolk correctly, DOES have an aesthetic of its own.

I *think* he's arguing that because Gail Simone is writing the definitive "mainstream comics circa 2005," her work doesn't have the aesthetic oomph of other, more consciously rule-breaking genre work. But his take on BOP is so short that I can't be sure.

Unless you've read the book yourself, you probably can't comment on Wolk's whole argument. But how does that strike you, to hear that BOP has no "aesthetic of its own?"

[Spiffy]

It sounds kind of like intellectual claptrap to me.

Some people, and many critics, discount old fashioned good storytelling under this insulting label of "mainstream". Basically, if you don't have a gimmick, if you just craft a tale that's direct and what I'd personally refer to as "clean" in its asthetic, then put downs like this are tossed out.

I wonder if Mr. Wolk slaps the same labels on Geoff Johns and Kurt Busiek. Two other DCers who I think generally try to aim for old fashioned story telling over glitz and gimmickery (well, other than Johns' admitted occasional tendency towards hyper-violence).

So to get respect from Wolk, do you have to be a Morrison, a Bendis, a Moore, a Miller, or someone else, with some kind of agenda to stomp all over conventions?

[Charles RB]

Unless you've read the book yourself, you probably can't comment on Wolk's whole argument. But how does that strike you, to hear that BOP has no "aesthetic of its own?"

If we can't comment on Wolk's argument or know what he was actually getting at when he said that, why ask us how it strikes us?

[Infra-Man]

Maybe post an excerpt so people can better comment on what "doesn't have an aesthetic of its own" means.

[the4thpip]

Sounds to me like the kind of guy who would rather eat at a Disney restaurant where the waiters are dressed as cartoon characters than at a place where the food tastes good.

[suedenim]

Sounds to me like the kind of guy who would rather eat at a Disney restaurant where the waiters are dressed as cartoon characters than at a place where the food tastes good.

Nah, that'd be "inauthentic."

But I don't want to put words in Wolk's mouth. I've read a little of his stuff, and he makes some interesting points, but also has a sort of academic lit-crit mindset that can be wearisome at times.

(Is "having an aesthetic of its own" necessarily a good or bad thing, incidentally? Does Wolk assume it is? Ed Wood's work, for instance, clearly has a unique aesthetic all its own, but most people wouldn't praise it.)

[TCJohnson]

Sounds to me like the kind of guy who would rather eat at a Disney restaurant where the waiters are dressed as cartoon characters than at a place where the food tastes good.

I actually think he is the opposite. He is looking for something a little more elegant and upper class where Gail's stuff is the small hamburger joint that makes a really kick ass cheesesteak sub. Bendis's Daredevil probably had more style than BoP, but BoP was more fun!

Still, it is his opinion. It doesn't sound like he was attacking Gail, just her work, so it's all good.

[the4thpip]

I actually think he is the opposite. He is looking for something a little more elegant and upper class where Gail's stuff is the small hamburger joint that makes a really kick ass cheesesteak sub. Bendis's Daredevil probably had more style than BoP, but BoP was more fun!

Still, it is his opinion. It doesn't sound like he was attacking Gail, just her work, so it's all good.

He is talking about Bendis/Maleev! Copy-and-paste writing AND art!!

[Corrina]

I think 'aesthetic' is a fancy word for voice which means 'high falutin literary voice,' which (to some people) means that only 'aesthetics' has merit.

But that could be just me.

In any case, anyone who thinks that Gail's writing, particularly on BoP, doesn't have a unique voice needs to have their head examined.

[TCJohnson]

He is talking about Bendis/Maleev! Copy-and-paste writing AND art!!


I only read some of Bendis's run on Daredevil (He quite shortly after I started collecting comics again), but I have heard a lot of people whose opinoins I respect think very highly of that run.

[Gail Simone]

I've met Douglas, he was a nice enough fellow to my face, of course, but I always thought that was one of the dumbest comments I've ever heard anyone say about Bop. I always say it's okay to be smug, and it's okay to be wrong, but being smug AND wrong is just unforgivable.

He didn't get it, and if he thinks there's nothing subversive about Bop, I'd have to say he's remarkably, astoundingly unobservant. Bop had a fanatical audience that had no use whatsover for the the drab and dreary crying-hero-hugging-a-gravestone stuff that was so common at the time. It brought readers to comics stores that didn't buy any other superhero book. Those people might be surprised to learn that it didn't have its own aesthetic.

He also made some comment about how Bop wouldn't leave a lasting impression over something so GROUNDBREAKING as a book about a grim vigilante (SHOCKING! UNIQUE!). Plus, the point that the book had several artists is just laughingly clueless. Yes, it had different, spectacular artists. The idea that that disallows a consistent guiding vision is just plain obnoxious and offensive, not just to me, but to those artists as well.

Who knows. But the Bop trades are all, every one, reprinted CONSTANTLY. There is still demand for the entire run in trades and Bop is regularly imitated by other books, and I would venture to say in all modesty that no one's quite hit the formula exactly yet, in mainstream comics at least. I have complete respect for Bendis and Daredevil, but I would venture to say that there have been almost no female buddy heroine books in the HISTORY OF COMICS, whereas grim male vigilantes, no matter how well done, are virtually a dime a dozen and certainly not invented when Brian took over that book. If he wants to say Bendis' Daredevil is a BETTER comic than my Bop, fair enough, and that's probably the majority opinion, and that's fine. But "I don't get this, so therefore it is without merit" is why I loathe so much internet criticism in the first place.

I remember him saying there was something hugely entertaining on every page. Yes, Douglas, and that's because of an intentional aesthetic that was deliberate to make that happen.

I like some of his writing on the industry (I think that's where he's much more astute). And it's a pet peeve of mine, one I've had since long, long before I went pro, but anyone who wants to call themselves a 'Savage Critic' is probably not someone I have any interest in reading. Just be a smart critic, and leave the "Oh, I am so SAVAGE," twee horseshit where it belongs, on message boards for junior high kids.

The exception, as always, is Abhay, damn his brilliant hide. Why he hasn't left that site with all the other good writers, I have no idea. I think he's the funniest comics commentator of all time, including Yabs. I wish he would just break down and start writing some comics or film or something, because I think he'd change the world.

Sorry, but 'SAVAGE' critics just make he amused AND sad at the same time. "I'm so SAVAGE!" Snork. As if that takes courage. Sheesh. Grow up, guys.

But that's a separate issue. I haven't read the site for ages, maybe it's better now.

Smug AND wrong, always a bad combination.

The vindication will be if Bop continues to be reprinted, and continues to be imitated and continues to be read and enjoyed, particularly by the audience that Douglas doesn't seem to believe exists.

[Gail Simone]

I only read some of Bendis's run on Daredevil (He quite shortly after I started collecting comics again), but I have heard a lot of people whose opinoins I respect think very highly of that run.

I admit I hadn't followed it too closely...I think I've read two trades, and I have no doubt that it's brilliant. Brian's a brilliant writer. I just like his other stuff better. I don't find Daredevil interesting, even with Brubaker writing it (whom I think is doing the best mainstream stuff, he and Grant Morrison). But I love Torso and Jinx and Fortune and Glory and Powers. I'm a big Bendis fan.

If you want to say his stuff is better than Bop, I won't argue that. But Bop found and held an audience neither company believed existed. A huge part of its sales came from people who didn't buy other superhero books of any kind. And to this day, you still have to scratch your head and think for a while to name another heroine book with an all female cast at either of the majors that had any impact at all, let alone consistently for so many years.

Whatever, it's all silly. He's entitled to his opinion, I'm sure he thinks my criticism of his criticism is as dumb as I thought his review was. That's kind of how it goes since, oh, the beginning of time, when the Savage THARG reviewed QUARG's cave paintings by saying "QUARG CARIBOU MOTIVATION UNCLEAR!"

[Gothos]

It sounds kind of like intellectual claptrap to me.

Some people, and many critics, discount old fashioned good storytelling under this insulting label of "mainstream". Basically, if you don't have a gimmick, if you just craft a tale that's direct and what I'd personally refer to as "clean" in its asthetic, then put downs like this are tossed out.

I wonder if Mr. Wolk slaps the same labels on Geoff Johns and Kurt Busiek. Two other DCers who I think generally try to aim for old fashioned story telling over glitz and gimmickery (well, other than Johns' admitted occasional tendency towards hyper-violence).

So to get respect from Wolk, do you have to be a Morrison, a Bendis, a Moore, a Miller, or someone else, with some kind of agenda to stomp all over conventions?

I don't want to quote Wolk a lot here, as I want to get more into our own estimations of "the aesthetic," but in his first chapter he says:

"What tends to get my attention is style-- a distinctive, coherent, and interesting aesthetic expressed in the way a comic's story is told."

So while he may never come out and admit that he prefers convention-breaking stories as such, I think he's definitely a "singer not the song" kinda guy.

And that's all I wanna quote from him from now on.

[Gothos]

If we can't comment on Wolk's argument or know what he was actually getting at when he said that, why ask us how it strikes us?

Just to get a sense as to what you-all think is "aesthetic."

[suedenim]

Plus, the point that the book had several artists is just laughingly clueless. Yes, it had different, spectacular artists. The idea that that disallows a consistent guiding vision is just plain obnoxious and offensive, not just to me, but to those artists as well.

This is a recurring theme in academic (or, more properly, academic-ish) comics criticism - that there's something innately more worthy about comics that are the product of a single writer-artist. (Or, sigh, if they must farm out the jobs, at least make the writer-artist team the same if you want to be taken seriously by serious lit'rary folk.)

It's kind of the comics equivalent of the equally-stupid "auteur" theory for movies.

[TCJohnson]

If you want to say his stuff is better than Bop, I won't argue that. But Bop found and held an audience neither company believed existed. A huge part of its sales came from people who didn't buy other superhero books of any kind. And to this day, you still have to scratch your head and think for a while to name another heroine book with an all female cast at either of the majors that had any impact at all, let alone consistently for so many years.


What I was saying is, from what I have seen, is that Bendis wrote Daredevil dripping with stylish angst and noir. You, however, just write good, solid, fun comics and I find your stuff more enjoyable.

[Red Jack]

So says Douglas Wolk in his book READING COMICS, in the midst of making about a two-page comparison between BOP and the Bendis/Maleev DAREDEVIL, which, if I understand Wolk correctly, DOES have an aesthetic of its own.

I *think* he's arguing that because Gail Simone is writing the definitive "mainstream comics circa 2005," her work doesn't have the aesthetic oomph of other, more consciously rule-breaking genre work. But his take on BOP is so short that I can't be sure.

Unless you've read the book yourself, you probably can't comment on Wolk's whole argument. But how does that strike you, to hear that BOP has no "aesthetic of its own?"

This is why art criticism is bullshit.

You can't compare THE SAINT or INDIANA JONES (insert subtitle) to THE BOURNE IDENTITY. Sure they're all action/adventure properties but the characteristics that make each successful have no bearing on the others.

HELLBOY isn't IRON MAN even before we start talking about a particular creator's execution.

BoP under Gail's hand was insightful, funny, chock full of action and had the sort of subtle quirkiness that obviously eluded our "critic." I rarely laugh at a Bendis book. Sometimes, but rarely. I rarely find the works insightful. In fact almost never (except for Powers). There's lots of violence in Bendis's Daredevil but not so much with the action/adventure which, to me, is odd for a superhero book.

This "rule breaking" yardstick is just personal taste and, in order to make comparissons, one has to ignore a lot about not only the particular artists in question but about the shared universes in which they write.

I don't consider Bendis's DAREDEVIL to be a "rule breaker" any more than Miller's was. Enough had been done to the character over the years that almost anything Noirish could be plugged into his milieu and not cause a blink. Noirish writing + Maleev's hyper realism makes for a particular tone in a book. For Marvel it's perfectly acceptable to fold this approach into the main universe. So, AFIK, no rules were broken by Bendis in ANY of his Marvel work. He just leans heavy on the Noir. Shocking. Has this guy looked at Bendis's body of work? It's pretty much a Noir fest.

The "critic" is confusing skill with innovation. They aren't the same thing.

DC tends to segregate "darker" works into VERTIGO or ELSEWORLDS. It's often the case that "darker" equates in the minds of many "critics" as more complex or "better." If you took some of the arcs Gail wrote and had Maleev doing art instead of Benes, you'd find that a good number of critics would find it "rule breaking" and dark. The Canary/Shiva/Cheshire arc would have looked like a completely different take on BoP without Gail's changing a single word.

I think a lot of geeks are like so-called Self-hating (insert ethnicity or gender) only they actually do hate themselves in some way. Or, rather, they feel they need to apologize for their continued involvement with reading "kid" comics as adults. They need some "mainstream gravitas" to apply to their hobby in order not to feel like it's something shameful. Liking Watchmen is okay but enjoying or finding value in Zot! makes you an emotionally stunted geek.

Balls.

I love Gail's work for precisely the reason I enjoy Bendis's. It has a unique voice that I can peg even if there are no credits listed. There's no more than that in Bendis's work and no less than that in Gail's.

I never understand why, for some to enjoy something, something else must automatically be made lesser.

[Corrina]

I don't think that Bendis/Maleev's run is all that different or groundbreaking. What it mostly has going for it is great brooding art by Maleev but, let's face it, it doesn't have original plotting and Bendis' dialogue is far too stylized at times.

As Gail said, "ooo! brooding dark superhero! Never seen that before!"

This would be why, actually, that I prefer Iron Man to The Dark Knight. Iron Man is all about character and while everyone dismisses it as a Robert Downey fun, fluff piece they're forgetting that they finally captured the essence of a SUPER hero on screen in a way that wasn't overdone or silly and it also creates one of the best examples of how gifted children grow and develop.

DK wanted to make a specific thematic point. It makes that well. But it sometimes sacrificed plot and character to do that.

Iron Man finally got the FUN of superheroes right. To me, that's more groundbreaking and difficult to get on the screen than getting the theme of 'the world is chaos and some people must sacrifice" on the screen--that's been done.

[suedenim]

I don't consider Bendis's DAREDEVIL to be a "rule breaker" any more than Miller's was. Enough had been done to the character over the years that almost anything Noirish could be plugged into his milieu and not cause a blink. Noirish writing + Maleev's hyper realism makes for a particular tone in a book. For Marvel it's perfectly acceptable to fold this approach into the main universe. So, AFIK, no rules were broken by Bendis in ANY of his Marvel work. He just leans heavy on the Noir. Shocking. Has this guy looked at Bendis's body of work? It's pretty much a Noir fest.

The "critic" is confusing skill with innovation. They aren't the same thing.


Yeah, at what point can we finally say we've seen enough Noir imitations, homages, and knock-offs to say it's no longer new and different?

(Disclaimer: I haven't read Bendis' Daredevil myself. I'm sure it's quite good, but I've come to the realization - similar to Gail's, I think - that there's a huge amount of good material about Daredevil, but that I don't particularly care for the character.)

[Gothos]

Gail said:

Plus, the point that the book had several artists is just laughingly clueless. Yes, it had different, spectacular artists. The idea that that disallows a consistent guiding vision is just plain obnoxious and offensive, not just to me, but to those artists as well.

Exactly, under those strictures Gaiman's SANDMAN, too, would have to be said to lack an aesthetic.(I quit reading before I could see whether or not Wolk mentions Gaiman in RC, but he doesn't give him a chapter-heading, anyway).

I remember him saying there was something hugely entertaining on every page. Yes, Douglas, and that's because of an intentional aesthetic that was deliberate to make that happen.

Also agreed. As I pointed out today on THE BEAT, there are literary games in which one stays within the rules and those in which one breaks the rules. The game that observes the rules is not automatically less "aesthetic" than the rule-breaking one.

[Gothos]

Red Jack said:

This is why art criticism is bullshit.

Being a critic myself, I wouldn't go quite that far.

I never understand why, for some to enjoy something, something else must automatically be made lesser.

I do think that making estimations about "better" and "worse" always leads to such comparisons. I certainly think I'm a better critic than Wolk, though I don't take any special pleasure in that.
__________________

[Gail Simone]

Let me float THIS out there.

Bop was a hundred times more risky a proposition than a grim and gritty take on a character who had only ever sold well when it was grim and gritty.

I'm talking at the conceptual stage.

Now, because Brian's brilliant and because Brian's no one's xerox, he took the book to new places. But Marvel's never going to cancel Daredevil, not since Miller. It just will never happen. They will find a way to make that book successful enough to continue. When bop started, it was absolutely not guaranteed to still be running twelve, even eight issues later. In fact, it must've seemed terribly unlikely. And when I took it over, I want to stress this, it WAS GOING TO BE CANCELED.

We were a hail mary pass. They had given the book to two of the most respected writers in the HISTORY of North American comics after Chuck left, and sales and reader interest plummeted. Even the reviews were not kind.

What's riskier at that point? Taking a book you KNOW won't be canceled under any conditions, featuring a popular male hero that had once been the best-selling title at the best selling company, or the struggling book of c-list females that was going to be canceled and was connected to a canceled television series that no one wanted to admit existed that had just gone through a floundering year, that no one had any faith at all could be revived?

Bop broke a metric ton of ground, whether Douglas gets it or not. It just was DIFFERENT ground, but for a lot of female readers and female-friendly readers in particular, it was damned IMPORTANT ground, and it showed both companies something important, as well, that a female-led team can hold the audience, be a critical success, bring in new readers, make a profit, and invigorate a host of characters and still be entertaining.

I think people are going to look back and see Bop as pivotal in a small way, the entire run, not just my bits. It made female books more credible and viable.

That's important, to me, anyway, and to a lot of readers like me.

[Gail Simone]

Gail said:

.

Exactly, under those strictures Gaiman's SANDMAN, too, would have to be said to lack an aesthetic.(I quit reading before I could see whether or not Wolk mentions Gaiman in RC, but he doesn't give him a chapter-heading, anyway).



Also agreed. As I pointed out today on THE BEAT, there are literary games in which one stays within the rules and those in which one breaks the rules. The game that observes the rules is not automatically less "aesthetic" than the rule-breaking one.

How did we stay within the rules, though?

Before Bop, there hadn't ever BEEN a book like it, really. There's a ton of stuff in bop that I'd say happened for the first time in that series. And no one really felt it would have any impact. And it's obviously had an influence.

Bleah, this isn't really stuff I like to talk about, but presenting bop as a 'rules-follower' is a mistake, I think, and sort of discounts how new this stuff was at the time (AND all the fighting I had to do to make some of it happen! ;) )

[Gail Simone]

I DO like Bendis' work a lot. I just yesterday posted about one of my favorite graphic novels, a book he did called Fortune and Glory. But I'm just saying that when you talk RISK, there was infinitely more risk involved in putting out a book called BIRDS OF PREY than one called DAREDEVIL.

Not to say he didn't run with it and take risks because he ABSOLUTELY DID. I just mean the book's basic uniqueness and perceived market viability.

[Gail Simone]

Red Jack said:



Being a critic myself, I wouldn't go quite that far.

I

I do think that making estimations about "better" and "worse" always leads to such comparisons. I certainly think I'm a better critic than Wolk, though I don't take any special pleasure in that.
__________________



I like critics. The truth is, even bad criticism can be fun. When the critic falls into that deadly, dreary, condescending mode, they always lose me.

I think in my career, I've probably been genuinely annoyed by maybe five reviews. And in one case, it was a rave. It's really more a matter of tone than anything else, but I DO loathe factual errors in reviews. If you can't be bothered to actually READ the book well, why the fuck should I care what you say about it?

[Gail Simone]

I'm making this sound like a bigger deal than it is. In the end, it's just an opinion, not a big deal at all.

Still will always hate 'savage' critics of any kind. What a waste of effort.

[West Mantooth]

Off topic, over at Newsarma, Gail

EVS wants to know where that Wonder Woman story is.:biggrin:




I haven't read BOP, but I did read almost all of DD under Bendis. I do think Maleev's gritty art style made what was a good story into something much more substantial. Comics are a collaborative business. Visuals affect how something is remembered long after you finish seeing or reading it. I'm an artist so I'm biased though.

[jesse_custer]

I never understand why, for some to enjoy something, something else must automatically be made lesser.

That's what critics are supposed to do. They're supposed to give you an idea of relative quality. If you don't enjoy or respect that kind of evaluation, that's one thing, but just as it doesn't make any sense to criticize a painter for painting ...

[suedenim]

What's riskier at that point? Taking a book you KNOW won't be canceled under any conditions, featuring a popular male hero that had once been the best-selling title at the best selling company, or the struggling book of c-list females that was going to be canceled and was connected to a canceled television series that no one wanted to admit existed that had just gone through a floundering year, that no one had any faith at all could be revived?


Along the same lines, BoP has always, conceptually, felt "riskier" to me, as a reader - with something of an "anything can happen" vibe to it. Granted, some of that's inherent in a book of C-list female characters (who can be messed around with more freely) vis-a-vis an A-list solo hero, but still, it works against the notion of BoP as "same old, same old."

[Gail Simone]

Off topic, over at Newsarma, Gail

EVS wants to know where that Wonder Woman story is.:biggrin:




I haven't read BOP, but I did read almost all of DD under Bendis. I do think Maleev's gritty art style made what was a good story into something much more substantial. Comics are a collaborative business. Visuals affect how something is remembered long after you finish seeing or reading it. I'm an artist so I'm biased though.

Absolutely it's a collaborative business. I've fought for a long time to get my pencillers' names before mine on the credits but neither company will allow that yet.

But Douglas' automatic assigning 'singular vision' to an artist/writer team is silly to start with. The degree of conceptual collaboration between the writer and artist vary so hugely that no blanket statement can be made with any validity at all. I've had artists who are nearly co-writers, and I've had artists who don't contribute a speck beyond drawing what's in the script. Is the latter REALLY more indicative of a 'singular vision' than a series of deeper collaborations with a series of dedicated artists?

Eh, I don't know, I get pissy about this stuff because there IS no one way to make good comics and I just want to pull the pants down every time some 'expert' poo-poos one over the other.

[Gail Simone]

Along the same lines, BoP has always, conceptually, felt "riskier" to me, as a reader - with something of an "anything can happen" vibe to it. Granted, some of that's inherent in a book of C-list female characters (who can be messed around with more freely) vis-a-vis an A-list solo hero, but still, it works against the notion of BoP as "same old, same old."

Right and the flipside is also true. They KNEW there was an audience for Daredevil. They did not KNOW there was an audience for bop, and in fact, history would seem to have said otherwise in every possible way.

Again, this is NOT ABOUT DAREDEVIL. The first Bendis issue I read of that book was innovative as hell. I just never liked the character that much (though I followed closely when Miller wrote it, I admit). I have no doubt that all the praise heaped on that run is well-deserved.

But we were the far bigger risk, that's all.

[Black Atom]

One criticism I've had about Gail's BoP run was that I felt Ed Benes (who I think is an otherwise terrific artist) didn't really play to Gail's strengths as a writer. In fact, it sometimes felt at odds with the voice of the book. Maybe that's what Wolk's referring to when he mentions "aesthetic"? I tend to be in the minority with that opinion, though.

[West Mantooth]

Absolutely it's a collaborative business. I've fought for a long time to get my pencillers' names before mine on the credits but neither company will allow that yet.

But Douglas' automatic assigning 'singular vision' to an artist/writer team is silly to start with. The degree of conceptual collaboration between the writer and artist vary so hugely that no blanket statement can be made with any validity at all. I've had artists who are nearly co-writers, and I've had artists who don't contribute a speck beyond drawing what's in the script. Is the latter REALLY more indicative of a 'singular vision' than a series of deeper collaborations with a series of dedicated artists?

Eh, I don't know, I get pissy about this stuff because there IS no one way to make good comics and I just want to pull the pants down every time some 'expert' poo-poos one over the other.

It sounds like a marriage.:biggrin:

[scout1279]

One criticism I've had about Gail's BoP run was that I felt Ed Benes (who I think is an otherwise terrific artist) didn't really play to Gail's strengths as a writer. In fact, it sometimes felt at odds with the voice of the book. Maybe that's what Wolk's referring to when he mentions "aesthetic"? I tend to be in the minority with that opinion, though.
I don't know. Even if that is what he means, that's an aesthetic in itself. Everything has an "aesthetic." Frankly, I think it's rather dubious to use the word in relation to something that isn't purely visual. Ed Benes' art has a clear aesthetic. It may or may not have jibed well with Gail's writing, but it clearly evokes something.

[Michael P]

One thing I noticed about Wolk is that he's very art-focused as a critic. So when he's talking about an "aesthetic of its own," I think he means visual consistency and development under one artist. And, not to knock Benes or Joe Bennet or any of the other artists on BOP, but the meat in there, for a large portion of the run, was in the writing. And that's perfectly fine, but I can see where a book with a more solid art team that can build on itself over a long amount of time (like the Bendis/Maleev DD partnership, or JMS and John Romita Jr. on Amazing Spider-Man from 2001-2004) would be more up his alley.

Certainly I would say the writing on BOP had a voice more its own than Bendis on DD, which was basically "Yeah, Miller's Daredevil was great, so here's some more of it!" (Which is largely what the voice on Brubaker's DD is as well, but that's another topic.)

[Gail Simone]

Really?

I didn't get a Miller vibe from Bendis or Brubaker. They're much too distinctive to just imitate someone else.


And you might be right that he was referring to the art, but that seems pretty myopic.

Hmmm. I have to rethink this, maybe.

[TCJohnson]

Seems to me that if you take any series that runs for more than 12 issues, you are going to get a change in artist. Books where the artist stays for a long time is the exception not the rule.

[Stressfactor]

Not to discount the fact that BoP totally passed the "Bechdel Rules" test.

From Alison Bechdel who wrote that she would only go to see a movie IF: 1. At least two female characters, who ...2. talk to each other about...3. something besides a man.

BoP was full of female characters who not only talked to one another about stuff besides men, they also discussed stuff besides superheroing.

[Sarah Beach]

Let me float THIS out there.

Bop was a hundred times more risky a proposition than a grim and gritty take on a character who had only ever sold well when it was grim and gritty.

I'm talking at the conceptual stage.

Now, because Brian's brilliant and because Brian's no one's xerox, he took the book to new places. But Marvel's never going to cancel Daredevil, not since Miller. It just will never happen. They will find a way to make that book successful enough to continue. When bop started, it was absolutely not guaranteed to still be running twelve, even eight issues later. In fact, it must've seemed terribly unlikely. And when I took it over, I want to stress this, it WAS GOING TO BE CANCELED.

We were a hail mary pass. They had given the book to two of the most respected writers in the HISTORY of North American comics after Chuck left, and sales and reader interest plummeted. Even the reviews were not kind.

What's riskier at that point? Taking a book you KNOW won't be canceled under any conditions, featuring a popular male hero that had once been the best-selling title at the best selling company, or the struggling book of c-list females that was going to be canceled and was connected to a canceled television series that no one wanted to admit existed that had just gone through a floundering year, that no one had any faith at all could be revived?

Bop broke a metric ton of ground, whether Douglas gets it or not. It just was DIFFERENT ground, but for a lot of female readers and female-friendly readers in particular, it was damned IMPORTANT ground, and it showed both companies something important, as well, that a female-led team can hold the audience, be a critical success, bring in new readers, make a profit, and invigorate a host of characters and still be entertaining.

I think people are going to look back and see Bop as pivotal in a small way, the entire run, not just my bits. It made female books more credible and viable.

That's important, to me, anyway, and to a lot of readers like me.

Hear! Hear!

You betcha!

I have been aboard the BOP train since the very beginning. (I'm still proud of getting a letter of comment printed in the first letter col in the first issue of the ongoing series! It's the ONE letter of comment I like to brag about. :biggrin: ) A team of female heroes who didn't need oversight from male characters, didn't need HELP from male characters, who got to shine because they deserved to shine in stories without being overshadowed by the "more traditional" male characters -- this was a very big thing to me as a long-time (female) comics reader. And it did all this without the "Anti-Male Militant Feminist" clutter that made the end of Black Canary's solo series rather unpleasant.

These were characters I liked, that I would want to be. Sure they liked men, but they do not consider their lives to revolve around the men in their lives, nor do they consider themselves somehow maimed for being single women.

THAT is BOP's "aesthetic".

[scout1279]

One thing I noticed about Wolk is that he's very art-focused as a critic. So when he's talking about an "aesthetic of its own," I think he means visual consistency and development under one artist. And, not to knock Benes or Joe Bennet or any of the other artists on BOP, but the meat in there, for a large portion of the run, was in the writing. And that's perfectly fine, but I can see where a book with a more solid art team that can build on itself over a long amount of time (like the Bendis/Maleev DD partnership, or JMS and John Romita Jr. on Amazing Spider-Man from 2001-2004) would be more up his alley.

Certainly I would say the writing on BOP had a voice more its own than Bendis on DD, which was basically "Yeah, Miller's Daredevil was great, so here's some more of it!" (Which is largely what the voice on Brubaker's DD is as well, but that's another topic.)
Which completely makes sense if he is talking about "aesthetic," but then it's disingenuous to even compare a run that had a change in artists to one that did not.

[Major Comma]

I am not sure I understand exactly what "astethic" means,
But that Gail Simone sure writes stories real good!

[Michael P]

Which completely makes sense if he is talking about "aesthetic," but then it's disingenuous to even compare a run that had a change in artists to one that did not.

Well, I think he's using the two as examples in order to poke holes in the (perceived) "assembly line" process of construction that most mainstream superhero comics go through.

[mattx110]

Right and the flipside is also true. They KNEW there was an audience for Daredevil. They did not KNOW there was an audience for bop, and in fact, history would seem to have said otherwise in every possible way.

Again, this is NOT ABOUT DAREDEVIL. The first Bendis issue I read of that book was innovative as hell. I just never liked the character that much (though I followed closely when Miller wrote it, I admit). I have no doubt that all the praise heaped on that run is well-deserved.

But we were the far bigger risk, that's all.
Everything has an aesthetic that's a visual medium, so it's kind of a meaningless claim anyway. Daredevil has been "cult" for a while, but as hard to cancel as it was to sell. How did Dixon's BoP do? Bird of Prey doesn't have the history as a title as Daredevil, but it's also not coming out of nowhere. The book has been around a while (at least in mini-series), and the characters longer. But yeah, just the fact that it's female leads and no Batman in a bat-related book makes people skip over. Even Batman being in a book isn't always a sure-sell.
Really?

I didn't get a Miller vibe from Bendis or Brubaker. They're much too distinctive to just imitate someone else.


And you might be right that he was referring to the art, but that seems pretty myopic.

Hmmm. I have to rethink this, maybe.
Murdock's voice seems relatively stable for being written by a few different writers over the years. His personality, his ability to be a complete jerk for a while and not lose the reader (or at least you can latch on to Foggy for a couple issues). The same criminal running gags are going on (Turk is still around). Having multiple mental health lapses. It does seem like the same (soap opera on acid) story running for decades rather than a clear distinction between arcs from different writers in some ways, even though it's obviously very different pacing, art and dialogue-wise.

Also, anyone who says "it's like that, but on LSD" or "like this but on acid" is kinda being silly. But I still said it. Not sure what that means.

[Red Jack]

Red Jack said:



Being a critic myself, I wouldn't go quite that far.

I

I do think that making estimations about "better" and "worse" always leads to such comparisons. I certainly think I'm a better critic than Wolk, though I don't take any special pleasure in that.
__________________



I tend to speak bluntly; I'm sorry for any ruffles but, IMO, the only opinion of art that matters is that of the person who's paying for it.

If a reader who paid 8 bucks for my book complains that it was hard to follow or didn't focus enough on character X, I'm going to take that a hell of a lot more seriously than the same crit coming from a person who went in with the mindset of deconstructing and analyzing the work and therefore experiences it in a way for which it was not intended.

There are three primary differences between an art "critic" and an audience member.

1) the critic is not capable of simply experiencing the piece. It's like Uncertainty in physics. The act of observation, in the critic's case, muddies the ability to see what's there.

2) the audience member has no agenda other than personal satisfaction when they sample a given work.

3) generally the audience member doesn't have a stack of bogus theories and "schools of thought" to bring to bear in support of what is nothing more than someone's personal opinion.

I like good reviews. Who doesn't like a compliment? They make me feel good and they can, in some cases, boost sales. But I'll take a stack of "Whoa! Cool!" from "laypeople" over a single glowing "critical" review any day of the week.

As an audience member I'm the same. I couldn't care less what Ebert and Roeper say. I ask people coming out of a movie I plan to see how they enjoyed it. If enough of them do, or are particularly enthused about it, I'm satisfied I likely will also.

It's nothing personal. I just think Art Critics are like that person at a party who, while you are CLEARLY trying to chat up the hot girl you've been dancing with for an hour, keeps trying to talk to her about religion and politics.

Dude. Back up. This is a two-person thing happening here.

Y'know?

Damn.

[jesse_custer]

1) the critic is not capable of simply experiencing the piece.

I have to call bullshit on this one. Not all critics are like that.

[Michael P]

I have to call bullshit on this one. Not all critics are like that.

In fact, I'd call it the distinction between a good critic and a bad one. Or one of them, anyway.

[Gail Simone]

Yeah, I don't want to paint all critics with the 'patronizing twerp' brush, not all of them are like that at all, in fact I'd say most AREN'T like that. I don't even think DOUGLAS is like that.

There are good critics and bad critics, just like anything.

[Black Atom]

Everything has an aesthetic that's a visual medium, so it's kind of a meaningless claim anyway. Daredevil has been "cult" for a while, but as hard to cancel as it was to sell. How did Dixon's BoP do? Bird of Prey doesn't have the history as a title as Daredevil, but it's also not coming out of nowhere. The book has been around a while (at least in mini-series), and the characters longer. But yeah, just the fact that it's female leads and no Batman in a bat-related book makes people skip over. Even Batman being in a book isn't always a sure-sell.


Well, I think the claim is that it didn't have a cohesive, deliberate or well-crafted aesthetic.

[hichaec]

I think Wolk has a point in there, maybe - but I'd have to read the whole argument to be sure. I do think that BoP's aesthetic (note that Wolk didn't say that the book didn't have one, just that it [apparently] didn't have one of its own - of course all comics have "an aesthetic") is less distinct than Daredevil's.

That said, I think this "point" only works because the comparison is inherently flawed.

Say what you will about the content of Daredevil (dark brooding hero against the world, etc. etc.), it did have one thing really going for it: we got to see the Marvel U through a single, highly focused lens. Matt's NYC was worlds away from Peter Parker's NYC, and at times Matt's entire world just seemed almost detached from the greater Marvel U. It was like Bendis had just up and built a new world around Matt. Granted, a lot of this was due to Maleev's fab art, which really set the mood, but still - to me, it was as though DD's world was not only full and vibrant, but also presented from a distinct PoV that was more or less uniform throughout the series.

This is what I would call the series' aesthetic: its use of a singular narrative voice, heavily character-driven perception (and thus presentation) of the book's setting, and, yes, its consistent art all combined to present a distinct angle on the Marvel U that survived tonal shifts and new story-arcs and even interference from the big "events" of the time.

With BoP, we got something else entirely, and it's a good thing we did because at its heart BoP was all about the ensemble - the play off of characters with each other. We didn't need - nor want, as far as I'm concerned - the single driving viewpoint to color the story. Instead we got multiple PoVs, each one hugely individual; the book was not spiraling around the story and actions of any one of the characters, but was a wonderful tangle of all of their individual story lines and motivations.

I think that this will invariably lead to some loss as far as a long-running comic's "aesthetic" goes. The only really unified PoV we get through the entirety of the run is what we can discern of the author's view (and me being myself, I don't really concern myself with "but what was the author thinking here?" types of questions).

So that's one way in which I think the comparison is a bit silly: DD had a single character at its heart and was thus able to produce a distinct narrative and a setting built around what was essentially one character's perceptions. BoP had an ensemble cast who each had separate (and at times conflicting) views of the world around them, making such a story almost impossible.

Another way in which I feel the comparison fails is that the focus of each book was totally different. DD was at its heart one man, one city; BoP was three (often more) women, seven continents.

Frankly, expecting all of the places the Birds visited to be presented in the same distinct aesthetic style would be a massive disservice to the places they travelled. A story set in Metropolis absolutely should not have the same aesthetic as one set in a shanty town in China. So not only was BoP giving us multiple PoVs, it was giving us multiple (hugely different) settings at the same time, each one interacting with the characters in different ways. It's like an exponential increase from what DD was giving its reader.

So of course the book didn't have one distinct aesthetic vein running throughout it. Expecting as much would be asking for a book that I, at least, wouldn't like very much. BoP had a strong voice, but the "aesthetic" wasn't as unified as what we got from DD - and I think that's a good thing!

Like I said - I think Wolk might have a point, if I'm getting his meaning regarding a comic's "aesthetic." I just don't think it's a very useful way to look at these two comics, since they are so different.

[Infra-Man]

I have to call bullshit on this one. Not all critics are like that.

For true. Pauline Kael was all about the movie itself and the experience of it, and never really made film theory or even film mechanics the focus of her stuff.

Years after her death, she is still one of the best film critics of all time and a really damn good writer on top of that (or maybe she's one of the best film critics of all time because she was a really damn good writer).

[jesse_custer]

In fact, I'd call it the distinction between a good critic and a bad one. Or one of them, anyway.

Absolutely. Another distinction of a good critic might be not saying things like "This is Tarantino's most urgent work to date."

For true. Pauline Kael was all about the movie itself and the experience of it, and never really made film theory or even film mechanics the focus of her stuff.

Years after her death, she is still one of the best film critics of all time and a really damn good writer on top of that (or maybe she's one of the best film critics of all time because she was a really damn good writer).

I started reading about her, and since I mentioned Tarantino, he said that she was one of the biggest influences on his own aesthetic.


In general, the best critics enhance the work or help you understand it (whether they're positive or negative).

[mattx110]

Well, I think the claim is that it didn't have a cohesive, deliberate or well-crafted aesthetic.
Ah, thanks, that makes more sense than what I took from it. Well, that has two answers. Becuase it's a single writer (hi there), but different artists, the aesthetic changes. The writing might be single voice, single vision, but as has probably been stated 20 times by now, you've not only got to stay with the definition of aestheticism, but be clear about what you are applying that theory to.

Something can be worked on by a few different people and still be itself.

[Gothos]

How did we stay within the rules, though?

Before Bop, there hadn't ever BEEN a book like it, really. There's a ton of stuff in bop that I'd say happened for the first time in that series. And no one really felt it would have any impact. And it's obviously had an influence.

Bleah, this isn't really stuff I like to talk about, but presenting bop as a 'rules-follower' is a mistake, I think, and sort of discounts how new this stuff was at the time (AND all the fighting I had to do to make some of it happen! ;) )

Well, in the case the "rules" would be those that are seen as applying to superhero genre-books generally, not just superhero books starring women, or "for the first time in that series." I agree with your earlier statement that BOP is significant across the board, though.

Now I don't think Wolk's comparison between DAREDEVIL and BOP is very apt, but here's one way in which one *could* perceive the first as more "rule-breaking": the narrative strategy regarding temporal events. Wolk makes much of the fact that at some point Bendis has the Daredevil book jump forward about a year after Murdock's identity becomes known. This is the sort of stratagem that calls attention to how the creators are breaking with the standard rules of the superhero genre: not only revealing the hero's identity for all time but also choosing to opt out of the soap-opera "a day in the life" approach dominant in the genre since the 60s.

I reiterate: I am not saying that this stratagem is better than "day in the life." But I am saying that there are readers who would be impressed by the former, whereas BOP would just seem business as usual in the soap-operatic format.

That's what I mean by staying within the rules, or at least in a perceived portion of the rules. But even within the rules of a game, some people play it very well, with a lot of panache, and other people just go through the motions. So there *should* be no stigma against partial conformity to rules. But in some quarters, there is.

[Gail Simone]

I think Wolk has a point in there, maybe - but I'd have to read the whole argument to be sure. I do think that BoP's aesthetic (note that Wolk didn't say that the book didn't have one, just that it [apparently] didn't have one of its own - of course all comics have "an aesthetic") is less distinct than Daredevil's.

That said, I think this "point" only works because the comparison is inherently flawed.

Say what you will about the content of Daredevil (dark brooding hero against the world, etc. etc.), it did have one thing really going for it: we got to see the Marvel U through a single, highly focused lens. Matt's NYC was worlds away from Peter Parker's NYC, and at times Matt's entire world just seemed almost detached from the greater Marvel U. It was like Bendis had just up and built a new world around Matt. Granted, a lot of this was due to Maleev's fab art, which really set the mood, but still - to me, it was as though DD's world was not only full and vibrant, but also presented from a distinct PoV that was more or less uniform throughout the series.

This is what I would call the series' aesthetic: its use of a singular narrative voice, heavily character-driven perception (and thus presentation) of the book's setting, and, yes, its consistent art all combined to present a distinct angle on the Marvel U that survived tonal shifts and new story-arcs and even interference from the big "events" of the time.

With BoP, we got something else entirely, and it's a good thing we did because at its heart BoP was all about the ensemble - the play off of characters with each other. We didn't need - nor want, as far as I'm concerned - the single driving viewpoint to color the story. Instead we got multiple PoVs, each one hugely individual; the book was not spiraling around the story and actions of any one of the characters, but was a wonderful tangle of all of their individual story lines and motivations.

I think that this will invariably lead to some loss as far as a long-running comic's "aesthetic" goes. The only really unified PoV we get through the entirety of the run is what we can discern of the author's view (and me being myself, I don't really concern myself with "but what was the author thinking here?" types of questions).

So that's one way in which I think the comparison is a bit silly: DD had a single character at its heart and was thus able to produce a distinct narrative and a setting built around what was essentially one character's perceptions. BoP had an ensemble cast who each had separate (and at times conflicting) views of the world around them, making such a story almost impossible.

Another way in which I feel the comparison fails is that the focus of each book was totally different. DD was at its heart one man, one city; BoP was three (often more) women, seven continents.

Frankly, expecting all of the places the Birds visited to be presented in the same distinct aesthetic style would be a massive disservice to the places they travelled. A story set in Metropolis absolutely should not have the same aesthetic as one set in a shanty town in China. So not only was BoP giving us multiple PoVs, it was giving us multiple (hugely different) settings at the same time, each one interacting with the characters in different ways. It's like an exponential increase from what DD was giving its reader.

So of course the book didn't have one distinct aesthetic vein running throughout it. Expecting as much would be asking for a book that I, at least, wouldn't like very much. BoP had a strong voice, but the "aesthetic" wasn't as unified as what we got from DD - and I think that's a good thing!

Like I said - I think Wolk might have a point, if I'm getting his meaning regarding a comic's "aesthetic." I just don't think it's a very useful way to look at these two comics, since they are so different.


That was a very interesting post. You should post more often.

Also, waffles.

[Gothos]

Red Jack said:
I tend to speak bluntly; I'm sorry for any ruffles but, IMO, the only opinion of art that matters is that of the person who's paying for it.

Didn't ruffle my feathers; I just think you're wrong. And usually, in the comics world most critics do pay for the books they review. If they get freebies it's usually because either the artist or publisher is soliciting an opinion for the sake of publicity.

the critic is not capable of simply experiencing the piece. It's like Uncertainty in physics. The act of observation, in the critic's case, muddies the ability to see what's there.

But you could say the exact same thing about the average reader, who also brings his own set of beliefs and prejudices to the work. The only thing that's different is that he *may* not have a bully pulpit from which to air his opinions. It would be totally an individual thing if the critic gets caught up in showing off his own cleverness-- which, btw, I think Wolk does.

[Charles RB]

From Alison Bechdel who wrote that she would only go to see a movie IF: 1. At least two female characters, who ...2. talk to each other about...3. something besides a man.


I hope she enjoyed Neil Marshall's Doomsday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_(film)).

[jesse_custer]

Didn't ruffle my feathers; I just think you're wrong. And usually, in the comics world most critics do pay for the books they review. If they get freebies it's usually because either the artist or publisher is soliciting an opinion for the sake of publicity.

Journalists are frowned upon by peers if they take things for free, including critics.

[Corrina]

Well, in the case the "rules" would be those that are seen as applying to superhero genre-books generally, not just superhero books starring women, or "for the first time in that series." I agree with your earlier statement that BOP is significant across the board, though.

Now I don't think Wolk's comparison between DAREDEVIL and BOP is very apt, but here's one way in which one *could* perceive the first as more "rule-breaking": the narrative strategy regarding temporal events. Wolk makes much of the fact that at some point Bendis has the Daredevil book jump forward about a year after Murdock's identity becomes known. This is the sort of stratagem that calls attention to how the creators are breaking with the standard rules of the superhero genre: not only revealing the hero's identity for all time but also choosing to opt out of the soap-opera "a day in the life" approach dominant in the genre since the 60s.

See, I don't see this as rule breaking at all, I see this as whiffing following up the emotional events and then using a narrative trick to hook the reader into wondering what happened during the year in between.

Good writing is good writing. Narrative tricks neither add nor detract from that, though they may hook some people not familiar with them.

[Gothos]

Journalists are frowned upon by peers if they take things for free, including critics.

Do you think Roger Ebert's peers frown on him because he probably hasn't paid for a movie in years? Really?

They may envy him, that much I'll grant.

Critics/reviewers are usually only given contempt if it becomes clear that everything they get free gets a good review.

[jesse_custer]

Well, supposedly and/or ideally, I mean.

I think people frown upon Ebert because he's a shitkicker.

[Spiffy]

See, I don't see this as rule breaking at all, I see this as whiffing following up the emotional events and then using a narrative trick to hook the reader into wondering what happened during the year in between.

Good writing is good writing. Narrative tricks neither add nor detract from that, though they may hook some people not familiar with them.

Narrative tricks CAN detract if the writer falls in love with the trick at the expense of the plot. Then again, you DID specify "good writing", not bad.

Take a look at the much ballyhooed "Lost". At times it seems like its ALL tricks, and nothing but. The actual narrative gets lost (pardon the pun) in the tricks, rather than enhanced by it.

[Red Jack]

But you could say the exact same thing about the average reader, who also brings his own set of beliefs and prejudices to the work.

No. The "average" reader is looking for an experience, a private one, that begins and ends with the reader. The critic, going in, has the intent of later spewing his or her assessments for public consumption with an eye to shifting minds in one direction or the other.

The second you put on your "critic hat" you stop being an audience member and become a middle man or backseat driver. Fan reviews, such as you find on AMAZON, are helpful to me and I presume other writers the same way a letters page or community board can be. that's regular folks, at whom the work is directed, making simple-but-direct descriptions of their own personal experiences. It's venting, rather than directing.

What makes the critic's POV worth more that that of the "average" fan? Nothing. Literally nothing. And there are requirements of the job that make their opinions, iMo, essentially worthless except to other members of the chattering class. No thanks.

The only thing that's different is that he *may* not have a bully pulpit from which to air his opinions. It would be totally an individual thing if the critic gets caught up in showing off his own cleverness-- which, btw, I think Wolk does.

It's not a matter of their relative cleverness but the weight that is given to their opinions. I don't care how great the writing is, no professional critic, ever, did more to help an artist than the straight out response of the actual members of his or her audience. But they have destroyed careers. In fact professional critics are often caught out when they fail to grasp something that is patently obvious to the people who just showed up to see a show.

They are a necessary evil and some of them are ocassionally funny or even insightful but not so much so that they should be paid any actual attention.

Critics are in the business of telling others how to think. To me that means they're in the way unless, and only unless, their "criticism" works as an advertisement to get more asses in the seats.

[OzBat!]

So, if BoP doesn't have an aesthetic of its own, whose aesthetic DOES it have? Did it borrow, steal, rent-to-buy one from some other book? What other book out there has the same aesthetic as BoP, that we can look to see if it's currently missing theirs and thus return the aesthetic to its rightful owner?

[Michael P]

So, if BoP doesn't have an aesthetic of its own, whose aesthetic DOES it have? Did it borrow, steal, rent-to-buy one from some other book? What other book out there has the same aesthetic as BoP, that we can look to see if it's currently missing theirs and thus return the aesthetic to its rightful owner?

It was all a big mix-up in the warehouse. They get so busy around the holidays.

[Tobias March]

So, if BoP doesn't have an aesthetic of its own, whose aesthetic DOES it have? Did it borrow, steal, rent-to-buy one from some other book? What other book out there has the same aesthetic as BoP, that we can look to see if it's currently missing theirs and thus return the aesthetic to its rightful owner?

It's an attempt to disdain any unique character to the book at all, which is nonsense but never mind. See I agree with Red Jack to a point. Criticism typically short-changes the reader seeking information about a film or a book, as for the most part magazine reviewers and such are looking to sum up a work in pros and cons in such an abbreviated way it becomes pablum.

Actual criticism, were a discussion of the work is held for a protracted number of pages is welcome though. Many people are not interested in a four page assessment of the merits of the Roland Emmerich's Godzilla movie, but I would read it out of a perverse sense of enjoyment in seeing 'low' art raised high. What I mean is critics too easily fall back on stock phrases and cliched comparisons ("It's Oblivion with guns!") out of a concern for 'ease of reading'.

Screw that. I want a dissertation on the career of Cyndi Lauper and I want it on my desk by tomorrow!

One critic who I believe can handle a healthy balance of brevity and a witty assessment of a film or book's value is Anthony Lane. Reading his reviews is a pleasure and even in the case of a 'bad' work, he can still identify the points at which it might have been successful.

Constructive criticism does exist. It's just very rare.

(And then there's Yahtsee's Zero Punctuation, but he's more of a P.T. Barnum inspired version of the critic-as-performer)

[Black Atom]

Most reviews aren't actually meant to be helpful--they're meant to be entertaining.

Like any argument, a claim made in a review can be supported with evidence. Wolk should be able to back up his claim that BoP doesn't have an aesthetic of its own with some kind of evidence. Even if they aren't objective, he should be able to provide examples that justify his conclusion. Otherwise he's just being glib to be provocative/pretentious.

[Charles RB]

a four page assessment of the merits of the Roland Emmerich's Godzilla movie

They'd struggle to fill those four pages...

[hichaec]

So, if BoP doesn't have an aesthetic of its own, whose aesthetic DOES it have? Did it borrow, steal, rent-to-buy one from some other book? What other book out there has the same aesthetic as BoP, that we can look to see if it's currently missing theirs and thus return the aesthetic to its rightful owner?

I'd guess it doesn't have exactly the same aesthetic as another title, but rather it has a more generic superhero comic aesthetic (if such a thing exists, anyway) than Daredevil does. But I really need to hear from Wolk just what he means by aesthetic, because I could be extrapolating in some crazy unintended direction! :)

Also, waffles.

I like making little houses out of them.

[Infra-Man]

When life gives you waffles, make waffle juice.

[Tobias March]

They'd struggle to fill those four pages...

I accept your challenge :biggrin:

[Infra-Man]

Constructive criticism does exist. It's just very rare.

That's sort of the rub about film, book, and music criticism, actually: Most of the time, constructive criticism comes from from a friend, a teacher, a confidante, a mentor, a peer, or someone else who can interact with the creator and the work firsthand, sometimes in some sort of workshop setting or editor-to-writer setting. As good as Kael and Sarris and Ebert and Christgau and Wood may be, I don't think they provide constructive criticism per se, which doesn't mean they haven't provided constructive criticism nor does it diminish their work so much as sets their work in a different brand of criticism than constructive criticism.

Constructive criticism, at least to me, seems to imply that it's criticism to guide the creator's hand in a work in progress rather than a completed work (i.e., constructive criticism seems best applied to something with multiple drafts or something still being worked on before completion rather than something finished, though there are exceptions, of course); or an assessment made at a more intimate level between critic and creator.

But the role of the widely read popular critic (not the film/music/literary theory types), while not always a guiding hand to the creator, is often to tear down, to opine, and, importantly, to call attention to something that might have otherwise been forgotten (though sometimes rightfully so)--that little gem at a film fest, the promising local band, the great book that will never sell more than five thousand copies. It's like they're there to entertain and maybe even inspire someone to branch out and seek out new things. What sets the good ones apart from just your average film goer is their knowledge of film, whether it be mechanics, history, allusions, etc.

I may not trust or agree with the opinion of a critic all the time and I think it's facile for people to only read criticism to confirm their taste, but I will read criticism and approach it more like an essay where if the creator of the work or works being discussed can't get anything out of it, at least I can.

[Linkara]

I admit, I've kind of been avoiding this topic considering my own tendency to make lengthy recaps of comics that are bad IMHO and doing it mostly to mock them. Are we saying it's bad for me to do that? ^^;

[Sabrinaset]

Douglas Wolk might need some anaesthetic! :wink:

[Tobias March]

I admit, I've kind of been avoiding this topic considering my own tendency to make lengthy recaps of comics that are bad IMHO and doing it mostly to mock them. Are we saying it's bad for me to do that? ^^;


I recall you posted something similar in the heckling thread. You just wanna mock peeps huh? :biggrin:

[Michael P]

They'd struggle to fill those four pages...

"The production did not use slave labor."

[4PointOh]

So says Douglas Wolk in his book READING COMICS, in the midst of making about a two-page comparison between BOP and the Bendis/Maleev DAREDEVIL, which, if I understand Wolk correctly, DOES have an aesthetic of its own.

I *think* he's arguing that because Gail Simone is writing the definitive "mainstream comics circa 2005," her work doesn't have the aesthetic oomph of other, more consciously rule-breaking genre work. But his take on BOP is so short that I can't be sure.

Unless you've read the book yourself, you probably can't comment on Wolk's whole argument. But how does that strike you, to hear that BOP has no "aesthetic of its own?"

He should read the work Virginia Woolf and Zora Neale Hurston, and then go back and read Gail's BOP. He'd be ASTOUNDED by how much he's missing.

[Linkara]

I recall you posted something similar in the heckling thread. You just wanna mock peeps huh? :biggrin:

Mostly Frank Miller, though I try to focus on the work itself. ^^; Although I occasionally make the joke of "Bear in mind, someone was PAID to write this" or similar expressions.

[Charles RB]

I accept your challenge :biggrin:

:tongue:

I remember one film reviewer wondering who the audience for the film was meant to be, and deciding it's the French cos they're the only ones who don't come off as idiots.

[scout1279]

:tongue:

I remember one film reviewer wondering who the audience for the film was meant to be, and deciding it's the French cos they're the only ones who don't come off as idiots.
But they all die.

[Tobias March]

That's sort of the rub about film, book, and music criticism, actually: Most of the time, constructive criticism comes from from a friend, a teacher, a confidante, a mentor, a peer, or someone else who can interact with the creator and the work firsthand, sometimes in some sort of workshop setting or editor-to-writer setting. As good as Kael and Sarris and Ebert and Christgau and Wood may be, I don't think they provide constructive criticism per se, which doesn't mean they haven't provided constructive criticism nor does it diminish their work so much as sets their work in a different brand of criticism than constructive criticism.

Constructive criticism, at least to me, seems to imply that it's criticism to guide the creator's hand in a work in progress rather than a completed work (i.e., constructive criticism seems best applied to something with multiple drafts or something still being worked on before completion rather than something finished, though there are exceptions, of course); or an assessment made at a more intimate level between critic and creator.

But the role of the widely read popular critic (not the film/music/literary theory types), while not always a guiding hand to the creator, is often to tear down, to opine, and, importantly, to call attention to something that might have otherwise been forgotten (though sometimes rightfully so)--that little gem at a film fest, the promising local band, the great book that will never sell more than five thousand copies. It's like they're there to entertain and maybe even inspire someone to branch out and seek out new things. What sets the good ones apart from just your average film goer is their knowledge of film, whether it be mechanics, history, allusions, etc.

I may not trust or agree with the opinion of a critic all the time and I think it's facile for people to only read criticism to confirm their taste, but I will read criticism and approach it more like an essay where if the creator of the work or works being discussed can't get anything out of it, at least I can.

I would agree with that. What's more a critical piece of writing to me can be constructive by situating the work within a specific context, affording the reviewer/theorist to discuss the relative merits of a certain genre in relation to the topic discussed.

This can be either a serious piece of analysis or enjoyable entertainment. That's why I mentioned Godzilla earlier. I'm half serious. I would like to read a piece on Emmerich's movie contrasting it with the Gojira series, the remakes, maybe even getting in recent additions like Cloverfield and the Host into the mix. Hell mine the idea of Ferris Bueller, that arch individualist of the 80's, adrift in a special effects extravaganza.

Critical discussion can lend value to something that's been dismissed by consensus as crap. And to finally come round to my point - comics need this. Comics are not served by dismissive reviews on 'aesthetics'. They need to be discussed in as full a manner as possible, without referring to 'auteur theory', or seeking a comparison with literary works (the comparison can be made, but it's an unfair one as comics as a medium have an uphill battle to get to the same plain as your Tolstoys and your John Updikes....even J. K. Rowling - within the eyes of the consensus).

At the moment I have a guy I know debating on my facebook page that Dave Gibbons art is what makes Watchmen. However, he also confusingly argues that the comic book exists as a visual form of the novel. I see it as completely different and unique from the novel, even though some of the same tics transfer over. The artist and the writer are in partnership, so it's two visions as opposed to the novel's one.

[Linkara]

:tongue:

I remember one film reviewer wondering who the audience for the film was meant to be, and deciding it's the French cos they're the only ones who don't come off as idiots.

Agony Booth, perhaps? ^_~

Actually I think that one pointed out that with the constant portrayals of the military as fools, the French as heroes, and the widespread destruction of New York, that had it been made after 2001 instead of 1998, it would've been a terrorist propaganda film.

[Michael P]

Hell mine the idea of Ferris Bueller, that arch individualist of the 80's, adrift in a special effects extravaganza.


If the script had actually been like that, the movie would have been so much better.

[Charles RB]

Agony Booth, perhaps? ^_~

Actually I think that one pointed out that with the constant portrayals of the military as fools, the French as heroes, and the widespread destruction of New York, that had it been made after 2001 instead of 1998, it would've been a terrorist propaganda film.

Yeah, I'm thinking of Steve Ryfle in his history-of-Godzilla book.

He did not like the US film.

[Linkara]

Yeah, I'm thinking of Steve Ryfle in his history-of-Godzilla book.

He did not like the US film.

Who did? :tongue:

[OzBat!]

We're about to get a four page report that should help with that query!

[Infra-Man]

I would agree with that. What's more a critical piece of writing to me can be constructive by situating the work within a specific context, affording the reviewer/theorist to discuss the relative merits of a certain genre in relation to the topic discussed.

This can be either a serious piece of analysis or enjoyable entertainment. That's why I mentioned Godzilla earlier. I'm half serious. I would like to read a piece on Emmerich's movie contrasting it with the Gojira series, the remakes, maybe even getting in recent additions like Cloverfield and the Host into the mix. Hell mine the idea of Ferris Bueller, that arch individualist of the 80's, adrift in a special effects extravaganza.

Critical discussion can lend value to something that's been dismissed by consensus as crap. And to finally come round to my point - comics need this. Comics are not served by dismissive reviews on 'aesthetics'. They need to be discussed in as full a manner as possible, without referring to 'auteur theory', or seeking a comparison with literary works (the comparison can be made, but it's an unfair one as comics as a medium have an uphill battle to get to the same plain as your Tolstoys and your John Updikes....even J. K. Rowling - within the eyes of the consensus).

At the moment I have a guy I know debating on my facebook page that Dave Gibbons art is what makes Watchmen. However, he also confusingly argues that the comic book exists as a visual form of the novel. I see it as completely different and unique from the novel, even though some of the same tics transfer over. The artist and the writer are in partnership, so it's two visions as opposed to the novel's one.

I totally agree on that point of comics needing some sort of critic that's not just some tweed jacket snoot. While that has its own sort of value, comic books may need someone like a Roger Ebert or a Pauline Kael or an Elvis Mitchell or even a Lester Bangs to reach some level of mass acceptance or at least a base level of legitimacy.

Fist step, they need a serious critic who is not ashamed to call comic books "comic books"--"graphic novel" denotes leather patches at the elbows and no love for long boxes or bags and boards. Big first step, but if a group of critics can somehow convince people (hard as it may be) that "comic books" is not a dirty word, that'd be a good start.

Entertainment Weekly does (or maybe used to do) comic book reviews. Anyone know if they still do them anymore? Is the criticism any good? Are they just reviewing non-superhero stuff? Any idea if that does anything to legitimize the medium?

And then again, some major lit-cred authors seem pretty open about their love for comics (maybe past love) or at least familiarity with comics (Michael Chabon, Jonathan Lethem, Junot Diaz), but comics are still viewed like some esoteric hobby by most people, like its proponents are model train enthusiasts or participate regularly in full-dress historical battle reenactments.

As for that last point, comics are definitely not novels. They're just their own kind of animal that shoots off from other mediums and reflects those mediums. You can approach it like a novel and approach it like a film or even theater or radio, or you can approach it like that Frans Masereel work that was just a story in woodcuts, but the collaborative aspect does change the dynamic since you have to address the interaction of the words and images and (to get all hoity toity) the space in between the collaborators and the space in between word (in the big theoretical sense) and image (also in the big theoretical sense)--in a sense, the gutters.

And sometimes it's just cool to see a robot get punched to shit.

[Michael P]

Entertainment Weekly does (or maybe used to do) comic book reviews. Anyone know if they still do them anymore? Is the criticism any good? Are they just reviewing non-superhero stuff? Any idea if that does anything to legitimize the medium?

They still do it, it's not very good, they review superhero and non-superhero but constantly kiss DC's ass (unsurprising, since EW is owned by Time-Warner), it helps make comics "hip" but probably doesn't do much for people taking them seriously as art.

Their comics reviewer was on the Eisner board this year, and is probably responsible for handing Meltzer's JLA the Best Single Issue award.

[Tobias March]

We're about to get a four page report that should help with that query!

I'm seriously getting excited by the idea. I already have a couple of notions I want to get down on paper.

[Corrina]

I like to dissect something I really enjoy. So I can steal from it. :)

Seriously, as a writing exercise, dissecting creative work can help because critiquing work helps to spot those own flaws in one's work.

Reviewing, though, is a different thing. Mostly, what I want is enough information about whatever is being reviewed so that even if the piece gets a bad review, I know that I might like it. Conversely, I need to know why someone like something because if they liked something that I hate (like badly done flash forwards, hell LOST), then I know to avoid it.

Which is why I like Ebert because he does this. He might hate it but he tells me why and gives me information about it.

BoP started as a longshot. It took at least two miniseries to sell the idea as a continuing series. I'm amazed it was even taken to fifty issues. I'm more amazed that DC gave it a shot after bad runs by good creators like Terry Moore and Gilbert Hernandez--which followed a file story by Dixon that was obviously twigged for BoP.

I had some hope that Gail's run would be good. I had no idea that it would be DEFINITIVE. Years from now, it's be spoken of like the Claremont/Byrne X-Men, or the Wolfman/Perez Titans. That Gail was able to do it with different artists who interpreted her scripts slightly differently is cause for praise, not dismissal.

[Gothos]

The "average" reader is looking for an experience, a private one, that begins and ends with the reader.

You're overestimating the "privacy" angle of reading for your rhetorical purposes. Average readers-- that is, readers who don't have a bully pulpit-- still generally assess what they read with a mind to communicating to friends and relatives what is good or what is bad. There are perhaps some readers who never compare notes on books and films but I'd say the preponderance of amateur (non-paid) critics on the Web demonstrates that such readers are not statistically characteristic. Nearly everyone enjoys some aspect of socializing through the medium of entertainment.

What makes the critic's POV worth more that that of the "average" fan? Nothing. Literally nothing.

What makes reviews worth being subsidized by newspapers, TV stations, etc, is the skill with which the writer communicates his opinions. Is it useless to your particular needs? Probably, but it's far from useless to those who follow such reviews. The readers of reviews do have to suss out whether or not the reviewers' tastes match their own or not, but as long as the marketplace finds those reviews worth paying for, they are by defintion worth something more than those of an unpaid critic. Invalid to you, perhaps, but not worthless.

[Infra-Man]

They still do it, it's not very good, they review superhero and non-superhero but constantly kiss DC's ass (unsurprising, since EW is owned by Time-Warner), it helps make comics "hip" but probably doesn't do much for people taking them seriously as art.

Their comics reviewer was on the Eisner board this year, and is probably responsible for handing Meltzer's JLA the Best Single Issue award.

Eesh. Well, so much for that. And seriously, can't believe that JLA issue was the best single issue of the year.

So maybe comics have achieved some level of geek chic cred, but yeah, it still doesn't really legitimize the medium. Maybe things will open up if the Watchmen movie winds up being good.

[Gail Simone]

I like reviews, I like reviewers, I just have a problem with people being condescending.

[Red Jack]

You're overestimating the "privacy" angle of reading for your rhetorical purposes.

No. it's what I actually think.

The "average" reader does not go into the LCS thinking "All right Simone, let's see how quickly I can deconstruct your latest flurry of jokes and meta-textual feminism."

They like Wonder Woman or Gail's writing or whoever's drawing it at the moment or a combo. It is a pure experience, good or bad, with no larger context than that of commercial artist and consumer.

Critics muddy that, even the "good" ones, by creating their own context for the work, applying specific analyses that might fit but usually do not and generally attempting to restructure the experience of the work by others such that it matches their own view.

To me this is a waste of everybody's time at absolute best. At worst, as I said, a negative "critical" appraisal of a piece of art, even commercial art, that is served up by a newcomer or a journeyman artist can spike or derail a career. It has happened many times in theater and film and, the more the comics industry "grows up," the more it will happen there as well.

Criticism as a pursuit is a dubious thing to me. What is its purpose except to determine the value of something like a Rothko painting- something that has ZERO worth before somebody stands next to it and starts blah-blah-blahing about the artist's "theories" and the "resonances" and symmetries and, oh my God, I'm already asleep. They guy was a crappy painter who found a good shtick and critics willing to shore it up. It's what I call Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome. Once one powerful critic describes something effusively all the lesser ones (or most) fall in line rather than look stupid and thus lose relevance and their jobs.

Gail is gracious, limiting her problem with these people to those that are condescending and mean. I think the whole lot stand squarely in the way of the artist talking to his or her audience. Like the guy in the theatre behind you who won't shut up about the "production values" when you're trying to watch Denzel catch the serial killer.

Average readers-- that is, readers who don't have a bully pulpit-- still generally assess what they read with a mind to communicating to friends and relatives what is good or what is bad.

Yes. But they always go into the piece looking for an experience for themselves. Good or bad. They are not functioning as advance scouts, testing unknown artistic waters in order to bring the news back to the huddled group of more timid consumers. And I don't stop liking Mark Waid's work because one of my friends hates it. Or even if ten of them do (not possible of course. Waid rules.)

There are perhaps some readers who never compare notes on books and films but I'd say the preponderance of amateur (non-paid) critics on the Web demonstrates that such readers are not statistically characteristic. Nearly everyone enjoys some aspect of socializing through the medium of entertainment.

As I said. The AUDIENCE creates an authentic review (the only one of value)- one based on a proper experience of the work in question. They show up with no agenda beyond hoping for something good and no eye to analysis or deconstruction whatsoever. Yes, we often do analyze art as we experience it but that is not the intent of the experience. For a critic it is.

What makes reviews worth being subsidized by newspapers, TV stations, etc, is the skill with which the writer communicates his opinions. Is it useless to your particular needs? Probably, but it's far from useless to those who follow such reviews.

Which is precisely the problem. When Amazon instituted the star system and the reader reviews they pretty much squashed the "need" for critics.

If an artist, say Warren Ellis or Gail, comes out in favor of a piece or an artist I don't know I can say to myself "Well, I like Gail's work nearly 100% of the time. Odds are I will like something she enjoys. I'll try it."

The same is true if, say, 100000 strangers write glowing post-experience reviews of a book or album or whatever. If it's the sort of material I'm inclined to check out, the odds are good that my experience will match the 100000.

The readers of reviews do have to suss out whether or not the reviewers' tastes match their own or not, but as long as the marketplace finds those reviews worth paying for, they are by defintion worth something more than those of an unpaid critic. Invalid to you, perhaps, but not worthless.

Well, that's what IMO means.

[Douglas Wolk]

Wow! Thanks to everyone who's participated in the thread so far--it's flattering to see so many people discussing criticism and aesthetics because of something I wrote.

Gothos (and Gail and Michael P. and others who've raised the point), what I mean by an "aesthetic" in comics--and if this wasn't clear, that's my fault--isn't what happens in the story, it's how the story is presented: its look and feel. The artwork of a comic book, including its design, is at least half of that. If you look at a page of the Bendis/Maleev DAREDEVIL (or of BONE or Y: THE LAST MAN or FINDER or ALL STAR SUPERMAN or ROGUES' REVENGE etc.), it looks and flows like nothing else. The visual and storytelling aesthetic of that particular era of BOP was pretty much exactly like a lot of other superhero comics of the same time. The point I was trying to make was not that it wasn't good or entertaining: I singled that book out because I enjoyed it (I note that nobody's quoted the bit from the same piece where I called that volume of Gail's BoP "absolutely a pleasure to read"), and I was trying to figure out and articulate why my enjoyment of it seemed to be different from my enjoyment of e.g. the Bendis/Maleev DD.

(Also, Gail, I can't speak for Brian Hibbs et al., but I always figured the name "The Savage Critics" was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Like "You'll All Be Sorry.")

Gothos, the Gaiman/SANDMAN point you mention is pretty interesting--it always seemed to me that Gaiman set up SANDMAN so that it would make sense for it to be drawn by a bunch of different artists, since it's about different aspects of broad archetypes. He also wrote to particular artists' strengths, and individual storylines were usually pretty consistent in terms of visual style. Same thing goes for, say, Morrison's SEVEN SOLDIERS and to a lesser extent THE INVISIBLES.

[Chuck Dixon]

The craft of making comics requires a lot of intangibles that are generally invisible to the reader or critic. But when you work in (and often struggle with) this medium you can see past the pretty colors to what the thing is made of. Bendis' Daredevil is a Big Mac. Gail's BoP is a souffle served by candlelight.

[Gail Simone]

Chuck, you are, as always, way too kind to me. Thanks, my friend. I would absolutely defend Bendis on the books that I've followed of his (not that he needs my defending him, being the critical and sales juggernaut that he has been for years), but I can't really speak that much about Daredevil because, as I've said, I just don't care for the character that much and so haven't really followed him other than briefly during the Miller run.

Douglas, I appreciate your comments here and as always, I sort of retroactively question the wisdom of my having responded at all. It usually ends up being deliberately misunderstood, in my experience and those of other writers I've seen attempt it. As I've said a million times, no one responds worse to criticism than a critic, although you thankfully appear to be the exception. But usually, their outrage that anyone DARES to question their pearls of critical brilliance makes the whole thing pointless, and appear to be nothing more than sour grapes every time.

I did mention that bit about you saying their was something hugely entertaining on every page but I confess I haven't read the review since it came out, but I did roll my eyes at the time, as it felt like one long backhanded compliment. "Here's what this book does well, but here's why you shouldn't enjoy it." Because it was included, I think bizarrely, in a bunch of free newspapers, people kept telling me about it and I don't remember anyone considering it a positive review, but rather, more of long piece about how it came up wanting against other books.

Which is fine, but I still felt it was pretty condescending. And it's in your book, as well, right?

I still don't quite buy the aesthetic argument for a wide variety of reasons, but we can simply agree to disagree on that.

As for Brian being tongue in cheek about this..."(Also, Gail, I can't speak for Brian Hibbs et al., but I always figured the name "The Savage Critics" was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Like "You'll All Be Sorry.")"

I don't think so. Brian's earlier columns used to be positively GLEEFUL about how vicious they were, he talked about it extensively. I like Brian, but I never thought humor was his forte, to be blunt, so I always felt his industry analysis and less "funny" reviews were vastly superior, and thankfully, that does seem to be the way he's been writing for the last few years.

I also think it's clear that Graham and Johanna, both writers I like and respect tremendously even when they don't like my work, didn't fit in that format at all. It did them a disservice.

Patton Oswalt talks about being wary of comedians who start off their sets with, "Buckle up, motherfuckers, 'cause it's gonna get DANGEROUS in here!" and then produce something that's not dangerous at all, and that's kinda my feelings about 'Savage' critics. I feel stupid using the word 'savage' here all the time, because that seems to imply singling out Brian's site as the sole example, which isn't my intent at all. But it does seem a case, to me, where an aesthetic has been applied to the detriment of the overall effect, as most of the writing there, except Abhay's, seems to have a tinge of a house style that hasn't suited all the contributors equally well.

It's just my opinion, but it's a bugaboo I have that well pre-dates my having gone pro. It's just a matter of going from Pauline Kael to this kind of "thumbs down, thumbs up" simplicity and paucity of genuine scrutiny. That drives me nuts about criticism in general, not just about comics. I do not lump you in with that last group, but I do feel there's a good deal of that at the site.

Again, it's just an opinion. It's much appreciated you coming here to clarify your position, not that it was necessary to do so as you are more than entitled to it, and it was nice to meet you in Portland at that odd thing at the library where they wouldn't let my husband and son come in to hear me speak!

[Gothos]

I said to Red Jack:

You're overestimating the "privacy" angle of reading for your rhetorical purposes

And he said back:

No. it's what I actually think.

I wasn't accusing you of not saying what you really think, but I think everyone interprets the world they see so as to reflect what they want to think about it, and then shapes their rhetoric "proofs" of that interpretation accordingly.

I do it too, but obviously, I'm going to argue for my POV just as much as you do, even if I'm certain that there's no way we're going to agree. For instance, you're free to interpret that the theories that your hypothetical critic applies to artists' works as "bogus." I'm going to argue that while no interpretation is true as such, the closer one comes to reasoned truth-out the better the interpretation is. And for someone with that priority, the "immediate experience" that you prefer is at best a lesser truth, while even a "bogus" theory is an arrow pointing at greater truth.

I believe the average audience-member does his own share of "analyzing" if not "deconstructing." Maybe when you start out, say, watching movies, you get blown away by XYZ so that the "immediate experience" is of something unique. It could be CITIZEN KANE or it could be ENTER THE DRAGON. But the immediate experience doesn't last, and then even the average joe starts making comparisons between KANE and TOUCH OF EVIL, DRAGON and FIST OF FURY. If you want to believe that the critical POV lacks authenticity because it starts getting into the whys and wherefores of art, that's your privilege. But IMO it's only different from what average-joe viewers do in degree, not in kind, as you indicate here:

Yes, we often do analyze art as we experience it but that is not the intent of the experience. For a critic it is.

I don't think that summary represents how critics work.

[Gothos]

Douglas Wolk wrote:

Gothos (and Gail and Michael P. and others who've raised the point), what I mean by an "aesthetic" in comics--and if this wasn't clear, that's my fault--isn't what happens in the story, it's how the story is presented: its look and feel. The artwork of a comic book, including its design, is at least half of that. If you look at a page of the Bendis/Maleev DAREDEVIL (or of BONE or Y: THE LAST MAN or FINDER or ALL STAR SUPERMAN or ROGUES' REVENGE etc.), it looks and flows like nothing else. The visual and storytelling aesthetic of that particular era of BOP was pretty much exactly like a lot of other superhero comics of the same time. The point I was trying to make was not that it wasn't good or entertaining: I singled that book out because I enjoyed it (I note that nobody's quoted the bit from the same piece where I called that volume of Gail's BoP "absolutely a pleasure to read"), and I was trying to figure out and articulate why my enjoyment of it seemed to be different from my enjoyment of e.g. the Bendis/Maleev DD.

I pretty much understand the way the word "aesthetic" was used, but I just don't agree with it. The problem with its use is made clear in the paragraph above, where you do end up saying that BOP does *have* an aesthetic, but it's just not sufficiently distinct from that of other contemporaneous mainstream books to be "one of its own." I can't say that I have a solution to this terminological difficulty, but it's not unique to comics or even the comics-mainstream, as one can see by reading Leslie Fiedler's essay "Archetype and Signature."

If you look here, (http://arche-arc.blogspot.com/2008/10/taking-exception-to-exceptionalism.html) you'll see an essay I wrote where I took exception to the notion of exceptionalism, which in literary terms means defining literary value only in terms of that which is exceptional. It seems obvious to me that you can't define the great until you've defined the good, but I must admit, I haven't seen many people in mainstream or indie fandom who agree.

[Evan Waters]

They'd struggle to fill those four pages...

Hey, I thought it was good. (I mean, I recognize that there are flaws, but I liked it more than I disliked it.)