I have no problem with people producing whatever kind of art they want, but they (a) shouldn’t expect it to draw a wide audience unless they sculpt their work to attract one, and (b) shouldn’t get snooty with me if I’m not part of the audience, no matter how wide or narrow it is. And their fans (wide or narrow) could maybe observe those points too.

Poxy boring autobiographical comics are no more or less intrinsically boring than poxy boring superhero comics, but it’s exasperating to hear people insist that they have intrinsic value. They may have more intrinsic accessibility because their setting is ‘real life’, but that’s about all, and it doesn’t make them any less boring.

On the SHORT STORIES volume, the editor’s name is pretty big — this year it’s Stephen King, which will probably sell some books (it did to me), but it was just as big last year, when it was Ann Patchett.

Looking back over previous years, it seems to be pretty consistently large.

kdb

I’ll take that over anything else we might hear them doing from the next room. HA-CHA!

BEST AMERICAN COMICS 2007 is in big bold letters, while Edited by Chris Ware is in itty bitty letters. Maybe EDITED BY CHRIS WARE should be in big type too, just to emphasize even further that it is indeed Ware’s anthology this time out. (And yes, I’d make the same typographical recommendation re: the editor of BEST AMERICAN SHORT STORIES, etc, etc.)

“Everything’s not for everybody. And that’s great!”

Amen.

As someone who’s done a broad range of work, I find that a reviewer’s estimation of my “best” varies depending on the reviewer’s intended audience. The Comics Journal will lean more toward my “Why I Hate Saturn” type wordplay and tales of frustrated nerds, while Entertainment Weekly will praise my “King David” and “Nat Turner”, which are more dramatic and more accessible to the EW crowd. The Library Journal focuses more on “Plastic Man” and “The Bakers”, which would appeal to a younger audience. Nobody seems to like all my books equally well, except me, and that’s fine and just as I planned.

So I would ask, who is the target audience of Ware’s anthology? It is possible that the average Chris Ware fan might find Jeff Smith’s book unappealing, just as I, a Jeff Smith fan, find most of Chris Ware’s favorites unappealing. I also find most Oscar-winning movies boring, because I like action and comedy. I think many prize-winning novelists are dull. My favorite comic these days is “Dilbert”. The best graphic novels I’ve read lately are by Joe Kubert!

Everything’s not for everybody. And that’s great!

It seems any creators who chimed in, as far as I could tell from linked websites attached to the comment, were generally pleased that comics of any ilk were getting such thought-out, well or not depending on your tastes, discourse, and the people who seemed to have popped a vessel or three were not so tempered. And here I thought we artists were the passionate ones.

I would point out that there is a market trend that reinforces this: The ongoing high-quality reprints of older newspaper strips. Flash Gordon, Little Nemo, Gasoline Alley - all of them are relatively conventional strips that are quite complex, and the reprints are commanding high prices because there’s no other way to get it.

For example: The original Fantagraphics Thimble Theater reprints were cheap things that I’d find remaindered 10 years ago, and now the exact same content is going into a fancy hardcover with an expanded price. (not that I won’t spend money on it - I yam what I yam.)

Jeff Smith’s Bone gets brought up here, and I’d say its one of the few modern comics that have a long, developed story, similar to Usagi Yojimbo, or Finder.

There’s a lot of comics these days that are focused on the author’s feelings on a certain event, leaving narrative behind except as a structure to hang those feelings on. I’d argue that the Fort Thunder-style comics are an extreme example of that.

Heidi is describing that people are ignoring the unique potential of narrative in comics. I agree.

For me, those artists opened up the field to un-embarrassed explorations of genre, politics, spirituality and mark-making in a way that’s had a profound effect on cartoonists of their generation. I think both Kevin Huizenga and Sammy Harkham have spoken eloquently about the effect of that work on their own practice. To reduce them to just “expressionism” is to miss the point entirely. I can’t think of any other cartoonists of the last 20 years (except Panter) who have so seamlessly melded drawing, “low” genre, storytelling and profound meaning. One only has to read the comics to see that, many of which, like Powr Mastrs, are told in a straighforward, almost classic manner. Is Chippendale hard to read sometimes? Sure, but so is Donald Barthelme and James Joyce. So what? The point is that the Providence explosion set an example of another way of making and thinking about comics, one apart from the dominant examples of Ware, Clowes, Crumb, and the like. They added diversity and unabashed energy to the mix. Without them, I think the medium would be a far lesser place.

I find the debate not unlike the outrage that welled up in the wake of this entirely right-on article in the American Scholar about a particular school of young American novelists. Limiting the argument to “American” comics makes it an easier target to poke at. I think closer to the truth is that the current generation of capital-A “Artists”, regardless of genre or medium, kinda suck.

And, sure, as soon as someone says that, people can be like “What about X, Y and Z?” Yeah, there are young artists I love (few, admittedly), but as a whole this generation is shaping up to be even more void than the Boomers. Comics are merely an aspect of that.