Post by Reptisaurus! on Apr 28, 2019 21:17:30 GMT -5
I'm trying not to go full blog post here, but I have a lot of thoughts to unpack. So I plan to fail. And Chris Ware is technically Classic Comics now according to our rules, so here we are.
A) My thesis here is "Oh my Gooood get the f*%& over yourself, come on!" but I have to admit that Ware is a truly brilliant formal creator. Every panel is connected, visually, to the next panel. And every panel is a specific element of the overall page, so both the sequence of panels and the experience of reading the page are both cool experiences. And he draws from a huge range of artistic influences - diagrams, architecture, early 20th century comic strips, "fine" art. He's better at utilizing the panel as a structural element of the comics form than, say, every single mainstream comic creator ever. (Except maybe J. H. Williams III.) He can do things with the passage of time in comics form that nobody else I've ever read can touch.
Tangental Subpoint I) Above image stolen from a post on an academic website called "Intertextual Self Reference in Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth." This is good academic writing. You can tell it is good academic writing because my reading comprehension is off the charts and I have no clue what he means by "Intertextual."
Tangental Subpoint II) Also, if you Google Image Search "Jimmy Corrigan" the second key-word to come up is "Stewie Griffin." HA!
Tangental Suppoint III) Ok, talking about the structure of comics storytelling is freaking hard, and I'm never sure that I'm getting my point across. The fact that I can barely draw a stick figure probably doesn't help. Tell me if you need examples.
I am 100% down for formalist comics. I am all about original ways to use the comics form to tell a story. I am not not a Chris Ware fan. Sort of. Kind of.
B) As m'girl Teagan O' Neil points out on the Comics Journal website (in an essay that is also about Thanos!) His Jimmy Corrigan was an important work in the popular acceptance of the "literary' graphic novel. It hasn't remained as popular as Persepolis or Fun Home, but at the time it was released (1999) it was a big damn deal. It was the kind of thing you can show to people and be like "Comics are not for Kids! Bang! Pow!"
C) Ware is definitely the most popular and widely accepted structural formalist to work in mainstream comics. Let's compare with Fun Home, since I brought it up. The writing in F. H. is amazing on a structural level*, but the art is just kind of... there. The art exists. You can just READ Fun Home without thinking about how comic storytelling works.
You can't do this in Jimmy Corrigan. You HAVE to pay attention to how the story is told, because the storytelling is designed to challenge an audience.
I think we need grown up comics that do this. We need to expand the boundaries of how comic stories can be told. (And we need grown-up comics that you can just pick up and read.)
D) I have this crazy idea that art should have value And... ok, what is the point of Jimmy Corrigan. The characters are sad. From that, we can deduce that the author is sad. And the audience is supposed to feel... what? Self pity?
Because we DEFINITELY NEED more self pity in the world. If I go on the internet I always think "Man, these people are not thinking of themselves as a victim to be pitied enough! They need to read some Chris Ware!"
He said sarcastically.
I just don't see any value in the majority of Chris Ware's stories. Depressing naval gazing that enables it's audience to feel sad? Screw that!
Am I wrong?
E) I hear Chris Ware compared to Dan Clowes a lot, and I hate it. I get A LOT out of Clowes' work (Excluding "Needledick the Bug$%^&#$.") Clowes' stuff can be ... not quite sad, but melancholy, but his characters are less self-absorbed, more curious about the world around them, and Clowes' stories tend to end hopefully. And sad isn't a problem if there's more to a work than JUST sad. Fun Home is sad, but I will defend the value of Fun Home for days. Come on. Bring it. I am ready to rumble.
F) What's my overall point? I really wish that comics # 1 most popular structural formalist could create long-form works with more nuance than "A BLOO BLOO BLOO! I am a sad! A BLOO BLOO BLOO SAD SAD SAD SAD SAD!" Honestly, I can't imagine a way that reading Ware's most famous works is a positive for the audience.
At worst, I can see it encouraging the worst things about some of the worst people.
Maybe he can do better. Wish he'd do better.
*I wanna talk about the narrativistic construction of Fun Home really quick. The story doesn't really progress forward time time so much as theme to theme, and I didn't even notice this on my first read through(!) as it's done so confidently and smoothly. I frickin' love Fun Home. (Although it is not much fun.)
A) My thesis here is "Oh my Gooood get the f*%& over yourself, come on!" but I have to admit that Ware is a truly brilliant formal creator. Every panel is connected, visually, to the next panel. And every panel is a specific element of the overall page, so both the sequence of panels and the experience of reading the page are both cool experiences. And he draws from a huge range of artistic influences - diagrams, architecture, early 20th century comic strips, "fine" art. He's better at utilizing the panel as a structural element of the comics form than, say, every single mainstream comic creator ever. (Except maybe J. H. Williams III.) He can do things with the passage of time in comics form that nobody else I've ever read can touch.
Tangental Subpoint I) Above image stolen from a post on an academic website called "Intertextual Self Reference in Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth." This is good academic writing. You can tell it is good academic writing because my reading comprehension is off the charts and I have no clue what he means by "Intertextual."
Tangental Subpoint II) Also, if you Google Image Search "Jimmy Corrigan" the second key-word to come up is "Stewie Griffin." HA!
Tangental Suppoint III) Ok, talking about the structure of comics storytelling is freaking hard, and I'm never sure that I'm getting my point across. The fact that I can barely draw a stick figure probably doesn't help. Tell me if you need examples.
I am 100% down for formalist comics. I am all about original ways to use the comics form to tell a story. I am not not a Chris Ware fan. Sort of. Kind of.
B) As m'girl Teagan O' Neil points out on the Comics Journal website (in an essay that is also about Thanos!) His Jimmy Corrigan was an important work in the popular acceptance of the "literary' graphic novel. It hasn't remained as popular as Persepolis or Fun Home, but at the time it was released (1999) it was a big damn deal. It was the kind of thing you can show to people and be like "Comics are not for Kids! Bang! Pow!"
C) Ware is definitely the most popular and widely accepted structural formalist to work in mainstream comics. Let's compare with Fun Home, since I brought it up. The writing in F. H. is amazing on a structural level*, but the art is just kind of... there. The art exists. You can just READ Fun Home without thinking about how comic storytelling works.
You can't do this in Jimmy Corrigan. You HAVE to pay attention to how the story is told, because the storytelling is designed to challenge an audience.
I think we need grown up comics that do this. We need to expand the boundaries of how comic stories can be told. (And we need grown-up comics that you can just pick up and read.)
D) I have this crazy idea that art should have value And... ok, what is the point of Jimmy Corrigan. The characters are sad. From that, we can deduce that the author is sad. And the audience is supposed to feel... what? Self pity?
Because we DEFINITELY NEED more self pity in the world. If I go on the internet I always think "Man, these people are not thinking of themselves as a victim to be pitied enough! They need to read some Chris Ware!"
He said sarcastically.
I just don't see any value in the majority of Chris Ware's stories. Depressing naval gazing that enables it's audience to feel sad? Screw that!
Am I wrong?
E) I hear Chris Ware compared to Dan Clowes a lot, and I hate it. I get A LOT out of Clowes' work (Excluding "Needledick the Bug$%^&#$.") Clowes' stuff can be ... not quite sad, but melancholy, but his characters are less self-absorbed, more curious about the world around them, and Clowes' stories tend to end hopefully. And sad isn't a problem if there's more to a work than JUST sad. Fun Home is sad, but I will defend the value of Fun Home for days. Come on. Bring it. I am ready to rumble.
F) What's my overall point? I really wish that comics # 1 most popular structural formalist could create long-form works with more nuance than "A BLOO BLOO BLOO! I am a sad! A BLOO BLOO BLOO SAD SAD SAD SAD SAD!" Honestly, I can't imagine a way that reading Ware's most famous works is a positive for the audience.
At worst, I can see it encouraging the worst things about some of the worst people.
Maybe he can do better. Wish he'd do better.
*I wanna talk about the narrativistic construction of Fun Home really quick. The story doesn't really progress forward time time so much as theme to theme, and I didn't even notice this on my first read through(!) as it's done so confidently and smoothly. I frickin' love Fun Home. (Although it is not much fun.)
