Comments on: Clear-Line Criticism: Douglas Wolk’s “Reading Comics” https://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2008/02/clear-line-criticism-douglas-wolks-reading-comics Lollards in the high church of low culture Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:07:25 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 By: Tom https://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2008/02/clear-line-criticism-douglas-wolks-reading-comics/comment-page-1#comment-382488 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:07:25 +0000 https://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2008/02/clear-line-criticism-douglas-wolks-reading-comics/#comment-382488 I liked it mostly because it made me want to read the Invisibles again!

I think the Invisibles and Cerebus pull a similar trick, which is to have a load of really cool exciting plot stuff and then pull the rug away and basically say “well all that cool stuff was misdirection and weren’t you a dodo for caring about it”. Wolk addresses this a bit more in the Sim essay because it’s *so* glaring in Cerebus that you really have to. I gave up on the Invisibles because I didn’t feel Grant’s ideas were worth the misdirection (and because the comic was still full of King Mob etc. running round being kewl even when it was transparently obvious the ‘story’ wasn’t about that, and because a Mary Sue who gets you magically laid is still a Mary Sue, etc etc.) – Wolk’s chapter suggests that they might have been worth it, or at least that they were being more interestingly presented than I credited.

]]>
By: Paul I https://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2008/02/clear-line-criticism-douglas-wolks-reading-comics/comment-page-1#comment-382204 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:41:59 +0000 https://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2008/02/clear-line-criticism-douglas-wolks-reading-comics/#comment-382204 Loved the book in for exactly the same reasons as Tom (it’s that lovely, clear voice), but I found the chapter on Grant Morrison maddeningly abstract — not clear at all, really — which is a shame, as it’s the chapter I was most looking forward to reading. I especially didn’t think Wolk made his case for spoiling the end of The Invisibles. (In fact, I’d be pretty peeved if I had the “pop” moment spoiled for me.)

The rest is pretty terrific though — the Dave Sim essay won’t be bettered.

]]>
By: Pete Baran https://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2008/02/clear-line-criticism-douglas-wolks-reading-comics/comment-page-1#comment-381798 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:39:01 +0000 https://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2008/02/clear-line-criticism-douglas-wolks-reading-comics/#comment-381798 (Book cover and link to where you can get it added as EVERYBODY should read it obv!)

]]>
By: Tom https://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2008/02/clear-line-criticism-douglas-wolks-reading-comics/comment-page-1#comment-381787 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:32:19 +0000 https://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2008/02/clear-line-criticism-douglas-wolks-reading-comics/#comment-381787 Maybe it’s vulgarity clear-line criticism has trouble with?

I also really should do that Coil post as a follow-up.

]]>
By: Tom https://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2008/02/clear-line-criticism-douglas-wolks-reading-comics/comment-page-1#comment-381778 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:24:26 +0000 https://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2008/02/clear-line-criticism-douglas-wolks-reading-comics/#comment-381778 Yeah you’re right I think – there’s structural adventure in there too, but I’d still say it’s often/usually overwhelmed by the id-stuff. And the Chequered Demon strips collapse page structure too, but of course it’s not really in the service of meaning in the way the stuff Wolk likes is.

]]>
By: mark sinker https://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2008/02/clear-line-criticism-douglas-wolks-reading-comics/comment-page-1#comment-381772 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:16:02 +0000 https://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2008/02/clear-line-criticism-douglas-wolks-reading-comics/#comment-381772 of course i also consider bangs a formalist

]]>
By: mark sinker https://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2008/02/clear-line-criticism-douglas-wolks-reading-comics/comment-page-1#comment-381769 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:14:28 +0000 https://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2008/02/clear-line-criticism-douglas-wolks-reading-comics/#comment-381769 “The underground comix were viscera all the way – generally not structurally adventurous, more just blurts from the id.”

is this entirely true? i recall very clearly (i think it’s collected in the penguin book of comics) a strip of victor moscoso’s (sp.) playing while the image of mickey mouse as a sequences of evolving shapes; i think there was a distinct strand of “trip art” which attempted to replicate the (over)attention to detail and structure that acid (apparently) engendered…

(it’s just occurred to me this may be why i find the formal stuff in watchmen so lame)

]]>