Your Pshaw! for the day!

One More Day

Today's your last day to cast or change your vote in the Cage Match poll over in the sidebar, so if you haven't done it yet, now's the time. The race is pretty incredibly tight -- Persepolis and Heavy Liquid have been running neck and neck all week -- but it's still not impossible for any of the books to win, if enough people organized or something. (I doubt that will happen, but I kind of like imagining that people care enough about this to canvas for votes.) In any case, this is the last chance for those of you who haven't voted yet to make your voice heard.

Also, in a daring move that you may not have noticed because it was buried in the comments, Frank (CC's resident fashion director) has proposed special Cage Match-related headgear. You won't be able to see us, but during the competition, we'll all be wearing masks:


We encourage you to locate a Comics Comics t-shirt and a pair of scissors.

monday monday

Your Stickboy for the day. By Dennis Worden.

Jog Wins Again

He's first over the line one more time.

ongoing investigation: SHAKY KANE (3)

image copyright Shaky Kane

Exhuming McCarthy

Speaking of Brendan McCarthy, he's got some original art up for sale right now on Artdroids, including a bunch of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles stuff. I assume Jacob Covey will be all over this.

(Via.)

Your Pshaw! for the Day

Your Pshaw! for the day.

ongoing investigation: SHAKY KANE (2)

Shaky has landed. We are speaking through translators.
image copyright Shaky Kane

The Nominations Are In

Thanks to everyone who submitted nominations for our next Cage Match debate topic. (If you aren't familiar with the concept, check out the first one here.) Over the weekend, we whittled your suggestions down to ten possibilities, and have now put a poll up in the sidebar. Please vote for your favorite argument-starter.

Don't be too devastated if your horse doesn't win, by the way; these are all good choices, and if we keep doing Cage Matches, many of these (as well as some nominations that didn't quite make it this time around) will more than likely return for later rounds.

Sorry for the dragged-out, too-many-early-primaries nature of this process. We're still experimenting, but next time around this will be a streamlined super-train.

The McCarthy Paradox

Readers of Comics Comics may know (but more likely don't) that Frank and I share a fondness for the British cartoonist Brendan McCarthy. Frank reviewed his book, Swimini Purpose, in our first issue. I only knew a little bit about him, but Frank knew and knows a lot, and has shared much. Anyhow, I like McCarthy for some of the same reasons I like Steve Ditko -- he combines a nuts-and-bolts drawing ability with a genuinely eccentric vision of human distortion and psychedelia. When he draws astral planes they seem solid, constructed and utterly believable. He doesn't dabble in flat-planed, cartoony, Peter Max-ian psychedelia (a type I love) but instead sets out to make a "realistic" psych-world. Just like Ditko. That made him the perfect cover artist for Peter Milligan's Shade the Changing Man and a wonderfully off-kilter realizer of mainstream visions. It also, like Ditko, left him without a good match for his abilities. One needs a special kind of writer (like Milligan or some of the 2000 A.D.) guys to capitalize on those kind of abilities: sci-fi, surreal, and a bit silly. Perfectly British. Like that other great stylist, Steranko, one gets the feeling from reading the occasional interview and his previous web site, that lately McCarthy believes his own hype a bit too much and, as of late is proudly (and depressingly) doing storyboards and the odd comic book cover, as well as a disappointing issue of SOLO. Without strong content the stuff kinda turns to mush (like the drawing above). Remember The Stone Roses second record? It's like that. So much talent, but not entirely sure how to use it. Anyhow, he has started a blog, and it's a good way to keep up with his evolving vision. I hope he'll hunker down, tighten up, and make something worthy of his talents. Presumptuously enough, I have my fingers crossed. It's a fan's lament, and not really fair (because who I am to have unrealistic expectations?), but isn't that what fans are for?

WIZZYWIG

The recent flare-up over the Direct Market regarding books sold at conventions before they appear in comic shops seems absurd. But since most Comics Comics readers already know that Diamond and their sales reps are doomed to some circle of Dante, I won't bother getting into the fray. Instead I'd just like to use the subject as a springboard to talk briefly about more direct ways that cartoonists can reach their audience.

Imagine you're a young cartoonist who's worked with Harvey Pekar (on last year's Macedonia) and, by virtue of that creative partnership, have a book out from a major publisher (Random House). Would you expect to be self-publishing your next book and hawking copies yourself at cons and on your website? Well, that's what Ed Piskor's doing these days.

"I can tell you right now," Piskor told me the other night, "no one in comics has read WIZZYWIG yet. Only, like, computer hackers and people into that culture. I've been posting about my book on these message boards and like some kid with some influence in that circle of people will write about it, and I'll get like a bunch of orders that night."

You guessed it: the book is about computer hackers. It takes place in the early days of "phone phreaking", when all it took to "seize phone lines" and make free calls was the right "bluebox" or a whistle with the right pitch and a little know-how. Rather than a documentary about that time and the figures involved, Piskor has created a single composite character who is emblematic of the period. Kevin Phenicle appears to be a middle-school kid living in late '70s Steel Valley USA -- who just happens to enjoy getting over on the system. Free bus rides, free video games, free long distance phone calls. But the system catches up with him. And then it's "Free Kevin."

So why did Piskor decide to publish it himself? "I showed it to a couple publishers and they were basically like, 'Do you want us to print it for you?' And I just thought I could do it myself and keep the loot. Why should I give them my book for free and MAAAYBE down the road see some cash? I mean, I just wanted to see if I could do it first. And if it didn't work -- then go round and take them up on their offer."

I must admit I was pretty impressed when Ed told me this story. It was heartening to hear because I've heard a couple of stories recently about creators who have books with major publishers, who sell thousands of copies per issue, and who don't see a dime in return. The artist is, I guess, supposed to feel that it's an achievement in itself to have a book at all. The way the story usually goes is that the money spent on the printing and promotion hasn't been recouped so, no, sorry, there's no profit. "But make sure you get the next issue done on time and, gee, we'll you give us something extra special cuz sales have been down." I hear the same story when it's a small publisher too. The publisher gets to look good (and makes a few bucks somewhere down the line) and the artist gets a couple free boxes of their comic.

Young cartoonists who get lucky early with big publishers might want to think about why Ed is choosing to self-publish. I think it's important to stay connected on some level to one's core audience. That means the convention circuit, hustling copies to cool stores, the same drill that got these young cartoonists in the position to get a deal with a publisher in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I have every hope that Ed and other talented cartoonists like him can find permanent homes at fine publishing houses. Seriously. But if any one reading this seriously doesn't believe that the bubble won't burst someday, they are seriously deluding themselves.

"I just want to be realistic," says Piskor. "At the end of the day who's going to be looking out for my best interest? Me. It might suck to be on the phone and the computer hustling these books but at least I know what's up, where my books are selling and to who. And when the right publisher comes along, I'll be there. I can do both. Why not do both? The reality of the market is that I have to do both just to survive or else I'd be sight out of mind."

Various Business

1. I was just beginning to wonder why Eric Reynolds and the Fantagraphics gang weren't putting up any new posts on the FLOG! blog, and now I know: it's because they switched their online location. Bookmark it here.

2. An anonymous commenter to our last post pointed out a pretty interesting new interview with Bill Sienkiewicz.

3. Another (!) interview with Frank, this time including a glimpse into PictureBox:

Part One


Part Two


[Not that it matters, but I edited this to change the order of the items; it seemed weird to put so much video up top.]

Help Us Help You

Loyal CC reader Alex H. has requested a second Cage Match feature, and while it may be a week or two before we're ready for another one, we still need a good topic for discussion. (If you missed the first one, our subject was the current in-progress remake of Omega the Unknown.) So if any of you readers have any suggestions, please let us know by posting them in the comments. Maybe we'll set up a poll or something after we've gotten enough good possibilities. Or maybe we'll just decide amongst ourselves, if there's only one or two.

So far, the following have been suggested:

1. Persepolis
2. The kind-of post-Bill Sienkiewicz comics created by people like Dave McKean and David Mack
3. Enigma
4. All Star Superman
5. All Star Batman and Robin
6. Marvel Zombies 2

Some of those seem like they might work, some of them don't, but it would definitely help for us to have a few more choices (non-superhero comics are more than welcome). Don't miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity!

ongoing investigation: SHAKY KANE

JFK
SILVER SURFER
NELSON MANDELA
WTF

images copyright Shaky Kane

Another Day, Another Interview

We're going crazy with the talking about comics lately, and Dan steps up to the plate for the latest in our recent series of interviews. Here he is on Inkstuds, in discussion with two of the best comics thinkers around, Jeet Heer and Tom Spurgeon. I probably won't get a chance to listen to this until this weekend, but there's nothing stopping you from taking the plunge now.

UPDATE: I was able to listen to it after all, and there's a lot of good talk in there. Well worth checking out.

UPDATE II: Oh, but Dan: Omega the Unknown? Really? Obviously I like that comic a lot, but if you only get to pick one book ...

Your Pshaw! for the Day

By Pshaw!

BJ and FS at Picbox HQ

More More More

Frank's energy these days is starting to make the rest of us here at Comics Comics look bad, so I'm kind of pissed at him, but if you want more of Frank on art and comics (including Storeyville and Cold Heat), Chris Mautner has just posted the second part of his interview with him today. Frank's really on fire in this one.

(And here's part one if you missed it.)

The Streets of San Francisco

Tastes change. Styles change. Everyone knows the story about Hitchcock's Psycho, right? After filming lots of big-budget color movies in the mid to late '50s, Hitch decided to take a different approach with Psycho. Convinced that he could do it better with his smaller TV crew (from Alfred Hitchcock Presents), he shot Psycho in black-and-white and structured it very much like the short-form pieces he was doing for TV. I think Hitch also understood that tastes were changing and that people liked the small-screen, simple and clear, episodic format that hearkened back to radio (and to Hitch's own films from the '30s). Also, many of the people who worked in TV in the '50s and '60s were former filmmakers from the pre-Technicolor, pre-Cinemascope era.

Contemporary filmmakers can attempt to evoke older films (Todd Haynes' Sirk-themed Far From Heaven, for example) as much as they like -- but in my opinion they will never be able to truly match or copy exactly what the old timers did BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT FORMED IN THE SAME CAULDRON. (Of course Haynes didn't want to copy Sirk exactly. Haynes was investigating Sirk's LANGUAGE.) The dominant style of staged movement, proscenium stage "blocking", nuts-and-bolts "shot/reaction shot" that one can easily see running through all films of the '40s and '50s began to give way eventually. Interestingly enough, it was the French New Wave that had a lot to do with this because they themselves were looking back, like Hitchcock, to the older, formative films of Hollywood, to noir, and to westerns. This back to basics approach was picked up on by the '60s and '70s auteurs, but by then they could inject new flavors in to the form (more skin and sex) and the whole paradigm shifted.

Comics have a similar trajectory. All the talk that comics artists today can draw BETTER than their forebears is meaningless. The point is that this common language I'm describing IS NO LONGER IN USAGE. It's all but dead because the people who were formed by it, who passed it on, are gone. Toth was an innovator; he was more forward-thinking than Caniff, yet he was still a "Caniffer." Darwyn Cooke can attempt to evoke Toth in some of his Batman stories, but he will never be Toth because he was not formed in the same 1950s cauldron. So subtly, step by step, each generation puts its own spin on the dominant style. Any attempt to resurrect these "house styles" is seen as retro and somewhat conservative. The bland illustration style that ruled '50s and early '60s comics was part Caniff, part advertising, part hackwork. The practitioners of this style, though, knew how to construct a page that read clearly, much like directors of the '50s films knew how to stage action.

Steve Rude is a great example of an artist who, like Toth, builds on the existing nuts-and-bolts style of comic storytelling without resorting to drawing in a more stylized approach like Frank Cho or Dave Stevens. One hundred issues of Nexus continuity prove Rude's determination to remain a "classicist" and document his development. He's committed to telling a story and frames the movement across the page in order to extract the maximum dramatic impact. Rude's choices work for me as a reader because the clarity of it all, the simplicity of the drawing, allow the narrative to retain its momentum. Cho's flourishes of technical wizardry, I think, actually prevent the narrative from assuming center stage. His transitions from panel to panel are generally awkward and ham-fisted. Compare the clarity of the Rude page (below left) to the clumsiness of Cho's page (below right) in sequences that have a similar "action."


Does Miami Vice look like Dragnet? Does a Dave Stevens page read like a Caniff page? Would I rather watch The Streets of San Francisco or Law & Order? Would I rather read Don Heck or Frank Cho? For me, the last is a litmus test. If you think Cho is a better draftsman, fine. But if you think Cho is a better comics artist than Don Heck, then I'm sorry, but I do not agree. In fact, I think it's pointless to compare the two. For the reasons I've explained above, I think Cho is an ILLUSTRATOR first and a comics artist second. Don Heck, long reviled as one of the worst hacks in the Marvel Bullpen, was a solid storyteller. He had a great sense of comics "naturalism" and is a perfect example of the kind of "nuts-and-bolts" non-photo-referenced approach that prevailed before 1970 or so. In my opinion, artists like Cho and Stevens have contributed very little to the development of the form. Except maybe to impress upon a generation of young comics artists that technical virtuosity is more important than basic storytelling.

The Diving Bell

I've heard a lot of cartoonists talking about this dilemma: in order to find all the strength within one to summon up the images needed for the comic, to maintain all the focus and attention to detail necessary, to have an editor's eye + guiding hand, to be the objective reader who keeps the narrative whole, the artist then suffers the atrophying of other "occular" abilities.

I only draw the landscapes + figures I need for the story. The demands of the story are what engulfs me, so that my waking moments are spent shape-shifting into a camera, a projector. I'm an editing machine that plays my comic on an endless loop for months.

Yet when I'm walking along the Braddock trail with Gretchen and I spy those stacked mills + houses above, I furiously look at EVERYTHING and it inevitably leads me to draw other things, new things that have no place in the narrative other than it is my life, my story -- and if I don't record it here, her, now, it'll be left on the cutting room floor.

What's Wrong With This Picture

I spent Christmas with my girlfriend's family, who very thoughtfully got me a couple of books, not knowing what an ungrateful wretch I really am. I already have (and still haven't read) the Schulz bio. But I hadn't even heard of Shooting War, a newish graphic novel by Anthony Lappe and Dan Goldman initially serialized online. Shooting War is the story of Jimmy Burns, a video blogger in 2010 who finds himself in even-worse-Iraq and, naturally, embedded in a fanatical military unit, kidnapped by a terrorist, and rebelling against the news establishment.

Let me digress for a minute. There are a few tendencies in contemporary culture that seem somewhat deadly:

1) A nerd-driven flippancy that signals: "I know more than you do, and I'm right all the time" (see: most blog-driven magazines).
2) The replacement of actual character-driven dialogue with TV or noir-shorthand. (see: any "adult" comic published by DC or Marvel in the last few years).
3) The inevitable "wacky" appearance by a previously "respectable" celebrity figure, in order to set it all in "perspective" (see: Bill Murray lately).
4) The substitution of photoshop technique for compelling images.
(see: most contemporary graphics).

Shooting War revels in all four of the above tendencies, in the process making the following points:

1) War is dumb
2) The news media is biased
3) Sometimes people need to grow up
4) Corporations are taking over America
5) There are fanatical Christians just like there are fanatical Muslims
6) Some old news guys still have integrity, and we can learn from them!

I suppose that it's enough for a lot of books make the above points and walk away. What bothered me about Shooting War was, of course, that these points are boring and have been said a billion times on comedy shows, in newspapers, magazines, Doonesbury, etc etc. There's not a single new idea in the book. It's all recycled, media-driven stuff. And neither is there an original character. Jimmy is the (now) classic angry nerd typified in current culture--the glib, smart, and resourceful boy-man who learns some important lessons and gains maturity over the course of the narrative. And all of this is in the guise of a "revolutionary" narrative. The worst offense committed is throwing Dan Rather into the mix as a newly bad-ass father figure to Jimmy -- Bill Murray in a Wes Anderson movie, or John Wayne in a Preacher comic. It's all so damn easy. The art by Dan Goldman is equally tough to stomach: an undigested photoshop stew with no rhyme or reason to it. Goldman poses inexpressive figures littered with a ton of marks I suppose could be considered rendering against the most basic photoshop filter backgrounds. Anatomy is out the window, and for a supposedly character driven, issue-focused book, there's not a single telling facial expression or body movement in the book. It's all just poses. You can cover up a lot with a wacom tablet and CS3, but Goldman's flimsy grasp on the most basic drawing and storytelling skills is pretty glaring. All the blur effects and shadows in the world can't cover that up.

All of this is so much the worse because, if you're going to do a fiction comic about a new media maverick in a warzone, you have to measure up to Brian Wood's DMZ at the very least. That comic, while still possessing some of the faux-cool mannerisms of Shooting War, is at least smartly satirical and possessed of multi-dimensional characters. Shooting War is a slick, packaged product. It rails against mass media, while presenting something as homogenized and unthinking as the very thing is criticizes. It's rebellion in a package -- a kind of grotesque reflection of what passes for satire these days. Things like Shooting War are the inevitable byproduct of an increased interest in graphic novels (read: glut), but then again, the culture in general is full of them. It's fake smart, fake rebellion. Seek out something real, something with meaning, instead.

Marshall Rogers

I found this convention sketch in a box at my mom's house the other day. I'd forgotten all about it. I paid 15 bucks for it back in '87, and I remember thinking that was a fortune. Too bad I barely remember anything about my interaction with Marshall Rogers himself. I only remember watching in amazement as he made these little marks on the paper when he started, little dashes that I quickly realized were for figuring out proportion. As soon as he had those marks down he was off to the races, and the drawing came to life literally in a matter of minutes. When he tore it out of the pad and handed it over to me, I do remember feeling a little gypped -- but looking at it now, I think, good grief, it's awesome, how did he knock it out that fast?

I showed this drawing to my friend Jim Rugg and we started talking about the sort of stylized naturalism that Rogers was known for. And then Jim said, "Y'know, the hackiest hack who worked for Marvel in the early '60s had a better sense of basic figure drawing and naturalism than almost any contemporary cartoonist." We both wracked our brains trying to come up with a modern equivalent to, say, Don Heck. And we couldn't! Who draws in a non-photo-referenced, natural, realistic style? Okay, Jaime Hernandez. But who else? Everyone we came up with didn't seem to fit. Michael Golden? No, too stylized. Beto? No, too cartoony. Jason Lutes? No, too stiff. There isn't this sort of basic non-photo-ref'd style that's in widespread use anymore. I'm sure if I really thought about it I could find an artist and point to their work and say, "Here, this guy." But the fact is styles change, tastes change, and so do abilities and schools of thought. Photo-referencing rules the roost these days in "realistic-looking" comics, and I hate it. Gimme Don Heck instead. Or Rogers. He might've used some photo-referencing here and there, but he had it down and didn't have to take photo after photo of his friends posing and then thinly disguise it as comics. I mean, have you read Coyote? What? You haven't? What are you waiting for?

CF LIVE

After a little wrangling, I have posted the somewhat infamous audio recording of my "interview" with CF at SPX 2007. Check it out here. But please don't yell too loudly, he's trying to finish Powr Mastrs 2. Shhhh. Also, remember to send positive thoughts to Obama today. He's our only hope.

New Hampshire Primary Day

N.B.

With this New York Times piece, I veer between drawing realistic eyes and little dot eyeballs, and it holds this strong unconscious meaning in the story. Or maybe not. Maybe nobody cares.

--Daniel Clowes, in an interview at the A.V. Club.

Huh. That's interesting. I hadn't noticed that.

Also, since most Comics Comics readers live under rocks, you may not know that the irreplaceable and much-missed Comics Reporter is back up and running. Now you do.

Dennis Worden

I found this mini-comic at Copacetic in the quarter bin. Bongo Dick."The rejected strips of Dennis Worden." Remember Stickboy? He makes a few brief appearances in this mini from 1986. But, for me, the best part of these "rejected" strips are the one pagers, like this one. Also, Worden fills in the negative space at the bottom of some pages with TV Guide capsule reviews from '86. Channel 42 was showing: MOVIE - biography "The Winning Team" (1952) Ronald Reagan, as the immortal Satan's son, eyes the Presidency. Rossano Brazzi, Don Gordon. (1hr., 50 min.) I dunno if Worden had a computer back then or not to emulate TV Guide's font but I sure was fooled. Channel 13 was showing "Ramrod" -western (1947) A sheep herder's daughter (Veronica Lake) starts a bath with cattle barons, giving everyone a hard time. Joel McCrea.

Reddy Breaks Out!

Magical Mike Reddy, Comics Comics designer, husband, father, and hamburger-lover has released a fab new book in collaboration with The Fiery Furnaces: Blueberry Boat. It's an excellent collection of illustrated fantastic lyrics for that record. Fans of great drawing and wordplay should not miss this one. You, kind audience, can get it from PictureBox, natch.

Here Here

Numerous Comics Comics contributors have wound up on Top 10 lists, and here's an unusually nice mention of project close to Frank's inky heart: the Cold Heat Special, co-created by Jon Vermilyea.

Shaw-a-rama

This is the prettiest, most interesting comic you'll read today.