Author Archives: Nathalie

About Nathalie

Insert witty remarks here.

Respondent: Graphic Novel Award Show

From what I’ve seen of other’s posts, I’m glad to see that people aren’t afraid to defend their favorites. Considering that the semester is nearly over, I think such a reflective exercise is appropriate. In that same vein, I’m giving each book an “award.” I will try to keep it brief.

The Grammy for Most Played Out goes to… Persepolis. I think it’s a great book and I don’t think it’s overrated, but so many people have read it/talked about it/reviewed it/reread it that it’s just become too much. It’s like when they’ve played Toadies’ “Possum Kingdom” on DC101 for the nth time and you just want to scream. Oh dear, and now I’ve gone and compared Persepolis to Toadies.

The Emmy for Most Passive Character goes to… Kirie in Uzumaki. This book was a quick, sickly addictive read, but why was she SO SO passive? And why did she stay when her boyfriend kept telling her how freaking terrible the town was?

The Tony for Least Realistic Portrayal of Bipolar Disorder goes to… In My Darkest Hour. I totally agree with Pierce that it should’ve been called The Pathetic Misadventures of a Womanizing, Self-Pitying Douchebag. While the presenters did a good job of sharing some interesting insights, I still did not like this book. I thought it was a superficial representation of bipolar disorder and it didn’t strike me as being particularly “nightmarish.” It was a wannabe thug trying to tell a deep story and failing.

The Country Music Award for Ghettoest Production Style goes to… Jimmy Corrigan. It was a frustrating read (intellectually and physically, what with the book falling apart), but it provided good discussion, so it can’t be all bad. People seemed to either love or hate this book and although I didn’t like it, I can see that such a characteristic means that it is probably worth analyzing.

The Teen Choice Award for Most Esoteric goes to… Fun Home. I thought I would appreciate the literary allusions more, but instead they seemed to embody the pretension that comes with literary criticism that Bechdel tries to avoid. Someone mentioned that they would probably never reread Fun Home and it definitely wasn’t their favorite book, but they understood why it was important to the fabric of the course. Ditto, ditto, DITTO.

The Golden Globe for Fanboy’s Choice Award…is a tie! Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns. This tie fascinates me because I devoured DKR and I loathed reading Watchmen. Reading Watchmen was like reading any “classic”– I hated it the whole time until I finished it and, I had to grudgingly admit I understood why so many consider it to be the Bible of modern comics.

The MTV VMA for Most Harmless goes to… American Born Chinese. It seems like after all is said and done, American Born Chinese has landed in people’s “meh” pile. I think we had a lot of interesting things to say about it in class, but it doesn’t seem to have a strong lasting power in people’s minds.

The Oscar for Causing a Little Resentment Toward An American Tail goes to… Maus. I used to love An American Tail when I was a kid, but as soon as I found out that Art Spiegelman had to rush to publish Maus just so people wouldn’t associate it with the movie, I got a little annoyed at Steven Spielberg. I don’t know if he actually ripped Spiegelman off, but it all sounds rather shady.

Well hm, like all award shows, that ran way too long. This post seems really cynical and sarcastic now, but I didn’t mean it that way. I hope it was just an entertaining way of looking back on the semester and feel free to disagree.

First Reader: Graphic novel vs. Novel

As I’ve been reading this, I’ve been wondering about what makes this a remarkable graphic novel or piece of literary text. I mean, Time made it its #1 book of the year in 2006. This is not to say that I don’t like the book! There is just a lot of text and the memoir itself seems steeped in literature. I was just wondering if this book would be the same (or better?) if it were just a straight up novel.

We had a class discussion about whether or not Jimmy Corrigan could be translated into film or novel form. The general consensus was that Jimmy was just too damn avant-garde and comic-specific to be anything other than a graphic novel. I don’t know if this is necessarily the case with Fun Home. To me, a lot of the things that Bechdel draws could also be effectively conveyed through vivid imagery (Everyone can picture that slightly creepy Dad who wears cut-off jean shorts.).  This thought then makes me wonder if the book would be as heralded as it is if it were mere novel. Is what makes it original the fact that it’s a comic book?

Bechdel’s art style is very detailed at moments, but it is still very iconic and therefore I don’t know if the drawings really help evoke the extravagant nature of her house (except maybe the last panel of p. 17). The only real function I see in the art is that it helps make the literary illusions more subtle (so she doesn’t actually have to say, “Yeah, I masturbated to Anais Nin.”) Perhaps my opinion will change once I finish the book. What do other people think? Could Fun Home function pretty well as a straight up novel?

-Nathalie L.

First Reader: the Structure of Persepolis

A couple of other people have talked about their dissatisfaction with the ambivalent ending. I too, was struck by it, but this wasn’t the first time. The copy I have is divided into two volumes (Persepolis and Persepolis 2). The ending of the first volume was also very jarring. She suddenly leaves for Austria, her mother faints at the airport, and the end. Apparently in the original French, it was divided into four volumes (Persepolis 1-4), averaging at 90 pages each and was later combined in a single volume in 2007. This made me wonder if the other volumes also ended in an awkward fashion and where she chose to end them.

I think part of the reason people found the endings so dissatisfying in their ambivalence is that there’s no real structured plot to the story (not to say that that’s a bad thing!). Things just sort of happen. The narrative moves along and people get sucked into it, but when there’s no longer a story left to tell, it just ends. Some memoirists try to tie things up in a nice little bow as a means of explaining what they think the meaning of life is. I don’t think Satrapi does that. She’s just here to tell her story and that’s it.

I wonder if I wouldn’t think there was so much of a discord in the overall story if I’d read it in four separate volumes. To me, Persepolis 2 is far more distinctly a memoir (with less of an emphasis on historical events). It’s about adolescence, growing up, angst over guys, etc. It seems disconnected from the first volume (maybe that’ s the intent?). However, if it were divided in smaller pieces, maybe I would find everything blends together better? This is also my second time reading it. I wonder if I had read it in a single volume the first time my reactions would be different. It reminds me of the trade paperbacks a lot of American comic books publishers put out, collecting several issues (or one story arc) into one book. Would you get more of a sense of the story if you did or did not have to wait between issues/volumes? Or does it not matter because maybe Satrapi’s ambivalence is intentional (as opposed to being the product of weak structure)?

Respondents: A Rainbow of Black and White

A couple people have sort of said that they view Persepolis and a historical memoir, with an emphasis on the historical as opposed to the memoir. I disagree! Robocancan brought up the issue of an unreliable narrator.

Maybe it’s because I’m all about nonfiction and memoir, but I see this comic book as memoir first and a history lesson second (and it’s not just because it says “MEMOIR” next to the bar code!). It’s precisely because of the issue of an unreliable narrator. Satrapi gives a summary of Iran’s history in the introduction to provide context for what happens. If anything, the specifics of her story are what make it universal and more memoir-like. People have been saying that they remember looking at the world in such and innocent, black-and-white way. American Born Chinese is the same way; people related to it because they recognized that they had their own Timmys in grade school. The fact that young Marji’s convictions are so defined when memories can be so hazy is evidence of that unreliability. (It doesn’t do much good to say I think this may have happened, sort of, even if it is more honest.) But that unreliability attracts us to our own egotistical view that our memories are infallible.

Of course you can learn about Iran’s turbulent history or what it’s like to grow up as a first generation Asian-American, but the reason people buy these books is because they are trendy the reader can relate to them on some level. Interestingly, one person said they had a hard time getting into the book because everyone looked the same. The more specific an author is, the more an audience connects with the characters.

If anything, Maus was more historical in nature because the transformation of human psychology under the extreme conditions of the Holocaust is completely foreign to our generation. We might sympathize with the story, but I don’t know if we can ever truly understand it.

The unreliable narrator is evidence of Satrapi’s likability. We talked about flashbulb memories a little while ago. Our memories are extremely unreliable things and we can appeal to the fact even a little girl from Tehran viewed things in a binary fashion, much as we did as children. Her story is unique because it offers an inside view of what was going on at that time in Iran, but what we like is about it in the first place is that we can relate to her as a person.

-Nathalie L.

Searchers: Nathalie Lawrence

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/books/news/10/03/chris.ware/index.html

I found this review/interview/ode to Chris Ware on CNN. While the article is informative with regards to Ware’s childhood and the process of making Jimmy Corrigan, what struck me about it was the author’s need to legitimize the book even though it’s a comic. A few choice quotes:

  • It is unlike any comic book you have ever seen.
  • “Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth” (Pantheon, 2000) is a newly published “graphic novel” by cartoonist Chris Ware.
  • The color printing was adjusted repeatedly — Ware’s choice of colors is as precise as his lines. Most cartoonists use the colors of kindergarten crayons; Ware uses the shades in the Crayola Big Box — Aquamarine, Goldenrod, Burnt Umber.
  • The compact imagery, the compacted plot and subplots, make “Jimmy Corrigan” more akin to a novel by Faulkner or Dickens than to “The Adventures of Spiderman.”

I found it problematic that the writer felt the need to put down other comic writers/artists in order to put ware on a pedestal. I don’t know what the hell the writer is talking about, but Marvel and DC colorists don’t just use “kindergarten crayons.” Yes, Ware’s colors are impressive on that oh-so-soft paper, but he’s not the first person to pay attention to color scheme. (That and the Crayola analogy seems to demean the comic medium as a whole.)

It was frustrating that this fan wank review compared Ware to Faulkner and Dickens because that implies that other comic books don’t deserve praise for literary prowess. The writer put graphic novel in quotation marks as if to suggest that Jimmy Corrigan doesn’t truly belong in that genre because it’s literature. Regardless of my feelings on Jimmy Corrigan, it is most definitely a graphic novel. No one should apologize for its form. I understand that mainstream American society doesn’t always have the most respect for comics, but presenting Ware’s work as an exception isn’t the way to remedy that.

First Readers: Nathalie, Structure and Such in Maus

What struck me about Maus is the structure of the narrative, which is very self-aware (or dare I say reflexive?). Rather than it just being Spiegelman’s father’s story, it’s a memoir about the whole writing process. At first I found the parts in the present tense distracting—they’re taking away from the meat of the story! However, key facts about the present make you want to keep reading: Anja’s suicide (Why? How? ) and Vladek and Mala’s marriage (Why? How?). Additionally, it’s really easy to get lost and depressed when reading Holocaust fiction or nonfiction. The switch in time literally gives you a break (the presence of relatively short chapters does this too).

Respondents: What do you think of the present tense action? Is it necessary? What are some other reasons he might have structured the story with flashbacks intermingled with the present? How does this compare to Watchmen’s use of the flashback?

Another thing I noticed was the usage of dialect/vernacular/whatever you want to call it. In the present and when he narrates his flashbacks, Vladek speaks in accented English. Yet when the reader is fully submerged in the past, all of the dialogue is in standard/informal English. Compare page 39 with page 37. I think this is just another way Spiegelman tries to suck you into the story.

Respondents: What do you think of the usage of dialect? Is Vladek the only one to speak in accented English? Is it effective? Confusing? Offensive?

Finally, there’s Vladek’s pedaling. What could that possibly symbolize? He does it for medical reasons, but does it contribute to his obsession to survival? Is he somehow “biking through” his past?

Respondents: Nathalie Lawrence, Women in Watchmen

Normally I cringe at examining anything through a feminist lens, but after a few people mentioned a lack of authentic female characters, I couldn’t help but read the book that way.

Alyse mentioned her dissatisfaction with Laurie, but later put her flaws in perspective with the male characters’ flaws. I don’t actively think Alan Moore is a sexist or a chauvinist, but I think being cynical or power-hungry are a little more innocuous (and appreciated by society) than say…being accused of being a whore or losing a career after having an illegitimate child.

I went back and looked at other minor female characters and I couldn’t really find one that was put in a positive light:

*Joey the lesbian. (ch.5, p.21) It seems like her main purpose is to serve as a foil for Bernard (the guy at the newsstand). She’s a crass butch stereotype. She looks at porn with a toothpick in her mouth and states her opinions on the world. This was probably done to make her seem as “gritty” as the other characters, but she just seemed contrived.

*Rorschach’s mother (ch.6, p.4). She’s a slut (possibly a prostitute?) who verbally and physically abuses her son, which results in severe psychological damage.

*Dr. Long’s wife, Gloria. (ch.6, p.28). Although she starts out as being loving and supportive, she ends up “subject[ing him] to a lot of sexual insults.”

*Dr. Manhattan’s first girlfriend, Janey Slater (ch.4, p.18). Although, the reader might have more sympathy for her (she just got traded in for a newer model), there are few times in the book where she isn’t crying or being angry and bitchy. Also, that whole cancer accusation (even though it was Veidt’s fault) doesn’t paint her in the best of lights.

In the end it turns out Joey’s girlfriend is normal and not also a stereotype (ch.11, p. 6), and Veidt admits to the starting cancer allegations (ch.11, p.26), but those two tidbits don’t change the outlook of women in Watchmen too much.

Now these are all a bit of a stretch, but what if, what if Moore’s less-than-stellar portrayal of women can be attributed to one of the following:

1)    It’s his heavy-handed way of making women seem as “gritty” as the men.

2)    Women traditionally don’t read comic books. To get really Meta, maybe the female characters are crazy and bitchy because they don’t “get” the comic book world. While there are female superheroes, maybe he thinks it’s a guys-only club that women don’t understand.

3)  Female characters aren’t generally presented in a realistic fashion (yay crazy Barbie proportions!) in comic books and Moore is simply pointing that out in the most obvious way possible.

Searchers– The Pervasiveness of Batman (Nathalie)

In Tuesday’s class, Professor Sample mentioned that The Dark Knight Returns wouldn’t have even been possible if there hadn’t been a few changes in the industry. These changes included the creation of a writer/artist celebrity system, writers gaining more control over their work and writers receiving royalties and shared rights. With more rights and freedoms, writers grew more creative. Recently, however, I think there has been another change that has changed the world of comics again– the advent and consequent invasion of the internet. The internet has started a new brand of comics altogether: Web comics.

I noticed that Batman is so pervasive that he has even entered this realm. The most interesting web comic I stumbled upon was this: Batman and Sons.

Like Miller, this portrays Batman as being older and yet…it is absolutely nothing like Miller. “Batman and Sons” is a nod at Grant Morrison’s graphic novel, Batman and Son, which also features a “gritty” Batman. Yet in this web comic, even though Batman has to deal with dirty diapers and hyperactive children, his character is no less curmudgeonly (well, most of the time). The comic itself may not be dark, but it doesn’t go back to being campy; it definitely continues in the tradition of Miller’s angry, grim Batman.

Something like this couldn’t be sold in stores without incurring a whole lot of lawsuits. It’s similar to the comics that newsstands wouldn’t sell if they weren’t approved by CCA. While the internet was a societal change (as opposed to a change the comics industry instigated), it still provoked creativity among artists and writers. But then we get into the idea that anybody with any opinion can say or draw anything on the internet even if the rest of the world doesn’t care about said opinion– but that’s a story for another time.

Other web comics that incorporate Batman:

http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1543

http://www.whiteninjacomics.com/comics/batman.shtml

http://www.whiteninjacomics.com/comics/batfriend.shtml