Presentation of Politics in Shooting War

 

I found Shooting War to be a really interesting read on a couple of different levels.  Its pointed commentary on contemporary media and U.S. foreign policy doesn’t pull any punches, and makes Wilfred Santiago’s political condemnations from In My Darkest Hour look mild by comparison.  I tend to find myself in agreement with much of the criticisms the creators lob at the increasingly irresponsible, corporate media machine, and the neo-con politicians who pushed so adamantly for the war effort. These criticisms, along with the larger themes present in the text obviously make the story very relevant to ongoing discussions on the contemporary convergence of politics, war, corporate America, entertainment, and media.  With all of that said, I do feel the work suffers from being too overt in these criticisms. 
 
In general, I think the political and cultural criticisms of the text might have been more effective, or at least easier for the reader to take seriously, if they were presented in a more subtle fashion.  In particular, the climactic moment in which the terrorist leader lectures Jimmy in front of a huge screen of George W. Bush was so blunt and obvious in its political message that is seemed more like a Michael Moore documentary than a work of fiction.  I don’t want to characterize this moment as creatively lazy, the shock value of the over-the-top violence and true to life political criticisms is certainly intentional on the part of Lappé and Goldman, but a more subtle approach might have ultimately had a stronger resonance for me.  I think in most cases, the reading audience is smart enough to get the political message – the creators don’t need to hit us over the head with it.  
 
Changing gears here, but from an artistic standpoint, I really enjoyed the use of photographic images to create the background for the many of the full page panels that dominate the text.  This technique added to the gritty feel of the text, and strengthened the too-close-to-reality-for-comfort atmosphere.

John

4 thoughts on “Presentation of Politics in Shooting War”

  1. John, I completely agree re. it beating us over the head, and I think your Michael Moore analogy is pretty apt. Ha!

    I’m not sure if I agree, however, with the use of photographs. I need to keep thinking about that. In general, I just find that combination jarring and unappealing–however, like you suggest, perhaps that tension is exactly what they were going for…

  2. I felt the same way John. And good for you, following that rule of reading, to always approach a text in the most generous way possible. You’re a better man than I, sir—I AM willing to go ahead and characterize that particular scene as creatively lazy. As you argued, the lecturing in front of those images is too overt, but it’s also poorly realized narrative. This is the climax of the story. And what do we have? Three pages full of talk bubbles. This one, with eight spidering circles full of ideology (not story) is particularly egregious. http://shootingwar.com/chapters/chapter-11/12/

    This is a comic, and he’s describing this pivotal moment in chunky paragraphs…and it’s an action scene! If he’s going to go on and on, let the narration overlay a graphic representation of the moment with the RPG. And all this spoken text is from one character. We’ve seen other monologue-ing villains this semester (I’m thinking of Ozymandius) but it was so much more artfully done in terms of pacing and the content’s relationship to character building. You could copy and paste most of this text, edit out some stilted Arabian syntax and amusingly racist desert-related clichés (“no more trouble to those who hold power than a knat does a camel”), and this anticapitalist rant could be from a self-enlightened fifteen year old’s xanga page.

    It brings up that question about the relationship and the balance between image and text in graphic works. We’ve had other pieces that relied a lot on textual narration. Alan’s War had us reading the whole story, and Alan Moore presented us with entire pages of text. But unlike Watchment, where the text didn’t interrupt important narrative moments and served mostly to immerse us in the world, the long expository sections in Shooting War drag, lack immediacy, and feel like they’re proselytizing.

    Some more examples: http://shootingwar.com/chapters/chapter-2/13/
    ridiculous amount of speech bubble space
    http://shootingwar.com/chapters/chapter-3/3/
    Four consecutive pages half full of explanatory text, mostly political

    The same basic problem applies to the rest of the work. This isn’t thoughtful storytelling. The political criticism overshadows the characters and the story and therefore doesn’t resonate. It’s too blunt, it’s too saturated in every single moment, and it doesn’t take into account the complicated nature of these issues. And the plot feels artificial, with its random apartment explosions, helicopter crashes, and chance meetings.

    What’s funny is, like John, I personally agree with a lot of the criticisms; I just think the story is sloppily fixed around them. Poignant political fiction needs more than poignant politics. Read George Saunders or Vonnegut, and you’ll see the difference.

    Has anyone seen Broken Saints? There’re a lot of similar anticapitalist, anti-media, anti-neocon criticisms throughout (although it’s a lot different in tone and scope). But there’s also character and story – emotional and intellectual investment.
    http://www.brokensaints.com/website.htm

    1. I’ll second Jay’s recommendation to check out Broken Saints, but I also want to say that a multimedia comic like Broken Saints is in many ways more like a movie (as it has motion and sound) than a comic. Still, it’s a great example of the blurring between forms that technology can facilitate.

  3. Jay – great post. The end of Shooting War didn’t make me think of Ozymandias’ big monologue in Watchmen, but its an apt comparison.

    I wonder if the original use of a digital medium to distribute the text had anything to do with the decisions behind presenting the political message in the manner the creative team chose. If so, it could bring up some interesting questions about perceptions of readers in the digital age.

Comments are closed.