| |
|
Self-loathing indeed, Laurence. We (being the Journal) can indeed enjoy a comic for what it is, so long as the book in question is not a dread...mainstream title. Although, as moriarty points out, I might be reacting slightly disingenuously on that count. But probably only slightly...
It should be noted that I've only been reading the Journal off and on for about three years now, but in that time I've seen a lot of loathing (self- and otherwise) directed towards mainstream titles. It seems to me that the Journal's main intent (and an admirable one, at that) is to present the medium of comics as one worthy of serious study and criticism. I think that they feel it necessary, on those grounds, to separate the wheat from the chaff. Understandable. However, too often they seem to dismiss mainstream books simply on the grounds of their existence as mainstream books, without any of the further exploration that they would afford to books w/more overt artistic aspirations (or classic mainstream books). And the anti-mainstream attitude of the Journal sometimes goes beyond simple dismissal and into the realm of...claiming the moral high ground, almost. I can recall several occasions (the two-part Alex Ross interview springs immediately to mind as a particularly repulsive example) when mainstream professionals have been more or less browbeaten about whoring themselves out and pressured to justify their desire to earn a living wage.
I'm not of the opinion that reviewers at the Journal even need to like a single thing that they review, but why shouldn't a mainstream title be subjected to the same criteria as a book published by Fantagraphics (the problems inherent in Fantagraphics' ownership of the Journal being a whole different topic in itself...)? This seems incredibly lazy to me, on par w/the dismissal by the entire filmic community of a movie like Freddy Got Fingered (perhaps an absolutely terrible example, as I seem to be one of the only people in the world that saw any depth in that particularly deft yet admittedly flawed satire). The general idea being, if it says Marvel or DC, it's all surface, and we should poke fun at their anachronistic overuse of the tired superhero tropes rather than digging deeper than the fisticuffs and funny underwear.
But I didn't start this thread simply to point out the Journal's flaws. As I said, I've read the Journal for three years and have recently subscribed, so they must be doing something for me (I burn a lot of calories from hurling my copy across the room in frustration, for example...  ). I'm more interested, in this case, in discussing whether or not this particular review is a clumsy step towards more widespread acceptance, by the Journal, of modern mainstream comics as subjects worthy of deeper critical study. My take? "Ehhh...".
As has been noted, the tone of the review was at times very revealing of the reviewer's fear that he would be identified as a former fanboy and beaten by his beret-wearing colleagues. Yes, the review was haltingly positive, but a somewhat positive review of a mainstream title does not a well-balanced cricical review make. The main problem in this case being that Grant isn't concerned, first and foremost, w/the aesthetic preoccupations of the reviewer. It's perfectly valid to criticise the book from that standpoint, but downright lazy to neglect and/or downplay other aspects of the book. NXM is about ideas. True, it may not be breaking the mold of the medium as a whole, but Grant certainly is attempting to do so w/in the book's particular genre (whether he's succeeding or not being completely up for discussion). As long as reviews of this nature are sloppily punctuated by disclaimers like "just another uninspired power fantasy" that are more of an attempt by the reviewer to distance him/herself from the subject matter than a true representation of the subject of review, mainstream reviews in the Journal will continue to be mere tokenism (for reasons that are beyond me, beyond a more friendly take on the pre-established "Well, yes. It's all garbage." position), serving only to perpetuate their anti-mainstream bias.
On a side note, I'd very much like to read your review of NXM, moriarty. I'm sure you have some very interesting things to say about it... |
|
|
