In all but a few cases FICTION isn’t great. But even a bad work of litfic will still get several columns devoted to trashing it in the New York Times Book Review- an equally bad bit of fantasy literature probably won’t ever get mentioned.

Now, we know and love the cases where it’s great, and hell we love the cases where it’s good.
But just because a genre can be great, doesn’t mean it is a great genre.
And to be honest, when a work is great – and recognised as such either in, or after it’s time – critics love it.

Isn’t that a bit circular? If it’s recognized as great, of COURSE the critics will love it. If they don’t pay any attention, as they often don’t, it won’t be recognized.

Of course, it always takes a long while for the critics to really come to appreciate an important work of genre fiction- it has to have already gotten acclaim from within genre circles before they even take notice, usually.

I think it’s downright disingenuous to say that book critics don’t have a HEAVY tilt towards contemporary realism and character-driven stories away from other genres and other approaches. It’s not as bad as it used to be, but that’s how English Lit is taught in many ways.

Attacking critics for sbubbing genres is silly. It normally has a lot more to do with the genre than the critic.

C’mon- how much space does the New York Times Review of Books devote to science fiction or fantasy or westerns next to “non-genre” fiction? It’s not like the latter can’t be just as awful or even mediocre.

But this is getting away from the main point- a work of art should be judged by how well it does what it sets out to do, not how ambitious it is. If all ALL-STAR SUPERMAN is, is a refitting of Silver Age conventions to fit modern tastes, it’s still more successful at that than many more ambitious books are at what they set out to do.

KING KONG is regarded as one of the greatest movies ever made, and it was nothing more than a fantasy adventure with apes and dinosaurs.

Because in all but a few cases genre fiction isn’t that great.
Now, we know and love the cases where it’s great, and hell we love the cases where it’s good.
But just because a genre can be great, doesn’t mean it is a great genre.
And to be honest, when a work is great – and recognised as such either in, or after it’s time – critics love it.
Attacking critics for sbubbing genres is silly. It normally has a lot more to do with the genre than the critic.

“Yeah, it is. You’re in the minority, Greg”

Actually Dan, I don’t think he is.
I keep reading reviews that treat it like the second coming, much like New Frontier, but in both cases I don’t get it.
They are good, perhaps great for that month, but not the best thing ever, which so many are treating it as.
The reviews knocking it I’ve seen are saying it’s good, but not great.

Yes, but that’s because literary critics usually snub genre fiction.

But in a fairer world, yes, craft would be the thing that was judged. To paraphrase Roger Ebert, a work of art is not good because of what it is about, but how it is about it. He’s one of the few critics who, for the most part, is able to judge a movie in relation to its genre and what it’s trying to accomplish, and thus sees no problem in awarding four stars to BATMAN BEGINS- to him it’s that good by the standard of what it tries to do.

I’m glad that you all like it, mind.

And it does seem to avoid or improve upon my three major problems with Morrison’s work:

(1) Writer artist disconnect.
(2) Everybody talks exactly the same, with the same rhythm and SAYS exactly the same stuff, usually some variation of “I’m a badass.”
(3) A substantial portion of his work ends up being overly obscure, even confusing.

On the other hand, it’s Morrison not doing what I find more interesting about his past writing and not dealing with what I think are the most interesting aspects of the Superman mythos.

Plus, on a pure fanboyish level, Morrison doesn’t get Krypto. Krypto is Charlie Brown! (Except a dog in a cape.) Why is this sooo hard for everybody to grasp!

There has been ample discussion of this series since it started, with plenty of arguments for it’s greatness.

I guess you missed them.

Here is a good one, not from CBR:
http://joglikescomics.blogspot.com/2007/01/its-that-time-of-season.html

If you think ALL STAR SUPERMAN isn’t that great, go ahead and offer a critique. I have yet to read one that wasn’t simply a reaction to how much people love it.

“It’s not THAT good.”

Well, yes, actually, it IS “that” good. Forgive us if we’re sick of continually explaining why.

No, it is used quite frequently when talking about Alejandro Jodorowsky’s comics (and other works, to be fair).

Best,
Hunter (Pedro Bouça)

Because there is actually a character and a personality to Clark Kent.

Because Lois Lane never had so much dimension.

Because Jimmy Olsen finally seems like someone who Superman would be friends with, and not just a plot device.

Because everything in the story is clear, without being obvious.

Because Lex Luthor is clearly evil, but he doesn’t act like it’s that obvious.

Because Clark and Lois actually have a real relationship.

Because I can actually believe that Superman could alter his appearance enough to not be recognizable as Clark Kent, and Quitely actually shows the difference, instead of the writer explaining it.

But it is a slam on the book to suggest that it’s a silver age trope, and THAT’S ALL.

Still waiting for the part where someone explains why it’s not. I’ve asked several times now and I am perfectly willing to be persuaded. Instead I am scolded for being too dense to see the wonder that is… whatever it is that’s more than a Weisinger pastiche. If there’s a real case to be made here I wish someone would make it.

Yeah, it is. You’re in the minority, Greg.

“It’s not a slam on the book to suggest that its many admirers might want to re-examine their frame of reference for ‘greatness.’”

But it is a slam on the book to suggest that it’s a silver age trope, and THAT’S ALL.

Criticizing All-Star Superman for “only” being an awesome book has become the new “Most indie books suck.”

Ahem.

That’s not what many of us are doing. Quite a few of us are merely suggesting that swooning over it is an OVER-reaction. Much as Greg Burgas just did about “Fun Home.” We are saying that maybe “excellent Superman book” is still, at the end of the day, just an excellent Superman book. In no way is that any kind of a criticism of the book. It’s a criticism of the lack of perspective on the part of many CRITICS.

There is a huge tendency to set the bar too low for superhero comics… as though “hey, this is actually pretty GOOD!” is some sort of wildly innovative achievement and worth praising to the skies. Goddamn it, EVERY Superman book should be aspiring to the level of craft involved in All-Star. But it’s still ONLY a success of craft. Well-crafted should be the goddamned BASELINE.

Try it this way. Maybe Agatha Christie wrote the most perfect snooty-drawing-room British mysteries ever done, but they are still ONLY drawing-room mysteries. Fluffy. If someone wrote a NEW snooty-drawing-room mystery that was exquisitely crafted and never missed a step, and critics fell all over themselves hailing it as the best piece of fiction they’d seen in years, wouldn’t you find that critical reaction a little odd? Especially in reference to someone who’d previously been doing actual literature? I mean, no matter how beautifully executed, it would still be a snooty-drawing-room mystery and THAT’S ALL.

It’s not a slam on the book to suggest that its many admirers might want to re-examine their frame of reference for ‘greatness.’

The series is brilliant and lovely and the best comic on the stands, yeah. But it’s no Flex Mentallo. I get it.

Criticizing All-Star Superman for “only” being an awesome book has become the new “Most indie books suck.”

I only buy comics I don’t like when I love the character and want to “vote with my wallet” to keep the title around, hoping for a new and better creative team coming on. I have bought every single Hawkeye solo comic for the last forty years, for example, and every single one of them has sucked hard, but I’ll buy the next one.

I’m not “continuing” to buy them, a bunch of titles just happened to hit my “they suck” list this month and so I’ve dropped them after complaining to all and sundry that they sucked. I just chose to expand upon the clever twists in Morrisons tales rather than the exact nature of my buying habits.

Pardon my asking, but why in the world would you buy, or continue to buy, comics that you don’t even like?

I’m with Hatcher here.

I really, really like Grant Morrison the re-constuctionist, who wrote the X-men as science fiction metaphor and Animal Man as meta-commentary on art and God. But here it seems like Morrison’s just playing around with the Superman tropes that are already there, not coming up with cool new perspectives.

I like Quietly more’n Kubert junior, but Batman’s just way more fun that All Star Supes. It’s got this whacky, madcap vibe while Superman’s respectful, almost reverential. Which is just kind of boring too me.

I mean any book where Quietly draws Kryto is gonna be pretty good, but this is my least favorite work from Morrison in YEARS.

And ASS is the best acronym.

I am.

Most people aren’t.

If you don’t like Supes then you can appreciate FQ’s fantastic artwork and GM’s madcap notions but you’re not going to FEEL it. It, you know…the Love.