Comic Book Resources

So. How off base am I? Be nice!

I am not a fan at all of “you’re just saying that because _____”.

“I think Fun Home is overrated” is fine. I don’t dig the other stuff, as it just devalues criticism, as everything just becomes, “You’re just saying that because _____.” “Oh yeah, but you’re just saying THAT, because _____!” etc.

“I don’t think Fun Home is as good as you say it is.” - THAT’S a good discussion point.

But that’s kind of the point. Shouldn’t we recognize our prejudices toward or against something while we are reviewing something? Nothing is objective, after all.

Thoughtcrime is a terrible thing, old man. It’s insidious.

People are going to be lining up with tomahawks over this one.

But I’m not one of them. Greg raises some really valid points. Let’s keep our eye on the ball here — at NO POINT did he say the book was BAD. He suggested people overpraised it.

Which, I’m sorry, fans do a LOT. We are really getting to the point where “I’ve personally never read this kind of story before” coupled with “I’m amazed at this method of presentation” automatically translates to “genius.” (Sometimes it doesn’t even have to be that much, which is why the All-Star Superman thing leaves me so befuddled. Or the similar overreaction to Sin City a few years ago. Or… you get the idea, pick your own.)

The Time magazine pick was news to me — I don’t read Time and had thought they’d picked it as GRAPHIC novel of the year. Book of the year? Overall? Not novel, not nonfiction, just book? Good God. That means I strongly suspect that Time, at least, is guilty of all five of Greg’s reasons and I’d add one or two more — Time is really wanting to look cool, and controversial.

I’m a big fan of stuff that’s good, don’t get me wrong. I even have a lot of affection for books that are just okay if they’re entertaining, as this week’s column will tell you. But if you want me to believe something is GREAT, well, you better be able to back it up.

I judge great by the old Aristotelean criteria (I’ll see your pretentiousness and raise you, Greg!) — what was the creator trying to do, did he/she actually DO it, and is it WORTH doing? and for greatness you add one more: breaking new ground. Seems to me that lots of people in comics have been over Ms. Bechdel’s ground. The groundbreaking part was Houghton-Mifflin taking a chance on her and having it pay off. THAT’s the story… but no one’s writing that one.

Quick footnote — Roberta Gregory and Howard Cruse both got there way ahead of Ms. Bechdel, to name two. I won’t do a comparative quality assessment presented as ‘fact’ but in MY opinion they are at least just as great as Alison Bechdel and they got there decades earlier. They just didn’t have a big publishing house behind them.

Greg, this is a very well-reasoned piece, and I hope you don’t get lambasted for it. I was on your side in the Tom Beland thing, but you were kind of trying to be funny there and I can sort of understand why he got pissed off. But this is a good critique, and you make some really good points. I hope it sparks a thoughtful debate rather than a flame war.

As for Fun Home, I haven’t read it yet, but I would really like to. I’ll let you know (either here or on my blog) what I think whenever I do.

Yeah, I have a sinking feeling this won’t end well, but you bring up some interesting points, Greg II. Perhaps I would even be able to contribute to the discussion if I had actually read this book.

I disagree with 3-5. There’s some validity to 1, but AIT/PLanetlar has never published anything a tenth as good. 2… maybe Maus opened some doors. I dunno. But 3-5 ain’t exactly supported by historical example. There’s a handful of lesbian cartoonists, and none of ‘em have got recognition like this in the past. Heck, from an individualistic point of view, I’m MORE likely to empathize with work written by straight dudes.

But I agree with G. Hatcher. There’ve been a hell of a lot of comic memoirs, a handful equal or better than quality.

(Although I hope t’God that Roberta Gregory’s done stuff other than Bitchy Bitch, which wasn’t Fun Home good. And I don’t think Stuck Rubber Baby was as technically well written, although it WAS first and it WAS very, very, good.)

Basically, I was blown away by the level of narrative craft. Bechdel doesn’t go in straight chronioigcal order like 99% of memoirs, but orders her story in a series of emotional narratives, essentially telling and RETELLING her story from eight and nine different points of view, even occasionally including the SAME moment in different versions of the story. And then wrapping it up so that the first panel ties into the last, but presemts it into a completely different POVfrom a different angle, and makes the reader respond to the work with a whole different level of engagement. Basically, I’ve NEVER seen a comic memoir use so convoluted and labarynthian a narrative structure and make it flow so easily. The craft is so good that the reader might not notice how good it is.

I notice that you didn’t mention it.

Sure, it doesn’t try to wring every possible ounce of melodrama out of her life. But I LIKE that… I’ve read enough Claremont to last me a GOOD long while, thankyewverymuch. You could call the book: Having thought about it logically, this is why I’ve decided to forgive my father. It presents the facts in a detached, very ADULT way.

Maybe you like kids books better? AMerican Born Chinese and Pride of Baghdad could both easily be read by teenagers.

(Which isn’t a BAD thing(American Born Chinese is one of the ballsiest things I’ve ever read. It’s way HARDER to write about racial identity for a teenage audience than an adult one, and t’do so in a comic book just compounds the challenge.)

Plus, like I said in my earlier write-up, the use of the “camera” was really quite inovative and damn near unique.

So, maybe I disagree with Hatcher. Sure, the subject’s old hat, but the presentation of the material and the storytelling methods were completely new for autobio comics. (Although I think Watchmen is a pretty good comparison, in terms of story construction.)

Mark - I noticed the craft, and was amazed by it, but I didn’t mention it because this isn’t really a “review,” per se.

Your mention of “kids’ books” sound vaguely like an insult, sir! I would say American Born Chinese is definitely less “mature” than this, but Pride of Baghdad deals with issues of freedom as “maturely” as this deals with issues of family. I wouldn’t say I like kids’ books better, but I do like books where things happen, as I mentioned. Pure craft, as brilliantly as it’s done here, isn’t enough. I admire a lot of books that are constructed “differently” from the normal narrative, and manage to tell a gripping story as well. The “gripping story” part is where Fun Home falls a bit short, I think, despite the interesting way Bechdel structures the book. Something like American Born Chinese is structured in a non-traditional way, too, but the story is more interesting. I just read Stagger Lee, which is structured “differently” than a normal narrative, and I liked THAT more than Fun Home. So while I understand what you’re saying, for me, the story doesn’t work as well as it could.

Well, as a fan of Bechdel’s for years, it’s worth pointing out that sure, Cruse and Gregory broke the gay-cartoonist ground before her, but not by very much. Dykes to Watch Out For has been going on since….’83? ‘84? Just because one hasn’t heard of her doesn’t mean she hasn’t been toiling away and earning her fringe dues.

And as a fan of Bechdel’s for years, I was blown away by Fun Home, because DTWOF is a great strip if you like the idea of reading what is essentially “lesbian Doonesbury” (which I do), but it still left me unprepared for the heights Fun Home would achieve. The use of literature is clearly how she can come to terms with her dad and their relationship since it was the only satisfactory way they could ever relate to one another. It’s alienating to some, perplexedly cold to others, but for someone who also grew up in a dysfunctional-yet-highly-literate family, it rings completely true (not saying y’all are illiterate, just saying different upbringings and all). Surely, there’s been enough film and literature out there of fathers and sons only able to connect through something seemingly frivolous or unemotional. So it was the way Bechdel was able to connect to her father and make sense of their similarities after he died.

Also, considering there’s been quite the debate as to how gay characters should be written, it’s interesting that she gets dinged here for not saying “I’m GAY!” enough. That’s not really the point of the book, to me. The point is trying to figure out who her father really was and whether they had a good familial relationship or not. Her exploration of being a radical feminist lesbian gets a good analysis in DTWOF regularly enough. Fun Home happens to be about homosexuality because that’s what she was able to find in common with her dad outside of books, but if they weren’t both gay, it strikes me that a similar book could be written out of both being lit nerds or something. At the core of the book, it’s not “I’m a lesbian and my dad was gay!”, it’s “I’m not sure I ever really knew my father, and I can’t tell if he wasted his life or not”. An issue that is universal and not tied to sexual identity or gender.

And the whole “if a lesbian woman does a graphic novel, it’s automatically going to be praised” is bull. It really is. As most women cartoonists can tell you, getting recognition is tough enough. Getting equal praise to Brad Meltzer or Jim Lee out of fanboys is nigh impossible. And even amongst the art-comix crowd, Bechdel is still virtually unknown and regarded with suspicion. Check out the Comics Journal message boards and see how well some people received the Time Book of the Year thing. It amazes me how quick the backlash has started, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

And as a final note, I’m a straight woman who loves superhero comics and Fantagraphics alike, and Bechdel’s DTWOF has always been a great strip for me. Her cast of characters are all people who I can truly relate to and who helped me clarify some points of feminism for me, as well as give me some female characters in comics that I can truly admire. Fun Home revealed a whole other side to Bechdel, but one no less relateable.

And that’s what I got.

Okay, fair points. MarkAndrew and Anun are making a case I can believe in, let’s put it that way. I would buy that line of reasoning for ‘best of the year.’

I would bet a year’s pay against a jelly donut that Time didn’t make their case that way, though, and THAT is a large part of what Mr. Burgas is saying, it seems to me. I wouldn’t call it a backlash to insist that critics actually, you know, demonstrate their critical standards. That’s not a slam on Ms. Bechdel or her book. It’s a slam on the critics. It is, in fact, more or less the same thing I’ve been saying to the gang here about All-Star Superman.

And Roberta Gregory’s done all sorts of stuff besides Bitchy Bitch, although I would rate “Bitchy Gets An Abortion” as being every bit as good as anything else mentioned so far. That was an extraordinary piece.

I guess where it comes down for me is “Yeah, Time kind of sucks generally, but if for once they’re promoting something I genuinely agree is awesome, I’m not going to ask why.” Stopped clocks still being right twice a day and all that.

I’m going to be very tempted to make some inflammatory comments under an anonymous name if this discussion continues to be this well reasoned and interesting. Just for the sake of getting that other shoe dropped and having it out of the way so we can all move on. I mean, no one’s called Greg an idiot yet. What the hell?

Burgas — No insult intended. Like I said, in a lot of ways it’s harder for a writer to write stuff that works for teenagers than stuff aimed soley at adults. Sure, I’m projecting a little bit, but you DO seem to mostly read Image-y stuff that’s closer to conventional genre narrative (although not strictly boriing ‘ol superheroes) than, say, Stuck Rubber Baby or Late Bloomer or Maus or Stuck Bubber Baby or Deitch’s Waldo/Mishkin cycle or most of Crumb’s work or One! Hundred! Demons or Bitchy Bitch or Eightball or Palookaville or Lucky or shit like that.

I think of all writing as a particual set of challenges;
Stuff like Pride of Baghdad, which is at it’s narrative core yer basic adventure story, works with a waaaay-the-hell different set of challenges than Fun Home. I’m projecting that you might prefer THIS kinda challenges to OTHER sets of challenges.

Same as you don’t like memoir as much as fiction.

ANUN - Well, put in general and SPECIFICALLY damn good point about “lesbian women graphic novels are universally praised.”

This doesn’t hold true for books or film or visual art. mind. If EVERY year Time’s book of the year and movie of the year was a gay coming of age story Greg’d have something. But it’s really, really not.

HATCHER — Didn’t like Bitchy Bitch so much, (although didn’t read the abortion piece) but I’m curious about her other stuff. I’ll keep an eye open.

Gotta agree with Brian here: you’re accusing Time (and everyone else who chose Fun Home as their GN or book of the year–yes, by extension, that includes me) of dishonesty, or at least having acted in bad faith or not knowing their own minds. What you’re saying is that it couldn’t actually have been their favorite book of the year, and that if they’d acted in good faith they’d have picked something else. That amounts to accusing people who get paid for explaining their aesthetics of willfully misrepresenting their own taste, which is kind of insulting.

And yes, I really did think Fun Home was the best new book I read all year, comics or otherwise. By way of defense of the literary-allusion thing: the point of all that is that what brought she and her father closer together was books, and learning how literature could help them understand their own lives and minds better. She says that she understood her parents as fictional characters–and, of course, through doing this book she’s turning them into artistic constructs. And every single allusion to Joyce or Proust or Wilde in Fun Home bears directly on her family’s life and the way she learned to understand it through the prism of literature.

Ya know what? Scratch my post. What Douglas said.

Mark - you’re very right - I do prefer narratives, but I’m not shy about admitting it. As for you, Douglas, I wasn’t trying to accuse anyone of dishonesty. If you think Fun Home is the best graphic novel of the year, that’s great, and I really have no problem with that. I don’t even have a problem with Time naming it the book of the year - as Anun said, it’s nice to see it, even if I think it’s a bit off. I was just interested in the reaction to it as a text, because how are we judging it? If we judge “greatness” on narrative, you can’t say this is the best of the year. The narrative simply isn’t that strong. If we judge “greatness” on the way something is constructed, that’s fine - as I and others have pointed out, Bechdel’s construction is rather brilliant, and really adds emotional impact to the book. But I’m just interested in the parameters of judging the book, and I don’t think it’s out of line for critics to point that out. This is why “best-of” lists are weird - they often contain memoirs, straight-up fiction, non-fiction … it’s bizarre to compare all of those. And I think you’ll agree that some books DO get praised for other things beside what is in the text.

Thanks for pointing out, Anun, that just because Bechdel is a lesbian does not mean she’s getting universally praised. That’s interesting. Sure, it puts a dent in my argument, but, as usual, I often post without scouring message boards for back-up information. I just know what I read at other places, but I’m only one person!!!!

I’m coming at this from the perspective of a long-time Bechdel fan who counted down the days until Fun Home hit the stores (the major chain bookstores. Sorry, but they had it in stock first), and who was amazed that so many other people were praising it to the skies and giving it rave reviews. So it’s not like Time persuaded me to read it, it’s more like Time added some validation to my own hugely enthusiastic reaction to it. It’s praise that’s way past due for her work, imo.

I’m sure Larry is psyched to be mentioned in the same breath as Houghton-Mifflin and First Second, which is an imprint of Roaring Brook Press, a division of Holtzbrinck Publishers, which owns some of America’s most prestigious publishers, known for great integrity and literary quality. These include Henry Holt, FSG, St Martin’s Press, Tor and Picador, all of which have serious New York publishing money behind them.

I’m not sure why you see the narrative as weak. Apart from the brilliant way it’s put together, Fun Home is just a really interesting story.

Growing up in a funeral home! Interesting!

Woman finds out her dad had been having sex with a series of young men, and then he kills himself! Interesting!

Then she has to reevaluate her own life and rethink her past and identity in regards to this new information. Interesting. And, while the SPECIFIC incidents in her life are… well, pretty unique, most of us have had an “Oh shit! Everything is fucked up and I have to totally reevaluate my life” moment SOMEWHERE in our own coming of age stories.

The “What actually happened” parts of the story ALSO worked really well for me, apart from the superb craft of how the story was presented.

To be fair to Bechdel, she’s said herself that while it’s great people notice your work being stuffed in the ‘lesbian/feminist/wimmin’ pigeon hole isn’t exactly an unmixed blessing. (Sometimes a gag in ‘Dykes to Watch Out For’ is just a joke, not proof of internalised homophobiasexismracism.) But I think that really says more about the critical - perhaps even human need - to have everyone and everything neatly put in a box otherwise life, and art, just gets too damn confusing.

You’re an idiot, Greg!

I’ve been a fan of Bechdel’s comic for some years, to the point of buying all of her books, and when I finally got a copy of Fun Home I tore thru it … but that has a lot more to do with my anticipation (I didn’t get it until after Christmas) and desire to read it than whether I thought it would be good.

I did think it was good, except for the last chapter, which seemed to be repeating the previous stories and not near as well. I do know she’s been working on the book for a long time (years) and maybe she had a rush to the deadline.

I read American Born Chinese too, and I agree that it’s also excellent, I did have to read it twice to understand everything. The first time, I read the story as presented, the second I read the segments in chrono order.

I am so sick and tired of people calling things pretentious because they don’t understand it.

Maybe it’s not pretentious. Maybe you’re just under-educated.

Wow, Dan, that’s just mean. I’m going to have to take my BA in English and my MA in History and go cry somewhere.

It’s not the fact that I don’t understand the literary allusions - she quotes from the texts, after all, and although I spent my wayward youth eating Funions and watching the A-Team, instead of reading Proust in the original French, like you apparently did, I can read them and understand the connections she’s making. It’s just that whenever I read a text that relies SO heavily on OTHER literature to make its points, I wonder if the author has less to say than he or she wants us to think and is using other stuff to cover that up. I don’t really think that’s the case here, but I DO think Bechdel uses other texts in a bit of a showy manner, as if she’s showing off how smart she is.

On the literature thing: I’d call it a very “cerebral” approach to stuff, which sounds pretentious in its own way, but there’s perhaps no avoiding that. Anyway, in a nutshell there are people out there who understand the world in terms of the great pieces of literature they’ve read and this is essentially no different from people understanding the world in terms of astrological signs or psychological theories. Each set of symbols has its own advantages and disadvantages and it seems Bechdel’s was/is one of classical literature. I assume lots of literary critics can at least relate to that while at the same time it’s understandable that other people might prefer something more “meaty”/ “real-world”/”emotional, dramatic”. Doesn’t mean anyone is right.

“Wow, Dan, that’s just mean. I’m going to have to take my BA in English and my MA in History and go cry somewhere.

It’s not the fact that I don’t understand the literary allusions - she quotes from the texts, after all, and although I spent my wayward youth eating Funions and watching the A-Team, instead of reading Proust in the original French, like you apparently did, I can read them and understand the connections she’s making. It’s just that whenever I read a text that relies SO heavily on OTHER literature to make its points, I wonder if the author has less to say than he or she wants us to think and is using other stuff to cover that up. I don’t really think that’s the case here, but I DO think Bechdel uses other texts in a bit of a showy manner, as if she’s showing off how smart she is.”

The comment wasn’t specifically directed at you in particular, Greg. However, what I took issue with was the idea that referencing a piece of literature is pretentious, because most people aren’t familiar with it. I can’t see any value in criticizing art for not pandering to the masses.

And it gets especially frustrating when people who haven’t read the works being referenced decide that their criticisms are just as valid as those who have. If you haven’t read cornerstone works of literature, then why in the world would you be qualified to judge literature that admittedly has those cornerstone works in its ancestry?

I’m tired of knowledgable people getting shat upon because they’re the minority.

And it does seem like you’re projecting.

Alison Bechdel’s Fun Home is pretty good but not as good as Pat Sharp’s Fun House.

Disclaimer: I have not yet read Fun Home. But I disagree with Greg anyway.

Some people actually do enjoy reading Proust and Joyce. I know a professor who’s spent his career studying Joyce, and a grad student who has read Proust in the original and did an MA thesis on Proust and Heidegger. Maybe you only read great literature because you were forced to, but that doesn’t entitle you to make fun of people who read it for enjoyment.

I also have problems with your claim that “the fact that Bechdel ties so much of the narrative to these texts lessens this work, I think. It’s as if she has to turn to fiction in order to articulate her thoughts.” Every kind of text is influenced in some way by the texts that came before it. You yourself said you liked Stagger Lee. I have no idea what that is, but I assume it’s somehow based on the folk song of the same name. Is that comic “lessened” by the fact that its creators had to “turn to” the Stagger Lee story “in order to articulate their thoughts? The only difference between the two is that Stagger Lee is based on a folk song, while Fun Home is based on great literature– and, I guess, that Fun Home makes its influeces e

For that matter, most superhero comics are heavily influenced by Kirby, or else by other artists who were themselves influenced by Kirby. And Kirby himself didn’t come out of nowhere; he also read things and was influenced by them. The point is that nothing exists in a vacuum; even if a text does not openly declare its influences, they are still there beneath the surface.

I think Greg’s argument is fundamentally anti-intellectual, really. “Pretentious” is not a critical term. To call something pretentious is to admit that it went over your head.

“Pretentious” is not a critical term. To call something pretentious is to admit that it went over your head.
Nah. I’m with you for a lot of the rest of what you said - art as undeniably linked to art and so on - but sometimes, things are just pretentious. I haven’t read Fun Home either, and as someone who does indeed love reading Joyce I’m fairly sure I wouldn’t respond in the same way Greg did. But I’ve read lots of shitty fiction in writing workshops, and while “pretentious” may be a highly debatable and volatile term, it’s ridiculous to suggest that it can be equated to “it went over my head.” It’s also an incredibly condescending suggestion to make.

I can’t help but think that if 4 and 5 were in any way valid arguments then Alison would be queen of the world rather than where she is. I don’t believe that the American comics community is so backward compared to the rest of the American cultural community that it will look in and say “look! A lesbian! Let us uncritically laud whatever she writes!” while ignoring the rest of the comics community because it’s largely consisting of straight white men. Her latest ‘Dykes to Watch Out For’ collection came out with little media interest after all.

“Pretentious” is not a critical term. To call something pretentious is to admit that it went over your head.

Yeah, like Dave said, this is probably the most problematic aspect of your position, Aaron.

Pretentious might not be a recommended critical term (mainly because it is a pretty vague term, and has such negative connotations as to lessen the probative value of the term to almost zero), but I think it is, in fact, a critical term.

And the “if you say ____, then you’re not smart” line is just as bad as “people who say Fun Home is the best book of the year are just saying that because _____.”

I think both are ultimately anti-discourse.

This whole entry really disappoints me, to be honest. I haven’t responded past my initial post (which was to point out my disappointment) mostly because seeing this type of discussion on this blog…well, it pretty much depresses me.

Ah well…

Logically it would be more sensible to ask the many lesbians who have secured their position at CBR due to the tendency of artistic people to love the gays about this, surely? In a way, in fact, their lesbian vision is probably best equipped to pierce the seductive veils around Fun Home and determine whether it is, in fact, any cop at all.

I think it speaks volumes that the writer uses
“pretentious” and “erudite” as synomyms (or,
perhaps more accurately, as essentially interchangable
terms).

I didn’t read this comic because the art style didn’t appeal to me.

However Happy Feet…talk about over praised!

Okay I just wanted to join the conversation.
so bored.

Well, I’m sorry I disappointed Our Dread Lord and Master with this post, but I do think it’s perfectly valid to ask WHY people like something, even if I’m perhaps a bit arrogant in assigning those reasons to them. This is all pure speculation, anyway, and it’s nice to see people offering their own interpretations of Fun Home without being rude. I know I carry some prejudices into everything I do, so I just figured everyone else would to. I don’t mean to insult the people who think Fun Home is the greatest book from last year, except for maybe the “pretentious” remark, which was kind of mean. However, I stick by it - let’s take every single extraneous literary reference out of Fun Home. Yes, I know it’s an integral part of the book, but shouldn’t it still be a powerful work of fiction without them? If you take everything out, I think the actual work would be weakened, and that’s why I don’t like them. A work should stand on its own, without the other authors. I mentioned Stagger Lee, which is definitely based on the folk song. But that’s the whole point of it - looking at the legend behind Stagger Lee. If Bechdel wanted to base her story ON Ulysses, I’d have no problem with it. But she doesn’t. “Pretentious” was too harsh a word, probably, but I still think the literary references are too intrusive and showy. It has nothing to do with the fact that I don’t “get” them - as I mentioned, Bechdel quotes large sections of the texts and tells us about them, so people who haven’t read Joyce or Proust should be fine if they pay attention. And I’ve been accused of being anti-intellectual before, which makes me laugh. Just because I haven’t read Joyce or Proust doesn’t make me anti-intellectual. I have read some Joyce, I just didn’t like it. It is possible not to like Joyce, after all.

Despite Brian’s disappointment, I’m glad people showed up to debate this. I think it’s good to understand why things work and why people love or hate them so much. I have mentioned often that I don’t like memoirs. I like this one because it’s so skillfully done, but it still nags at me, because I’m always looking for narrative and plot, even when I know I’m probably not going to get it. But that’s just me. Your tastes may vary. And that’s cool.

The thing is if you take out the literary references, you take out the one way Bechdel and her father were able to connect, because he clearly wasn’t comfortable discussing his sexual orientation. It would be a weakened narrative, but not because it would have less footnotes. It would be weakened because you’d miss out on the one thing they had going for them as a way to comfortably relate.

Can we actually get a discussion of the CONTENT, and not the reaction surrounding it? Who gives a shit if you think it’s “overpraised’?

Can’t we just be pleased that there are comics out there that are widening the audience?

On the other hand, good job on continually lowering the bar for the blog!

All right, maybe there are productive ways in which “pretentious” can be used, although I have trouble seeing what those might be. It seems to me that the term smacks of anti-intellectualism, to such an extent that it would be better to use a more precise word that means something similar.

“However, I stick by it - let’s take every single extraneous literary reference out of Fun Home. Yes, I know it’s an integral part of the book, but shouldn’t it still be a powerful work of fiction without them? If you take everything out, I think the actual work would be weakened, and that’s why I don’t like them. A work should stand on its own, without the other authors.”

Why, exactly? Where’s the warrant for this claim? Like I just said, *no* text could exist at all without the influence of earlier texts. The only difference is that Fun Home makes its influence apparent. If Bechdel had edited out all of the “extraneous” literary references, this wouldn’t be equivalent to editing out the influence. I still think your problem with these references is the result of your own distaste for Proust and Joyce.

“I mentioned Stagger Lee, which is definitely based on the folk song. But that’s the whole point of it - looking at the legend behind Stagger Lee. If Bechdel wanted to base her story ON Ulysses, I’d have no problem with it. But she doesn’t.”

I still don’t see why this makes a difference.

“And I’ve been accused of being anti-intellectual before, which makes me laugh. Just because I haven’t read Joyce or Proust doesn’t make me anti-intellectual.”

That was never my argument. I don’t care if you don’t like Proust and Joyce, but you were making fun of people who *do* like Proust and Joyce, and that *is* an anti-intellectual thing to do.

“Despite Brian’s disappointment, I’m glad people showed up to debate this. I think it’s good to understand why things work and why people love or hate them so much.”

It’s a worthwhile debate, although I think it could have been framed in a less provocative way.

“I have mentioned often that I don’t like memoirs. I like this one because it’s so skillfully done, but it still nags at me, because I’m always looking for narrative and plot, even when I know I’m probably not going to get it. But that’s just me. Your tastes may vary. And that’s cool.”

By the way, I think you’re using the term “narrative” to mean fiction, or linear narrative, or something like that. I don’t know much about narratology, but as I understand it, any kind of argument that proceeds from a point A to point B is a narrative. A *traditional* narrative is one where point A is the logical starting point, point B is the logical conclusion, and the story gets from one to the other according to Aristotle’s rules of probability and necessity.

I think Anun gets it right in post #37. That’s pretty much the point–how the discussion of literature was the only discussion they could have that was productive (and see the horribly awkward attempt Alison makes to connect with Bruce in the car towards the end of the book as a contrast to the ease with which they discuss books).

If the sticking point is the fact that the references are literary, and not sports-related, or superhero-related, or whatever is an acceptable, non-pretentious way of connecting, well… shit, it’s autobiography. If that’s the way they connected, that’s the way they connected.

“I think it’s good to understand why things work and why people love or hate them so much.”
But surely the most constructive way to do that is to look at the relative merits of the work in question, rather than assigning bullshit, vaguely anti-intellectual reasoning to other people’s appreciation of the book.

The only point you made that seems to be a genuine attempt to discuss why the book did or didn’t work, on its own merits, was your discussion of the literary references. Which was a decent point, but not having read ‘Fun Home’, it sounds like those references were an important part of the autobiographical story anyway.

I mean, I don’t like movies that continually reference other movies when there seems to be no reason for the reference, so I’m with ya so far there. But here, it seems as if the references are more than warranted by the story.

Just finally caught up with this post, and I have to say, overall, I’m happy with it. Too bad Brian’s disappointed, but really, what’s to get disappointed about? Greg wrote a potentially inflammatory post, but not quite, and he was honest about his preconceptions, and put them out there for us to discuss. And most everybody else has politely made their case to him (or to each other). It’s ultimately been a very edifying thread, really. (Hey, Alex — I suppose we could discuss the “CONTENT,” although the book’s not nearly brand-new. But the whole point of Greg’s post was, in light of some year-end lists, to discuss the critical response and the discourse around “Fun Home,” as much as the work itself.)

One of the most worthwhile points that’s coming up in this thread (from my perspective) is how the homogenous dominant culture — yes, I’m basically talking about Straight White Men — love to marginalize “minority” voices. One of the ways this happens is by devaluing significant and/or breakthrough achievements from women, queer people, people of color, et al. A good strategy for doing so is to say, “Well, [your academic performance/your work record/your art] — it’s fine and all, but not really that great. You only got this far because you’re [a woman/gay/lesbian/black/etc.].” That’s basically the argument Greg is promoting here (at least in part). And I bet he’s not even doing it consciously.

A big tip-off (to me), Greg, is your reference to “this weird politically correct world” we all live in. Wow. One of the right wing’s greatest ideological achievements of the past 15-20 years (along with turning “liberal” and “feminist” into evil concepts) was to popularize this notion that there’s some powerful cabal in the country enforcing some crazy PC code. I’ll bet you my entire life savings that the good ol’ boy network still flexes its might with vastly greater strength and success than some exaggerated lefty conspiracy to squelch free speech and institute a PC hivemind across America.

Here’s a question: If “artistic people” LOVE this gay stuff so much — hold on here, I’m gonna use Hollywood and the Oscars for comparison, because it’s easier than comics. (Will this translate? We’ll see. Roll with me.) If “artistic people” LOVE this gay stuff so much, if they’re so f*cking progressive (or, better yet, PC), why are so few Hollywood films directed by women? (I believe Sofia Coppola was only the third woman to ever be nominated for Best Director, just a couple years back for “Lost in Translation.”) There aren’t a lot of big-name black directors either. And explain to me, one more time, exactly how much artsy people love the gay stuff, yet “Crash” beats “Brokeback Mountain” for Best Picture. (Keep in mind, several journalists documented, in the days leading up to last year’s Oscars, a few Academy members openly admitting that they would never vote for “that gay movie.”)

Getting back to the art form at hand: Aside from the just-released Midnighter (and we’ll see how long that lasts), name me one mainstream comic with a lead hero who’s gay … We won’t hold our breath. No, even gay supporting characters still spark flame wars. Far too many fanboys get all riled up when Kyle’s intern comes out of the closet and then gets gay-bashed, or when the new Blue Beetle turns out to be a Latino youth, or when Michael Clarke Duncan (an African-American actor) gets cast as Kingpin. And then, again, accusations start to fly about this PC world running amok.

Which isn’t to say some publishers aren’t trying. (And, as far as gay inclusivity goes, DC earns higher marks here than Marvel.) But the reality, for now, is: There are plenty of straight male readers who are NEVER going to pick up comic starring a gay male hero. They’re never going to pick up a Bechdel graphic novel, either, because her dykes are not the sexy Kathy Kane kinda dykes, not the kind of lipstick lesbians that lots of straight guys apparently love to fantasize about (because, you know, lesbian sex is really all about YOU, straight boy — they’re getting it on just for you!).

At any rate, Greg, I’m glad you read “Fun Home” and I’m glad you enjoyed it and I’m glad you started this thread because I think the discussion is a worthwhile one. And it’s fine if it’s only #6 on your list, or #10, or number whatever. It’s just that, hey, other people liked it better, and not just because we live in this weird politically correct world. Because, really, we don’t.

(And hopefully I didn’t ramble onto too many tangents to make my point. Of course, I think Hauser basically made the same point, only much more amusingly and WAY more succinctly, in post #33. Well done, Hauser.)

Actually, I was just wishing I had taken the time to explain the issue as clearly and comprehensively as you, rebis, rather than going for the gag…

However, I think this is where the issue lies. I think it might be perfectly reasonable to suggest that there was some editorial bias towards lesbians in the group selecting Time Magazine’s book of the year, although one would probably have to back it up with specific reference to the people in the group and their statements - if it turned out that the judges’ panel was made up of Roberta Gregory, Trina Robbins, Jessica Abel and Elizabeth Watashin, you might start thinking that (4) may have been an issue. One could further argue that Fun Home is being praised as a concession to or a figleaf over a wider neglect by publishers of specifically gay voices, and I think that would be an interesting angle. But. To argue that people who read these kinds of comics are, for the most part, predisposed to like Alison Bechdel’s life is a much harder and a much less credible sell, I think. The political correctness line is a bit self-defeating: if a pundit says that a book has been disproportionately praised because reviewers are afraid of being labelled misogynists or homophobes if they do not praise it disproportionately, and is not then burned at the stake on charges of misogyny or homophobia for not having praised it disproportionately, where does that leave us?

Personally, I liked Fun Home a lot, but in terms of sheer enjoyment I think I might recommend some of the the later Dykes to watch out for collections above it - the references to Middle American academia might be considered grating, but the description of it as Doonesburyesque seems both accurate and high praise - except if Doonesbury were produced on a shoestring by an author struggling to get it into newspapers which are constantly pressured to can it by religious pressure groups. The characters in DTWOF do suffer, also, which may help. However, DTWOF is by definition much less novelistic, so I can see why it would be unlikely to make it onto a recommendations list in Time. It is also, of course, published by a small press: the pull that publishing houses and publicists can exert (point 1, effectively), would I think have a far greater effect on the ordering decisions made by Time Magazine than the writer’s status as gay or female. Still, if somebody reads Fun Home who would never normally have read a graphic novel, and then as a result of that rushes out and (after fruitlessly searching in half a dozen bookstores and comic shops) gets the complete run of DTWOF, so much the better.

Personally, I was thrilled to hear that Alison Bechdel’s book had been recognized by TIME as their Book of the Year.

In 2003, I founded a nonprofit organization called Prism Comics that is devoted to helping promote LGBT creators and comics, and think it’s a positive development that this graphic novel could earn this distinction. Of course, it would not be such a positive step if the award were not deserved, which is what you are insinuating.

The reason that an organization like Prism Comics is needed is because there are clear inequities in the industry, and on a daily basis, incredibly talented people are not afforded the opportunity to prove themselves because of bias, be it on the basis of gender, race or sexual orientation. Much as we would like, we do not have an industry based on pure artistic merit with a level playing field.

I believe Prism Comics’ ultimate goal is to make itself unnecessary by working to erase those biases, but, for now, they exist. Boy, do they exist. So your reasons #4 and 5 make the extremely illogical argument that, in this industry that demonstrates a clear bias favoring straight men, Bechdel has the unfair advantage as a gay woman.

I also thought your claims that male readers can’t criticize FUN HOME for fear of reprisal verged on paranoia. Browse what’s available in your comic shop, look for the female characters, and then come back and tell me that anyone in the industry is really worried about being called misogynist. It still is a man’s world, though less so. It’s the “less so” that confuses and worries a lot of men.

I also find it puzzling that you assume that “artistic people” are more likely to praise a work for gay themes than its artistic merit, when my experience is the opposite.

For instance, there are organizations like GLAAD who hand out awards that are no doubt heavily swayed by your reasons #1-5, but they will tell you up front that their focus is on social impact rather than artistic merit. Being an “artistic person” myself, I’ve had serious problems with many of their choices, because when you choose impact over artistic merit, you often overlook the most honest (and thus most important) voices—the ones that could have the greatest impact, if they were only heard.

TIME is not GLAAD, and I assume their “Book of the Year” award is about merit. I see no reason to impugn their motives.

Well, I’m glad someone mentioned this book on this blog a few weeks ago (I’d never heard of it, it’s book of the year status, nor Bechdel–where’ve I been?), because I found it, read it, and enjoyed it.

It’s obvious that she chose to structure the book around books because that was her connection with her father, and that’s a really nice idea. However, it is also quite strange. It is definitely alienating. I’ve got a friend who I know would enjoy the themes of this bok, but I know she hasn’t read most of the books mentioned, so I don’t think she’d understand sections of the book (or have the patience to wade through several pages of discussion of books she’s never read).

And Burgas is right: the books that Bechdel includes are exactly those books that pretentious folk like to talk about or pretend to be reading or pass off literary criticism that they’ve read as their own takes on the books (and Burgas has apparently been to college, has met these kinds of obnoxious blowhards (haven’t we all?), and has every right to be suspicious. However, I’m guessing Bechdel chose those books because they were the books that her father liked. And he was the very definition of pretentious. He was an absolute poseur. His entire life was a lie. So did he really like those books or were they just more ornamentation?

It does seem strange for these books to play such an important role to the structure and themes of this book when Bechdel didn’t really even seem to enjoy them as a child and young adult. She is suspicious of literary criticism and she doesn’t even finish Ulysses. Using these books as a foundation of her novel when she didn’t even like them much strikes a wrong note for me. This creates quites a disconnect between Bechdel the child/young adult and Bechdel the adult for me. Is Bechdel being pretentious then? At the very least, it’s a strange choice.

Of course, one reason Bechdel didn’t like the books much was because she was too busy with her indepedent studies in gay literature. And she even covertly convinces her father to read some, and he likes it. It seems like this might be a moment where the culturally/inelectually elite books that the father has adorned himself with are knocked back by something that is closer to his own experiences and interests. Do the pretentions vanish for a moment? If that’s what the scene is meant to covey, then Bechdel’s choice of books to focus on (and thus to praise and elevate?) seems even more strange.

Anyway, I liked the book and definitely related to it’s theme of the power that books can have on people’s lives even if I found some of the choices to be questionable.

I was linked to this post and had to add something despite the fact that I’m close to falling asleep. I have to say something about calling it pretentious. I myself am quite suspicious of people who toss around literary references for the sole purpose of making themselves appear smarter, but I loved every page of Fun Home. I haven’t read much of what she references in the book but she worked them in so that it actually isn’t necessary to have read them first. If anything, she brings classic works of literature alive more than any English teacher ever has for me. I’ve been reading DTWOF for years and even though the acedemic references went over my head as a teenager, when I had a gender theory class last semester I found having read DTWOF helped in understanding certain theories. If down the road I do read Proust or Joyce I’ll get the surge of joy of “I remember that from this part in Fun Home where…”, much like I do when I finally see a classic movie that The Simpsons has parodied endlessly. Anywho that’s my two cents on that particular issue.