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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

“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.

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!

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.

However Happy Feet…talk about over praised!

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

“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…

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.

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.