Comic Book Resources

All three three parts are on CBR already.
Part two: http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=11077
Part the third: http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=11089

Moderation? Say What?

Hey, it’s Timothy Callahan week at CSBG all of a sudden! And nobody even sent me flowers or anything.

Thanks for pimping my stuff, and actually, all three parts of Andy’s interview with me are posted at Comic Book Resources, and the third part is raising a bit of a fuss over at the Comic Geek Speak message boards. It’s funny, I just posted a blog entry about that last part of the interview, saying I became a dick at the end and said stuff that would offend people, and then, sure enough, a few hours later, people at the message boards are saying stuff like “that guy sounds like a dick.”

All I did was say that anyone who doesn’t understand that literary works (including comics) have a deeper meaning are BAD READERS. And then I go on to explain why.

Is that so wrong?

Tim, no, no it’s not. The book was enjoyable and I’m hideously jealous since I wrote my master’s thesis on Morrison last year. When are the other two volumes due out?

“All I did was say that anyone who doesn’t understand that literary works (including comics) have a deeper meaning are BAD READERS. And then I go on to explain why.

Is that so wrong?”

No, it’s not. But it’s strongly implied in the interview that people who don’t see the deeper meaning of Morrison’s work are bad readers. And there is a subtle difference between the two statements, and it’s likely that those whom are pissed off took it to mean the latter.

While you, the author of that statement, might not have intended it that way, that’s what the effect of the statement is.

And as far as your argument about deeper meanings, one can take the example of Ray Carney, the intellectual firebrand who is a _great_ reader and teacher of books, paintings, movies, and music– Carney believes that literary allusions and symbolism are a “decoder ring” approach to art. His point of view is– and I’m simplifying greatly here– that one should enjoy the surface values of a work. Not to simply passively read it or dispassionately discuss its “post-modernism” or the existential implications of blah-blah-blah, but rather to passionately and actively EXPERIENCE the work. The experience– emotional rock-climbing, opening your brain up to new ways of thinking– is the important thing– perhaps the only thing. This shallow understanding of art is, in his reasoning, deeper than the “deep” understanding that’s taught in film and literary theory classes.

I’m not saying that I agree with him one-hundred percent– but I did get tired of discussing what the light at the end of the pier meant in the Great Gatsby.

I had added the links to the next two interview sections but they were moderated out of here I guess.

Now the main post has changed…Ghosts, I wager!

Even spookier, Denn, your post has been rescued from the spam-catcher!

“While you, the author of that statement, might not have intended it that way, that’s what the effect of the statement is.”

Brittle!

“And as far as your argument about deeper meanings, one can take the example of Ray Carney, the intellectual firebrand who is a _great_ reader and teacher of books, paintings, movies, and music– Carney believes that literary allusions and symbolism are a “decoder ring” approach to art. His point of view is– and I’m simplifying greatly here– that one should enjoy the surface values of a work. Not to simply passively read it or dispassionately discuss its “post-modernism” or the existential implications of blah-blah-blah, but rather to passionately and actively EXPERIENCE the work. The experience– emotional rock-climbing, opening your brain up to new ways of thinking– is the important thing– perhaps the only thing. This shallow understanding of art is, in his reasoning, deeper than the “deep” understanding that’s taught in film and literary theory classes.”

You must be paraphrasing because this doesn’t explain how it is “deeper” than the “deep” understanding that you don’t even need formal education for. So much of the “deeply deep” understanding of Morrison’s work comes from having an interest in exploring the intriguing themes and ideas presented. If being intellectually curious is a something to be ashamed of, then I understand what Tim is saying totally.

Yes, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Yes, you should appreciate the surface. But “emotional rock climbing” and “opening your brain to new ways of thinking” sure seems to imply some deeper connection with the text. So hey, guess what? You’re evaluating what you read on more than a surface level. Everybody does it. It’s not “dispassionately discussing its post-modernism” or whatever slur you’d care to put on it, it’s something we all do. Being literate means you’re theoretically capable of recognizing that language and art can be symbolic. If you are so stubborn that you can’t acknowledge that, then, yes, you are a bad reader.

“I’m not saying that I agree with him one-hundred percent– but I did get tired of discussing what the light at the end of the pier meant in the Great Gatsby. ”

So don’t discuss it. You’re presumably not in high school or college anymore and nobody’s forcing you to.

I have to confess that the fact that people who are willing to read and absorb facts and details from, in many cases, literally thousands of comics and don’t really want a more satisfying experience from it other than words and pictures either have no way to evaluate what they’re reading or are frustratingly stubborn.

I’ve been blogging like crazy in reponse to this “bad reader” controversy, and I’m beginning to think the problem arose because the CBR interview was a telephone interview, and I clearly would have said, “they don’t know HOW to read,” although reading the transcript, many people probably assume I emphasized it this way, “they don’t know how to READ.”

I was trying to imply that there are ways to read Morrison that are more fruitful than others, but it reads like I’m saying “these idiots lack the intelligence of a small child.”

No wonder they’re getting pissy.

Plus, I’m a dick.

As an English teacher in real life, I know exactly where this guy is coming from, and I agree with him.

I have my theories as to why, but I’ve noticed that hardcore comic book fans tend to like EVERYTHING spelled out for them. Any ambiguity in the work pisses them off tremendously. God forbid you ask anybody to try and read deeper than ‘surface level.’

but I did get tired of discussing what the light at the end of the pier meant in the Great Gatsby.

Ack, don’t get me started. I remember some kid using it as a thematic anchor to his closing statement back in high school mock trial. I wanted to beat him about the head. Oh well.

Tim, don’t worry. I agree with you on this one. And I doubt it caused as much of a furor as when G-Mozz himself said that schizophrenics can’t process metaphor.

I didn’t see anything in there where you were being a jerk, Tim. If someone states that they didn’t get a story, why is it mean to say they don’t know how to understand it?

I’ll tell you why. Because everyone’s so wrapped up in their own egos that they’re completely unwilling to consider that they might be stupid or wrong. See, the problem isn’t that you’re INSULTING them. It’s that you’re insulting THEM.

And they think they’re pretty great, so they must be.

Tim, I understand your point, and I share your frustration with readers who are just looking for passive enjoyment and who don’t want to learn anything. But I think you could have been more tactful. It’s no use to just point out that people are bad readers. What’s more helpful is to identify why these people are bad readers, and to teach them to be better readers. I assume that the latter was one of your purposes in writing the book. But when you label people as ignorant readers, you make it less likely that they will read your book and thereby learn to read better.

Incidentally, I’m curious as to whether you’ve studied literature at a postgraduate level. I couldn’t find this information anywhere.

“You must be paraphrasing because this doesn’t explain how it is “deeper” than the “deep” understanding that you don’t even need formal education for.”

I guess the best way to sum up my side of the argument is that “a poem should not mean, but be.” The works of art that appeal to me, personally, are not ones that require a formal education. Of course, this is a gray area and a matter of personal opinion.

I think reading Proust requires no formal education. Does it require intelligence? Yes! Does it challenge the reader? Yes! Is it wonderful and sublime? Yes! Yes! Yes! It’s incredibly rewarding, and I don’t need to know what all the symbols mean to not only enjoy it, but to have it enrich and change my life.

Not so, for example, with James Joyce, who’s so metatextual that I feel pity for the human beings that try to muddle through it. Joyce plays games with the readers– it’s not a sincere challenge, not something humble and emotional– it’s something he’s lording over you. You need a glossary to get through Ulysses and its symbols. (In fact, he provided one.)

If you can say what a symbol represents, than you’ve killed it. It’s dead. It has no meaning. Symbols– images– should say things we have no words for.

The art I enjoy– the art that’s really touched my life– whether it’s by Grant Morrison, or Alan Moore, or Steve Ditko, or Jack Kirby, or Yasujiro Ozu, or William Carlos Williams, or Proust (happy birthday, Marcel!)– is the art that’s accessible _and_ challenging– work by artists that realize that these two goals are *not* mutually exclusive. Work that embraces ambiguity and that moves the soul.

For example: I like Watchmen. I love it. I read it often. On the whole, I thing it succeeds in moving you in strange and terrible ways.

But I don’t think the formal complexity– the simultaneous narrators (for example, the pirate comics interspersed with conversation), the lengthy and dull text pieces– really adds anything of value. I think it’s in those moments that the work fails.

And I think, furthermore, that when an author relies on this kind of formal complexity, that they do so out of fear (or, alternatively, to feel superior to their story and their audience). They don’t think the story– or their storytelling abilities– is strong enough to stand on its own two feet.

When someone can tell a story clearly, without fuss, and make you think and feel and cry and scream and change and evolve– That’s an artist. That’s art.

All the rest is bullshit.

And just in case I left my stance unclear– I do agree with Tim’s basic premise that art– comics, books, movies, what-have-you– has a deeper meaning, and that those who argue otherwise are bad readers.

My argument– and Carney’s, which I summarized badly, and which I introduced in the office of devil’s advocate– was on the related point– that those who don’t like something because it is confusing are bad readers. My argument is against metatextualism and overwrought, “important” symbolism. I’m for emotional and intellectual complexity, not formal jumping-jacks.

But that’s me.

I must say I was a bit let down Tim.

I had to read the 3rd part twice to figure out where offence could have been caused.

And then I realised – ‘hang on, he’s pointed out that some people have trouble seeing beyond the surface level when it comes to reading, and so it’s those people who haven’t gone beyond a surface reading of the interview who have taken offence’.

Every now and again I forget to put my internet goggles on, and forget that some people are wimps, desperate for something to get offended by.
Next time, whip them into a real frenzy, just call them idiots, and give them no further explanation than that.

Tom Russel – I kinda disagree with both your counter-examples.

I didn’t see Ulysses as being all that symbolically deep, really. It’s, well, it’s Ulysses, retold. The appeal of the work ain’t in the symbolism – It’s that the prose is extremely aesthetically pleasing… It’s just *FUN* to read.

(Which actually proves your point as well as the original argument.)

And Watchmen, well, my read on it’s pretty much the opposite of yours. The most important element of Watchmen was the world-building… Moore was trying to make a science fictional world that feels as true-to-life as possible, and each of the narratives and diversions served to give the.. um.. Watchmenverse(?) more depth and richness. The second most important element was the formal complexity itself.. or demonstrating that you could have that kinda multi-layered narrative in comics.

The actual story? Less important than either of those.

Well, that’s the great thing about art, Mark– everyone has a different opinion. It’s what makes it interesting.

I personally just don’t find Ulysses fun, or entertaining, or interesting, or important in any way– other than, of course, the legal proceedings.

I consider the world-building in Watchmen to be part of the actual story– but the text supplements, to my mind, don’t add anything substantial to that world-building.

It might just be my own preferences colouring my own opinions– for example, I always perfer the simple, uncluttered (but audacious) work of Truffaut to the dense and deliberately difficult/unwatchable films of Godard.

Literary works, like, ogres, are like onions.

They have LAYERS.

I personally just don’t find Ulysses fun, or entertaining, or interesting, or important in any way– other than, of course, the legal proceedings.

Try reading it out loud.

I dunno. I suppose it’s POSSIBLE to argue that the language isn’t an aesthetic marvel (and funny as shit, t’boot) but I can’t imagine how you’d even start to go about it.

Also: Read Watchmen again. With the text. Concentrate on the world building. Then get back to me.

I’ve asked before, but if anyone can take a shot at explaining Mystery Play, I’m all ears.
Heck, I’ll buy two copies of the book if it’s in there.
I’m used to missing a reference or two in Morrison’s work, or having to stop and have a think, but it’s the one I just can’t figure out.

I read Watchmen a few times a year; I _love_ the world-building; I just think the best examples of it are revealed in the story itself. I personally feel that the supplemental pieces are a little pretentious.

But that’s me.

Maybe I’ll give Ulysses another go next Bloomsday.