This will be my last post until July 7th, 'cause I'm going on vacation! Since you'll probably be totally bored over the next week and a half, waiting for me to return, here's what you should do each day to keep busy:Tuesday, June 26th: Watch Season Three of Deadwood.
Wednesday, June 27th: Read a bunch of new comics. Sinestro Corps comes out! Buy it and tell me if it's as cool as it should be.
Thursday, June 28th: Read a Cormac McCarthy novel of your choice.
Friday, June 29th: Read something drawn by a great European artist. Maybe a Blueberry graphic novel, or something by Hugo Pratt.
Saturday, June 30th: Watch The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.
Sunday, July 1st: Draw an eight-page minicomic about Yeti assassins.
Monday, July 2nd: Read something by Jack Kirby, like the Fourth World Omnibus or Kamandi Archives Volumes 1 and 2.
Tuesday, July 3rd: Watch The Venture Brothers, probably the second season, I would say.
Wednesday, July 4th: Celebrate Independence Day by playing frisbee and reading my Grant Morrison book!
Thursday, July 5th: After reading my book, you'll be pumped for Morrison goodness, so go back and read Animal Man and Doom Patrol.
Friday, July 6th: To prepare for my return, you should take the day off. Relax, read something light and fun, like My Dead Girlfriend, by Eric Wight.
Saturday, July 7th: I'll be back to brighten your day!
Have fun everyone!
I appreciate that you've left some advice on how to spend this agonizing time waiting for you to come home, but it's not working. Those books are making me feel too nerdy, and it's making me want to play with my erector set in the basement, rubbing my hands together enthusiastically in anticipation of the effects of my latest creation. I can't do this, Tim..I mean Timothy...Could you please provide a cell number or emergency contact on the cruise ship? Jesus, God...Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI've just gotten half-way through your book on Morrison's Early Years and I'm having trouble finishing it (I'm up to the Doom Patrol chapter) because of the sheer number of basic factual errors. Every few pages, we're presented with a glaring error - I'm talking about simple things like who's saying what. For example, you've got a tendency to credit Batman with any narrative caption that happens to be in the same panel as him - it's a basic trope of comics that captions narrated by one character are often juxtaposed with scenes featuring another. In Arkham Asylum, Arkham's recounting of the LSD trip that leads him to self-discovery is set against Batman's battle with Croc. According to you this is some sort of inner monologue from Batman, despite the fact that the most basic re-reading of the text would tell you this isn't the case - obviously this locks off a whole area of possible study which might have improved your essay.(You pull the same tactic again at the end of the chapter on Gothic.) That's just one example.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you've had all this pointed out to you, and I'm sure it all seems very pedantic, but in analytical works of this nature you've got an obligation to get the facts of the text absolutely right - otherwise you find yourself commenting on something that exists only in your imagination, meandering further and further down the road to total irrelevance with every mis-step.
This isn't meant as some sort of flame, but as constructive criticism - I really admire what you and Sequart are trying to do with regard to comics. Unfortunately, so far this particular book is seriously flawed.
Al, you haven't provided any contact information, so I guess I'll have to respond to your criticism here. First of all, I'd like you to e-mail me a list of any glaring factual errors so we can make sure those things are cleared up for a second edition of the book. Neither Sequart nor I intend to misrepresent the facts of any particular story, obviously. We want to get it right.
ReplyDeleteI know what you mean about the Arkham moment and the end of "Gothic." In both cases, though, the narrative captions clearly parallel the events depicted in the panels and are used exactly the way Batman's internal monologue are used by other writers. My interpretation of those sequences does not hinge on who is speaking those lines so much as the meaning behind the combined words and pictures. To me, the effect is that Batman is narrating, even though the words do not literally come from his mouth--it's like his mind is echoing what others have said. I should have been more clear in my explication of this--and that's an error I'll correct next time.
Thanks for reading, and seriously, e-mail me with anything else we need to correct for future editions.
Brilliantly handled on your part, Tim. I just want to add my own voice to the response to al ewing's comment.
ReplyDeleteal ewing, I'm sorry that you feel that way. I cannot possibly express how much time and care was taken with this book, both on Tim's part and on Sequart's. Some very smart people who know comics and Grant Morrison's work very well have spent a lot of time on this. If there are factual errors, or simply things that might be clearer (as Tim clarified), we're more than happy to hear them and incorporate changes. Please know that, as far as I know, no one at all has brought a single factual error to light -- seriously. Whatever you take from that, please, please know that we're very glad to have such specifics brought to our attention (you're helping us, as we see it) and take this matter very seriously. We do this because we love the study of comics. No matter how much time is spent, things can sometimes slip by. Whether they're factual errors or requests for added clarity, we're grateful to have them brought to our attention.
-- Julian Darius, Sequart Research & Literacy Organization
I guess for the sake of the internet, which will record this forever, I should mention that, through some nifty self-googling on his part, I did e-mail Tim, I did find a few errors, and he did agree to clear them up in the next printing. So it's all good. I still haven't read the Doom Patrol chapter, but I'm sure I will eventually.
ReplyDeleteI suppose my final word on my position on this would be that, no matter in what subjective direction you plan to go in your analysis of the text - and almost any direction is good if it unlocks a door in the reader's mind he or she might not have considered before - the text itself has to be considered sacred and inviolate, otherwise you're building on quicksand.
Fortune cookie version: while art is a lie that tells the truth, critical theory is the truth that tells your lie.