Comics and Genre Literature by Harvey Pekar

Why does he think some genre of art is better than others while saying that comics can be high art?

>>117427131What is the point of that comic?

>>117427152I agree about Maus, but he seems a bit autistic desu when he comments on Hernandez. It's like he don't want plots or characters just a documentation of real life.

>>117427166He might be the most pretentious person in comics ever desu.

>>117427141>People don't get inured to Holocaust storiesAfter everything that was viscerally wrong in the essay by this point, it was nice to come across something empirically wrong.

>>117427119Neat

>>117429056the same criticism happens in literature and films too

>>117427119I always thought he was a pretentious prick.

>>117428068>Hasn't genre fiction been the whipping boy of literary critics since the begining of time?Since the 19th century at least.

>>117428068That's certainly been the case in the western world, but everywhere else was thankfully immune.

I don't have time to read so I skimmed.From the skim, I disagree with him severely, but I think he's partially right even if he goes too far.It's kind of funny how he shits on Miller and Chaykin, when at this point, their stuff remains some of the best comics has to offer. Does anybody like Trashman by Spain Rodriguez?>>117427187What exactly did he say about Maus? I didn't like Blankets, but Maus was alright.

>>117427122I definitely find it annoying that most western realism/everyday experience comics are autobiographies, but I really enjoy reading the fictional slice of life manga published in Japan. A lot of them have mundane topics but they’re relaxing and have good characters.

>>117429916He thinks is self aggrandizing and he paints his old dad to be a nagging villain while he is a victim. Now that i think about it, i think i disagree anyways. I havent read Maus in a while, but i remember it feeling sincere.Now something that he says that might be true is that the antropomorphization allows comic book readers to enjoy a "serious" holocaust story, like the presentation takes the edge off. I kind of see his point. I would much more easily jump into an Usagi story than an actual realistic human samurai book.

>>117427119Nobody build a hierarchy without putting themself on top.

I think formalizing art as an education and field of study was a major misstep in our cultural evolution. It's given people the impression that art and its medium can be evaluated and appraised objectively like any science, that there is refined, and there is unrefined, and of course only the educated can slice the lean from the fat. It permits the idea that the employment of certain trappings or industry code-words is a way of earmarking weather something is beneath their intellectual notice. The Medici family should have died in their cribs.

>>117429999Perhaps the most tiresome side effect of American parenting strategies convincing children that they are special and valuable is that we have to put up with so many autobiographies.

>>117427242>he can't break out of the high art/low art mentalityThere's nothing wrong about the way he approaches it. Genre art is escapism, it does rely on cliches, and there is merit in not employing either of those. He wants comics to be more than escapism and cliches. It all comes down to taste of course, which he admits.>he was writing this at a time when it was easy to hate "genre" comics for being so formulaic and unimaginative.It still is.

>>117429426>It's like he don't want plots or characters just a documentation of real life.It's sorta his style. Real life presents better plots and characters than fiction - this is his main idea.

>>117429999>but I really enjoy reading the fictional slice of life manga published in Japan. A lot of them have mundane topics but they’re relaxing and have good characters.This is even worse than genre fiction.

>>117430671You're just a pseud who wants his genre stuff to be taken more seriously. There's nothing wrong with enjoying genre fiction, I enjoy it too. What's good or bad is a matter of taste and of what you value more. But genre fiction is indeed more escapist and more childish than, say, realism. It's built on our desire for something more fanciful, and more digestible, than reality. Nobody says everyone should read only biographies, or that you can't be an intellectual and read pulpy adventures. But look at it this way: when you have life experiences worth telling about, or social, or philosophical ideas worth talking about, you probably won't be putting them into fanciful trappings.

>>117429999I don't like most autobios, but Alec and Jim are absolutely great comics.As for slice of life manga, I don't like most of those, either.>>117430046Yeah, I thought it came off sincere as well.>I would much more easily jump into an Usagi story than an actual realistic human samurai book.Not me. I'll start reading it eventually, but the fact that the protagonist is a bunny has been putting me off forever. Meanwhile, I've already read every major samurai manga except for Kamui Den.

>>117430671>It's given people the impression that art and its medium can be evaluated and appraised objectively like any science, that there is refined, and there is unrefined, and of course only the educated can slice the lean from the fat.Frankly I don't see a problem with any of this until >and of course only the educated can slice the lean from the fat.That is indeed a true problem. But art should be looked at objectively. The idea that by virtue of simply existing something can be deemed acceptable or proficient art is frankly offensive and despite my agreement that the falsity of only the educated understanding the difference, or maybe rather completely in lockstep with that agreement, I find the "educated" are usually the ones who make the claim that art is subjective.All of this ignores the discussion of whether commercial art should ever be compared to personal but I think we can at least look at intention which is what really sets those two apart. All artists have an intention. No matter what they want to convey and how I think one would be foolish to just accept something as is. Execution and intention should not be separated and this is why beautiful art can feel hollow while off-putting art can be meaningful (and I mean that both in "clean vs messy" as well as "complex vs simple")I don't think the idea that art can (and should) be viewed objectively is flawed at all. I do think the lens from which we view those objectives is and many times thanks to western education systems prioritizes effort and worth thus complex and time consuming art is seen as "objectively better".

>>117431709>But genre fiction is indeed more escapist and more childish than, say, realism. It's built on our desire for something more fanciful, and more digestible, than reality. Nobody says everyone should read only biographies, or that you can't be an intellectual and read pulpy adventures. Not him but I'd contend that you're arguing a separate point. What people say (and you've done so here) is that genre cannot be literature and this has been false for centuries. It's a conflation based on assumption of the intentions of a work. The term escapism is the problem here. Genre doesn't NEED to be escapism. It can absolutely be used as a vessel for a humanist focus. But stories are made for consumers these days and consumers expect genre to be escapist and light as opposed to literary and dense. I think the true pseud is one who thinks Tolkien or 2001 are lesser than reality TV simply because one is about a "real" human struggle and the other is about a fictionalized one. That's exactly what this thinking alleges.

>>117431709>But look at it this way: when you have life experiences worth telling about, or social, or philosophical ideas worth talking about, you probably won't be putting them into fanciful trappings.Forgot to address this. Possibly the most childish, pseudo-intellectual statement I've read in one of these threads and that's saying quite a bit. Read more sci-fi. The idea that Asimov and PKD were just dressing things up is frankly offensive. Graduate high school.

>>117431283> Genre art is escapism, it does rely on cliches, and there is merit in not employing either of those.The problem is in thinking there cannot be merit while employing a genre or that "drama" (which is what most "non-genre" fiction would be classified as) isnt itself a genre. To act as if "set on mars" is inherently less literary than "set in Dorchester" is just plain old ignorance. The grounding of a story doesn't matter to it's inherent worth. Just because one is down to earth and another is fantastical doesn't mean the prior is automatically a more meritorious work. As I said to the other user this would mean laguna beach automatically has more to say about the human experience than 2001 - completely ignoring technical craft as well as the actual messages and themes in favor of which is more grounded.

>>117431709>But look at it this way: when you have life experiences worth telling about, or social, or philosophical ideas worth talking about, you probably won't be putting them into fanciful trappings.lol what? So fuck Frankenstein I guess then?

>>117431709>fanciful trappingsWhat a dullard.

>>117432512>What people say (and you've done so here) is that genre cannot be literatureI never said this, and I don't see anyone else saying this.>Genre doesn't NEED to be escapism. No, but it almost always is.>It can absolutely be used as a vessel for a humanist focus.It can do both, one work can be escapism and a vessel, these things don't contradict each other.>But stories are made for consumers these days and consumers expect genre to be escapist and light as opposed to literary and dense. The point of genre literature is to conform to expectations, that's why it's genre in the first place. A fan of fantasy is looking for fantasy, i.e. a specific genre. COnsumers expect genre to be what it is, to be what's familiar to them.>I think the true pseud is one who thinks Tolkien or 2001 are lesser than reality TV simply because one is about a "real" human struggle and the other is about a fictionalized one.Well, nobody says that all realistic stuff is equally good, or that all genre stuff is equally shallow.>>117432573>The idea that Asimov and PKD were just dressing things upBut... that's literally what they did, they used the same old adventure story cliches to make their work more exciting (to themselves perhaps, as well as to the readers). I'm not going to discuss the phlosophical merit of their work here. Their work isn't bad by any means, and if you read the article, the author, too, provides an example of a science fiction work that is a profound exploration of a dystopian society (though personally, I didn't really like We, or any other dystopia except 1984).>>117432960Same goes for Frankenstein.

>>117432886>The problem is in thinking there cannot be merit while employing a genreThere can, of course.>or that "drama" (which is what most "non-genre" fiction would be classified as) isnt itself a genre.Realist fiction doesn't employ genre cliches. When it does, it becomes a genre, like melodrama, or some other.>To act as if "set on mars" is inherently less literary than "set in Dorchester" is just plain old ignorance.It's not "less literary". Notice that it's you who bring these and similar descriptors to the discussion, not me or Parker.>The grounding of a story doesn't matter to it's inherent worth. Just because one is down to earth and another is fantastical doesn't mean the prior is automatically a more meritorious work. It would be nice to live in a world where this is true, but it's not quite true. Yes, a story can be just as good when it's set on Mars, but in reality it's usually set on Mars for the purpose of making it more exciting for a specific audience, and the story then also has to take the setting into consideration, and that means it'll be exploring life on Mars instead of the characters and their interactions at least some of the time. The article explains this.>As I said to the other user this would mean laguna beach automatically has more to say about the human experience than 2001I don't know what Laguna Beach is, but a lot of things have more to say about the human experience than 2001.

>>117434249>Parker

final bump

>>117427242As opposed to now when genre comics are so diverse and creative and artistic.

>>117437323Cant tell if joking. We’re in the worst period for comics, both mainstream and indie, of all time

Bump

Attached: 2755083-1653646559-Will_.jpg (708x960, 86.9K)

How do some of you pretentious fucks even find these threads?

>>117439261We use the catalog newfag. Google it.

>>117439417That would mean you browse this board. Why would you do that?

>>117439447Just because some people don’t care about your baby capeshit and Disney channel cartoons doesn’t mean they don’t like comics

>>117432421>But art should be looked at objectively.That is literally impossible and favours nobody.

>>117437558Its obviously a joke. If you are this autistic i think you should refrain from commenting on anything, your opinion is as worthless as it gets.

>>117440410Nobody discusses those kinds of comics here. What the fuck are you up to?

>>117440657I love capeshit and there is discussion of that in this board. I whole lot of it.

>>117429341Your life isn't just about the big stuff, about cramming for that final exam in school or aiming for that promotion at work or asking someone out for your first date or getting dressed up for weddings and funerals. Your life is about the small stuff too, the stuff you forget. It forms more of your life than the big stuff, and it shouldn't be forgotten.

>>117440945Life is like that, sure. But why does life have to be in my comics?

>>117442048Good god shut up

>>117442096No.

>>117428068The difference with comics being it's an entire artistic medium that's being written off. Same thing with video games, like it's a common opinion that a trite thriller rip-off of Apocalypse Now is one of the best narratives ever in a game and it's unfair to compare "art games" to mainstream titles.

>>117442096easy does it dipshit

>>117429782I thought that was part of his charm.

>>117434249Realism is not inherently virtuous.

>>117431326That's stupid.

This guys art style reminds me of a.wyatt mann

>>117444039Who, Crumb?

>>117440945The endless flow of evolution has ingrained this simple fact into the very structure of our minds: the mundane is devoid of all meaning, and is best forgotten immediately.

>>117439261Like flocks to like, asshole.

>>117427122>it's another "unsuccessful artist attacks successful artists and claims they're not REAL artists" episodeHow tiresome.

>>117442096No but seriously though, what's the point? If I wanted boring every day life stuff I'd just keep living that boring every day life stuff and never pick up a comic in my life.But what if I want dinosaurs?

Attached: Age of Reptiles spread.jpg (2048x1537, 1.34M)

>>117442048>>117444552No one's forcing you to read comics you don't like. There're lots of comics out there. Find the comics you like and read those.

>>117429999The reason western sol comics are predominantly autobiographical is because that’s a selling pitch that works and gets you to pick up a comic. “Oh it’s about this guy’s life” is more interesting than “well it’s just mundane random slice of life shit”. Japanese sol are usually comedy oriented, so that’s a good gimmick, and they’re published in anthology magazines, so it helps giving hem room to gain traction. Plus the exotic foreign stuff makes it appealing to westerners.In the west you don’t have such luxuries unless it’s a webcomic or you’re just at the right place at the right time when the zeitgeist is there for such comics, like Brian Wood was when he did shit like Demo and Local. That’s why Lil’ depressed boy has the main character look like a stitched doll, because it adds a level of uniqueness to it.

>>117437558No, the 70s were worse

>>117446481How?

>>117446494Non-existing alternative/independent comics.

>>117446526Some great comics came out in the 70s.Alack Sinner, Tintin and the Picaros, A Contract with God, The Savage Sword of Conan, and Metal Hurlant/Heavy Metal. What do we have now that is anywhere near this good?

>>117446590Fantagraphics, D&Q, NYRC, Pantheon, Koyama Press, Uncivilized, Adhouse, Floating World, Nobrow, Retrofit and so on and so on

>>117446660What are they publishing right now that's worthwhile? From the past few years.

>>117444442>Harvey Pekar>unsuccessful Not really. By the time he wrote this American Splendor had a stellar reputation and he already been on Letterman. As far as writers go he was hardly obscure.

>>117446706BWS is coming with his long anticipated graphic novel from fanta next year, Yellow Negroes, Crickets, Ganges, Westvind's Grip, Anti-Gone/Bradley of Him

>>117438966>there are never threads for this>the one time there was a thread here i was asleep so i couldn't help keep it alive and it died real fast

Attached: i am so fucking mad.png (540x155, 69.87K)

I pretty much agree. Even if he comes off as a little elitist, hes right in that most comics are mostly capeshit fantasies that don't contribute anything.

>>117446946The mistake is assuming that comics need to "contribute" something other than subjective entertainment simply because they're an art form, and that realistic comics automatically have content worth contributing.As another user pointed out, trying to adhere objective standards to an inherently subjective medium is a mistake and I'd go even further to say that it's entirely pointless. Breaking things into high and low art, even the implication that one method of storytelling has more intrinsic value than the other is the height of snobbery and speaks to the weakness of one who holds such a mindset.

>>117446931Well, there is not much to say about it. Other than the art, it kinda sucked. The girls are very hot though.

>>117446329That's what I'm doing. But you're telling me that's not okay.

>guy says what a medium should beshiggy diggy

>>117447350No one's telling you that.

Legit.

>>117446799I thought Yellow Negroes sucked, and I haven't read the rest, though Ganges and Grip are on my list. I've read a few of these Fanta, D&Q, and Koyama books, and they're mostly disappointing, minimal efforts.

>>117444442There's a movie based on him and his comics. I don't think unsuccessful is entirely accurate.

up

>>117431709Bullcrap.

I'll read it later.

>>117452843Alright.