THE CLOCKS OF THE UNIVERSE ARE CHIMING THE HOUR OF ‘NOW’
I read this essay by Jeet Heer and Kent Worcester, linked from Arts&Letters Daily, entitled “Intellectual Marijuana: comics and their critics.” It’s about what the literati has had to say about comics over the years. It includes a nice, witty one-liner from Dorothy Parker, whom I love.
Oh hey, I have a witty one-liner too. Ready? Here it is: “Can I get some sexual chocolate with this intellectual marijuana?” Heyo!
But seriously, that article kind of sucks and is boring. There is no real analysis, just a binary “approve/disapprove” from various intellectuals and critics, and the conclusion is is nothing more than “comics are now studied.” Which is no big deal, really, anyone can study anything these days. I remember as an undergrad reading an essay titled something like ‘A Marxist-Feminist Interpretation of Madonna’s “Material Girl.”‘ Merely being studied doesn’t quite have the cachet it used to, which I personally think is great. Here in the postmodern era, we know that interesting things can be said about any area of culture if you’re smart and creative enough.
They do mention how great Krazy Kat is, but without describing what it is, or giving any hint as to why ee cummings “would pen a paean to Krazy Kat as a “living ideal” superior to “mere reality.”” Krazy Kat was drawn by George Herriman, and was first published in 1913; it features the titular cat acting out humorous scenes of social, racial and sexual alienation, and who, in a recurring gag, get smashed in the back of the head with a brick, thrown by a Jewish mouse named Ignatz. Here is some Krazy Kat, pour vous:
Self-reference is common.
More can be found here: http://www.iath.virginia.edu/crocker/.
There’s nothing inherently “high-brow” or “low-brow,” satisfying or empty, improving or corrupting about a media. Smart, creative, funny people (like George Herriman) can say smart, creative, funny things in any media, and it will be worth looking at, thinking about and laughing along with. When Heer and Worcester warn us that “intellectuals are fundamentally divided about the worth of comics, and there is always the possibility of a backlash,” I wonder what this division amounts to. The word “fundamental” seems to indicate that the disagreement is deeper than just the ‘nay’ side believing, contingently, that no-one has yet managed to write a worthwhile comic. Perhaps it’s the combination of words and pictures that makes it an inherently debased form of literature, with the brute semiotics and literal-ness of the Image intruding upon and corrupting the sublime abstraction of the Word? I don’t know. Someone should write an article about it, maybe.