Welcome to The Valve

Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom


Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.



About Last Night
Academic Splat
Amardeep Singh
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogging the Renaissance
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Ferule & Fescue
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Planned Obsolescence
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
Say Something Wonderful
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
What Now?
William Gibson

Monday, July 28, 2008

Kip Manley’s Contribution Is Up: Let Comics Be Comics

Posted by John Holbo on 07/28/08 at 03:37 AM

Kip Manley’s take on new-minted Eisner-winner Wolk is here:

Much as any good fencer has studied his Agrippa, Douglas Wolk has read his Delany ...

And so it goes.

UPDATE: OK, on second thought, this is not the right time to be coy. Kip has written a great essay! Go read it! It’s about that stuff I was talking about. What is it to read? I’ll snip a bit of the hilarious dialogue he relates:

Dan Nadel
See, I don’t think of comics as reading.

Paul Tobin
You don’t think of comics as reading?

Sara Ryan
Ooh! Discuss!

What’s the big deal? Why is that a big deal? Comics is about looking and reading. It’s not just reading. It’s a sort of dual process that you undertake. It’s a totally different process than reading a novel, and it’s different than watching a movie, so I guess I think of comics as a separate activity than reading.

Cecil Castellucci
It rests right next to the same place as reading.

It’s a couple of doors down.

It’s definitely a kissing cousin of reading.

To me that’s like saying that when I’m listening to you or Cecil talk, that I’m not listening the way I’m listening when I’m listening to music. You’re still listening, you’re still using the same—

I don’t know, I don’t know. I guess I think of comics—it’s something else, it’s a different kind of process. I certainly don’t read Dan Clowes in the way I read, you know, Updike, or something. So it’s a different thing. You have to decode the picture—

I don’t read Cecil Castellucci the same way I read Hemingway, either.

Thank God.

And so it goes. If it quack quack wackos like a comic, and it quack quack walks like a comic, it’s a comic.


A very good post.  I understand his and Wolk’s disinclination to define, via Delany, I think.  But… there’s something functional that people do when they make a definition, or for that matter a canon, that isn’t mostly exclusionary.

It all comes back to limited individual lifespan and the centuries-old expansion of published material, I think.  If one could read every text, the idea of a definition, or of a canon, would be fairly pointless—just read everything and make your own judgments.  But since people are mortal and the artsphere has grown past the size of a lifetime’s attention, there’s an important role for those people who, as Wolk writes, read the whole thing so you don’t have to, and point out which parts you might be most interested in.

The best recommendations are individual, I suppose.  A sort of “You really liked Grant Morrison’s Doom Patrol<i>?  Then you should check out X.” At least, that’s what every simple-minded Web 2.0 user aggregation program is trying to fool you into thinking that that’s what it’s doing.  But perceptive critics can’t spend their time doing that.  They have to address a general reader instead of a specific one.

Both the definition and the canon function on a more basic level as a guide to recommendations—the definition describes the universe you’re considering, and the canon says that here, in your opinion, are the best, or at least most influential, works within that universe.  Even the perennial which-is-the-earliest-date discussion work in this way.  When Adam Roberts in his Palgrave history of SF declines to define SF (for the same sort of reasons as Delany et al, I think), but offers as the one of his provisional functional definitions that I most agree with that some people think that the first SF work was Kepler’s <i>Somnium, that gets me to read Kepler’s Somnium.  Which was a rewarding experience that I wouldn’t otherwise have had.

So… I’ve finally finished reading Wolk’s book.  I think the same thing that everyone who’s read it does, evidently; weak first third, good pieces on individual creators and creations.  Maybe the first third would have been a bit more useful if he hadn’t squirmed around quite so much, the ghost of Delany looking on disapprovingly, with definitions and canons as power relations.  I think that it would have been a better book—more useful to me, anyways—if he’d just said, ok, I’m going to make a canon now.  And since he isn’t making an educational curriculum, but rather a list that we can pay attention to or ignore based of his critical acumen, that would have been fine.

By on 07/28/08 at 11:39 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Thanks, Rich. —I’d just say that functional descriptions and even, yes, canons qua lists of recommended works will always be with us; we can’t help but make them, any more than we can avoid discussing or at least making sure we’re all aware of where we disagree on the history around a thing before we situate that thing historically. Maps, y’know?

But to attempt a definition or a canon is to get bogged down in playing defense: holding the line against marginal cases that challenge your authority on every side. —That’s yet another reason to avoid them. Along with everything I said about how the definitions and the canons in comics can’t help but come out wrong.

So be aware and wary, and if you must functionally describe, or canonize this work or that, then do it without doing it, with all the wei wu wei and sprezzatura you can muster. (Lady Montague never complained and never explained, but I’m pretty dam’ sure her friends all knew exactly where she stood.)

One last thought, with tongue rather firmly as ever in cheek: Delany, yes, hovers over me at least, having made me rather self-conscious of how these efforts to define one’s chosen paraliterary field, to fix it in the estimation of others with a definition jiggered to include a genealogy of surprising, mandarin-approved works, with lists of classics to which attention must be paid, signal a deep insecurity: an insecurity perhaps dearly earned, as one’s chosen paraliterary field has been denied through the years the benefits that come with scaling such limited, value-bound heights as the “literary” and the “arts,” but an insecurity nonetheless: if one must demand one’s due, it isn’t really one’s due, is it? —To say nothing of how simple and limited an art must be, to be so easily limned.

—Now I’m hearing that to cheerfully refuse to take part in this is to be overly conscious of power relations, as one would only expect.

Damn. We just can’t catch a break, can we.

By Kip Manley on 07/28/08 at 10:18 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Perhaps the problem was that Wolk didn’t seem to be very cheerful in his refusal.  He wrote something about his liking for excuses, and created an imaginary straw man questioner who he seemed to feel bad about having to answer vaguely at times, and in general seemed to be fleeing where Delany pursueth.

By on 07/29/08 at 01:15 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:



Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: