The Rodney Dangerfield of the arts and entertainment industry

Responding to Alan David Doane’s comment on the Seattle Weekly’s article on Fantagraphics, Dave Fiore poses an interesting question:

Now, we'll set aside the question of exactly what the "best" comics published in the last two decades are (my list would include Animal Man #1-26; Cerebus--up until the point at which I stopped reading it, which was only a little more than one decade ago--; Doom Patrol #19-63; Watchmen; The Filth; and, yes, The Squadron Supreme...plus, for sure, the Fanta reprint(s) of Peanuts...bring 'em on!)--but, please, can someone explain to me why Alan thinks any reputable newspaper would be "afraid" to proclaim Fantagraphics the "most respected comics publsher in America"? What other company (other than D & Q, the "most respected comics publisher in Canada", I suppose?) is even aiming for "respectability" (read: the approbation of an almost wholly bankrupt literary establishment)? More importantly, why the fuck should anyone be making this appeal?

Again, understand me, I have no problem with most of the Fantagraphics books I've read--what I dislike is the yearning for "prestige" that mars the critical discourse surrounding these books.

In the past year, I've come to the conclusion that "artcomix" is the dirtiest neologism of our time...

Now, anyone unfamiliar with Fiore has to understand that he’s spent many years studying the metatextual implications of mainstream Marvel and DC comics, and that he is actively involved in the academic sphere. So, this isn’t really the cry of a fanboy who’s afraid that his precious superhero comics will be looked down upon by us effete artcomix snobs. Let’s get that out of the way – it’s not what I’m responding to.

I’ll even give Fiore his point that criticism can be marred by politics – without a doubt, there are people in all forms of academic study who rely simply on touting the canonical works instead of critiquing works on their own merits.

However, there’s more to the cry of legitimacy than literary criticism. I, like many others, cringe when I see yet another “Bam, biff, boom! Comics aren’t for kids anymore!” headline in a publication. Because, really, comics haven’t always been for kids. Comics were extremely popular with soldiers during World War II. The romance comics of the ‘50s were geared more towards young adult women than most comics today are. “Almost wholly bankrupt literary establishment” or not, Fiore’s missing some of the underlying reasons why people push for the legitimacy of the form:

1. The medium itself isn’t the “kids” medium as it’s perceived. Forget, for a moment, that many comics genres are intended for and geared to kids, and work best in that audience range. The medium, boiled down to his component parts, has no underlying target audience. Can someone honestly say that the marriage of text and graphic should appeal only to those under the age of twelve? That kind of thinking stifles expression more than the perceived lockstep opinion of the literary establishment does, surely.

2. Legitimacy changes to suit the times. You wouldn’t know it from reading the New York Times Book Review now, but there was a period in time where prose fiction was considered substandard and not worthy for discussion by the literary establishment of the day, who preferred the poetic form to the novel. However, as prose became legitimized, the canon itself was changed to a more catholic form – now, I don’t really see the day where comics are taught alongside Oscar Wilde in every school in the country, but I do feel that there are comics works suitable for academic study – as Dave obviously does as well. However, where he sees the legitimacy of the medium imposing some kind of standard that all creators will shoot for literary acclaim, I see the chance for people to “keep on keepin’ on,” and I – optimistically, true – hope that the works deserving of attention will find an easier time getting that acclaim. Right now, where comics are perceived as illegitimate, there are people out there trying desperately to find that critical acclaim, and in most cases, their intentions are completely transparent – for example, I had the misfortune to pick up a comic called “An Open Place,” or something, that is trying so desperately to be IMPORTANT that it’s simply laughable. I give readers the credit to be smart enough to know the difference.

3. Legitimacy would lessen the ability for politicians trying to make a name for themselves to do it on the backs of the medium we love. A brief look at the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund would show how easy it is for crusaders to make a name for themselves by vilifying the medium based upon their perceptions of it. I say, let’s make comics legitimate as a big “fuck you” to the David Demmings of the world.

Now, while I appreciate that some people really enjoy the “outsider” status that comics entitle them to (and, the converse, those who want nothing more than the whole society to accept them for the geeks they are), the thing that just irritates me about all of this is that people proscribe arbitrary definitions on what can and can’t be done with the medium, which is, as a form of expression, as much of a tabula rasa as any other form of art and entertainment – the possibility to create something new, exciting and worthwhile exists in all media, and in all genres in said media. Let’s support that – it’s a worthwhile endeavor.