Funnily enough, i havent begun to write but I already dislike critics. Not because they are rude or cynical or seem to enjoy trading insults, but because even the material they praise has a sameness to it.
The times has a list of top 10 graphic novels and a self proclaimed Graphic Literature Library: 25 books from 25 years for smart, sophisticated readers.
And im struck by the lack of graphic novels as most graphic novels readers are aware of. I embarked on a course to read some of these from my friendly neighborhood library. And there were some truly amazing gems (Persepolis which made laugh and feel sad at the same time). But it looks like the critics here too want graphic novels to be exactly the same as the movies and books they rate highly.
Look through the top 10 list , There's Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns and Bone, stories that are imaginative and comic-booky. But the other choices?
I expected lots from Blankets love and religion collide (a topic i am intimately familiar with) but it was vaguely unsatisfying, perhaps because it is semi autobiographical, it didnt have a satisfying conclusion or indeed explanation.
The boulevard of broken dreams was a ho hum so so book. And no i didnt find the explores the nature of reality, the mystery of inspiration, the exploitation of pop culture and the redemptive power of art.
Onward to David Boring , its tempting to quip Boring!. Note the "truly novelistic approach to graphical storytelling" umm why not write a novel? But anyway the story wasnt that great , nor was the art and this cant be a top 10 can it?
Jimmy Corrigan , i was excited to get the book, because the last time I had someone(Rudyard Kipling) describe a book as the perfect short story it turned out to be Lord Emsworth and the girlfriend. And boy was that a perfect short story. But Jimmy Corrigan? Hard to read, difficult to comprehend, generally depressing and eminently forgettable.
Moving onto the 25 list , I wonder if the Golems mighty swing would make it to the list if it didnt have a jewish team playing. Its a good book but not a top 25 book. Louis Riel was ok , not knowing much of canadian history i guess i dont identify much with this story. Maus is a good book , but except for the bit where spiegelman shows 10 pages he wrote when he contemplated suicide, the rest of the book was , I felt vastly overrated. But anything related to the holocaust automatically gets praise. Just ask Steven Spielberg. Though Maus was definitely very good just not as good as all the critics say it is.
And then i lost interest in reading more of the critics choice.
Theres a common thread in most of their choices. 'Realistic fiction' , preferably depressing and dark, and mostly similar to work that is available in books or movies.
And I find that i dislike it. I think how many times humor comics or perhaps even books and movies have made it to say an award in their respective fields? Its so much easier to write dark , 'realistic' stories. (I always quote realistic because is there any writing that states the truth and nothing but the truth so help me god?)
Lets not go into why are Sandman, Lucifer, Swamp Thing, Fables, Y, V for vendetta absent from the list (I count collected paperback as graphic novels)
Lets not even go into why are pure superhero action books missing from the set A year one or whatever happened to the man of tomorrow
But no mention of Asterix and Calvin and Hobbes? Why are they not funny enough or is fun not meant to be an attribute of a book? In all my life i havent met anyone who has read Asterix and who didnt have fond memories of them(some preferred tintin but thats a different article). Indeed most would read them again. Oh and Calvin and Hobbes. But humor , making someone laugh, is not a good enough motive by itself. And so youll never see any of the books that make you smile ever on these top lists.
But then perhaps i should stop reading the lists compiled by others and go read Vol I - The complete Calvin and Hobbes
Its a magical world...
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Presidential elections
The BBC covers the current US presidential candidates (current) opinions. And i want to see how i matched up. So here we go
a. The war : No one wins in a war, and it looks like only Obama realises this. Note John Edwards and Hillary Clinton say something to the effect that if I knew then what i know now I wouldve opposed the war. And so even though the entire world except Tony Blair knew this war was being fought on false pretenses these two claim ignorance! That should probably disqualify them from the election. More important is that they supported the war with incomplete and now incorrect evidence. The republicans candidates come of as fundamentalists with their we wouldn't have handled the war this way, yah right. I would never support or indeed vote for people who openly support war as a means of resolving a problem. People who dont give a damn for lives (both their countrymen in the army and those from the opposing side) shouldnt be allowed anywhere near a government. For those who see a broader context in the war i remember star trek's the original "the greatest good of the greatest number" to which the next generation responds with "how many lives does it take before it becomes wrong"
b. The economy : While i can claim almost total ignorance here, Mr Obama and Ms Clinton seems to recognise that education is important. The rest are all about tax cuts or spending cuts. its hard to think of any problem that cant be solved with an educated(as opposed to literate) population
c. National Security : Ms clinton military response suggestion is laughable. Attacks are not always by something that you can have a military response for. Almost everyone here supported the Patriot act, though Mr obama has criticised and reauthorised it thereby earning more negative points. Im surprised that no candidate has stated stop interfering in other countries affairs, we are not a global pandu. Stop patronising extremist states which sooner or later turn on you. That would reduce the need for extreme national security.
d. Illegal immigration : Im not sure why americans even debate this topic. "illegal" immigrants have to be sent back , at most you could say that we wont hold this against you if you apply legally. The broader issue is stupid and complicated immigrant laws. Note that my views that there should be no rules as to who can work where, as this earth is not (to put it in my native slang) "your father in law's or what" , would ensure that my votes tally would remain 0.
e. Health care : for the amount of taxes we pay , health care should be free for everyone. Its not practical till you consider how much money the US of A spends on arms and arms research and how many times over the armaments they currently have could destroy the earth.
f. Social issues : Abortion is one issue im totally conflicted with , the right of a woman to choose conflicting with the embryo/child not being given a choice. I'd rather they werent any (Except where the mother's life is in danger which is pretty clear cut) and that people were educated enough so there arent any , but i also think id not want a child to be born whose mother wanted to abort it but didnt do so because the government made it illegal. I dont think there is a right answer here so id have to settle for the parents can choose.
Was also one of the people who believed civil union is fine for same sex and marriage is between a man and woman till i read a republican (rudy) say the same and realised uncomfortably that i have also been told(indirectly) that marriage between two non catholics is a contract whereas between two catholics its a union of the souls, a union blessed by god, a sacrament (i quote out of memory). And i realised i am no different than the above person , i only draw the lines at different places and have subsequently changed my views to a marriage is whatever the people who are getting married want it to be.
I think my views are somewhat better off than the current presidential candidates, too bad US laws wont let me run. And when i read through the opinions of the current lot i think GW Bush wasnt so much worse after all. And that india is not the only place where you settle for the least worst of the lot.
a. The war : No one wins in a war, and it looks like only Obama realises this. Note John Edwards and Hillary Clinton say something to the effect that if I knew then what i know now I wouldve opposed the war. And so even though the entire world except Tony Blair knew this war was being fought on false pretenses these two claim ignorance! That should probably disqualify them from the election. More important is that they supported the war with incomplete and now incorrect evidence. The republicans candidates come of as fundamentalists with their we wouldn't have handled the war this way, yah right. I would never support or indeed vote for people who openly support war as a means of resolving a problem. People who dont give a damn for lives (both their countrymen in the army and those from the opposing side) shouldnt be allowed anywhere near a government. For those who see a broader context in the war i remember star trek's the original "the greatest good of the greatest number" to which the next generation responds with "how many lives does it take before it becomes wrong"
b. The economy : While i can claim almost total ignorance here, Mr Obama and Ms Clinton seems to recognise that education is important. The rest are all about tax cuts or spending cuts. its hard to think of any problem that cant be solved with an educated(as opposed to literate) population
c. National Security : Ms clinton military response suggestion is laughable. Attacks are not always by something that you can have a military response for. Almost everyone here supported the Patriot act, though Mr obama has criticised and reauthorised it thereby earning more negative points. Im surprised that no candidate has stated stop interfering in other countries affairs, we are not a global pandu. Stop patronising extremist states which sooner or later turn on you. That would reduce the need for extreme national security.
d. Illegal immigration : Im not sure why americans even debate this topic. "illegal" immigrants have to be sent back , at most you could say that we wont hold this against you if you apply legally. The broader issue is stupid and complicated immigrant laws. Note that my views that there should be no rules as to who can work where, as this earth is not (to put it in my native slang) "your father in law's or what" , would ensure that my votes tally would remain 0.
e. Health care : for the amount of taxes we pay , health care should be free for everyone. Its not practical till you consider how much money the US of A spends on arms and arms research and how many times over the armaments they currently have could destroy the earth.
f. Social issues : Abortion is one issue im totally conflicted with , the right of a woman to choose conflicting with the embryo/child not being given a choice. I'd rather they werent any (Except where the mother's life is in danger which is pretty clear cut) and that people were educated enough so there arent any , but i also think id not want a child to be born whose mother wanted to abort it but didnt do so because the government made it illegal. I dont think there is a right answer here so id have to settle for the parents can choose.
Was also one of the people who believed civil union is fine for same sex and marriage is between a man and woman till i read a republican (rudy) say the same and realised uncomfortably that i have also been told(indirectly) that marriage between two non catholics is a contract whereas between two catholics its a union of the souls, a union blessed by god, a sacrament (i quote out of memory). And i realised i am no different than the above person , i only draw the lines at different places and have subsequently changed my views to a marriage is whatever the people who are getting married want it to be.
I think my views are somewhat better off than the current presidential candidates, too bad US laws wont let me run. And when i read through the opinions of the current lot i think GW Bush wasnt so much worse after all. And that india is not the only place where you settle for the least worst of the lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)