Moving home, digitally speaking

Hey there!

From now on I’ll be doing most of my blogging over at my tumblr ‘Paragraphic-Indulgence’. Still talking about comics and other good shit.

Go on and check it out, if you like.


Tweed! Banjo, banjo! Forgettable chorus!

In which your less-than-humble blogger adopts his music-critic persona of a spoilsport seagull, shitting on the shiny car of ‘things you enjoy’.

Reader, I need your help. I’m feeling a profound sense of cognitive dissonance. I’m fresh from watching Mumford & Sons on the telly and I cannot for the life of me reconcile the hype with the performance I saw.

I need someone to explain to me, with words other than “I like them” and “they’re fun”, precisely what makes this band so special. What makes them the headlining act on the final day of Glastonbury? Sunday night on the Pyramid stage – this is as close to the absolute summit of Britain’s musical-cultural landscape as anyone could ever hope to be and I just can’t figure out how they got to sit on the top. I know what you’re thinking and this isn’t about me disliking their music. It really isn’t. There’s plenty of artists I don’t particularly enjoy who I’d never deign to question if they were given such a prestigious triumph (Beyoncé for example) but in their case there’s factors like their prodigious discography, their enduring popularity, place in music history, or sheer scale of their live performances working in their favour and I just don’t see Motherboy Mumford & Sons having any of those things.

At the time of writing this I’ve not seen any (embeddable) uploads of their Glasto gig, so for reference here’s their big crowdpleaser song ‘I Will Wait‘:

I don’t even dislike them, I’m generally ambivalent to their music. Nonplussed. It’s inoffensive, twanging along with assorted string instruments and a singer whose accent I find impossible to locate, a few songs that you could jump about a bit to (but not too much) and that’s that. They’re not shit, they’re just okay. Safe. Unchallenging. Like a country/folk version of Coldplay. I can see why people might enjoy them in passing but I fail to really understand the adoration and critical praise heaped upon them; so help me Mumfans, I need an explanation. Here’s an (extremely shortened) list of things their headline gig didn’t make me feel:

  • Excited
  • Joyful
  • Melancholy
  • Enraptured
  • Sexy
  • Euphoric
  • Hungry for more

Now, by way of an unfair comparison, let’s take a look at another band’s impromptu live performance in the BBC’s Glasto studio:

Now if that doesn’t tick off some of those absent feelings I mentioned earlier then… well… I’m not sure what will.

You probably think I’m making far too big a deal of this. There’s a whole class of vampiric overlords out there sucking the economic lifeblood out of my country and dodging their taxes while blaming disabled “scroungers” and impoverished single mothers for all our woes, shouldn’t I be writing about them instead of the banal music their kids listen to? Maybe, but that’s a task I’m even less qualified for. Regardless of all that, art is sacred. Music is holy. Festivals are the living muddied churches in which we conduct our shamanic rites. Mediocre & Stuff playing the Pyramid Stage on Sunday night? It feels like someone hanging up one of their Facebook baby photos in the Sistine Chapel.

Or maybe I’m just the grumpy ol’ bastard at the back of the room who can’t understand why the kids are having so much fun.

I am a little concerned by what Mumble & Shrug’s primacy seems to say about us. This retro aesthetic, dressing in their twee Countryside Alliance fashions and hearkening backwards with their folksy sound is just another drop in the constant drip drip dripping of the One Nation Toryism tap that’s been left running ever since some marketing fuckbastard ‘rediscovered’ the “Keep Calm and Carry On” rejected WW2 propaganda bullshit (translation: “Be Silent Peasant and Know Your Role” or “Shut Up and Work Harder” – take your pick) back before the Jubilympic summer of Sweeping Social Problems Under the Carpet of Don’t-Spoil-The-Party Patriotism. Maybe Glasto and Mumford and a perfect fit, given the prohibitively high cost of the tickets and time-off-work barrier to entry (says the hypocrite who desperately wants to go next year); maybe the zeitgeist of our (relatively) affluent Glasto-age volk is at least partially wrapped in a desire to retreat into a comfortably remembered (false) vision of the past (all Downton Abbey yo), with it’s imagined authenticity contrasting against the plastic falseness of today’s advertisculture, its stiflingly safe woollen-wrap and Union Jack-waving preferred to the endlessly proliferating confusion of possibilities and challenges presented by the de-centred flux of the globalist present. The fact that even the ostensibly left-leaning Guardian’s Glasto coverage was tempered by cloying gossip about Prince Harry‘s presence in the exclusive backstage privilege-fortress says it all really.

This is a real life thing, worn by real life cunts.

Britain is dire need of better art, or – to put it more correctly – for the better art which already exists to be more visible. Right now, if the best we can do on the biggest of our stages is faux-folk with forgettable choruses and architectural atrocities like the Corporate Steel Magnate’s Personally Sponsored Meaningless Non-functioning-Rollercoaster-Thing (the architect’s design statement was to “make an iconic statement about ‘Tower-ness'” – I’m not even joking) then we’re psychically fucked.

You can practically taste the £19m disappointment with your eye-tongues.

Momething & Other’s Glastonbury set and the ArcelorMittalOrbit might be liked by a lot of people (they’re certainly both loved by their event organisers) but I’m going to need a lot of help if I am to see either of the two as anything more than some things that happen to exist.

For the sake of fun, here’s a palate-cleansing (new/old) playlist and you’ll probably hate half of it (but in doing so at least you’ll actually feel something visceral):

I’ll admit I kinda/sorta cheated by including The Knife, but seeing as their lyrics are explicitly referenced by Chvrches I couldn’t resist, and with Scroobius Pip, whose newer work I couldn’t find in any tolerable audio quality on YouTube.

And just for the hell of it:

Peace the fuck out yo.

What happened to the goths? (and other questions of musical ideology)

Please forgive my descent into crudity towards the end of this post, during the first draft I’d made a start on my duty-free Stolychnaya (only 10 euros for a litre of the good stuff – quite a bargain) and the results are there for all to see. Nobody’s paying me for this crap so my standards are purely my own (and – as always – I grossly overuse closed brackets).  I hope you enjoy the read – there’s even some pictures and embedded YouTube videos and everything.  

Sweeping generalisations about goth kids

Disclaimer: everything that follows in this section is unfair, generalising and is likely to be entirely wrong.  Of course goths still exist, I saw three of them sat smoking in a park in Southampton just a couple of weeks ago but they were clearly all adults and therefore exempt from the next paragraph. Basically I’m not one to let a little contrary evidence get in the way of a rant. With that in mind let’s proceed… 

Living close to a 6th form college* and a train station, I have to negotiate a path through a horde of fresh-faced (and/or unjustifiably moody) teenage blighters on an almost daily basis as I’m making my way to/from work. Being the premature curmudgeon that I am, I noticed that something’s changed about this age group since the heady days when I was counted amongst their ranks but it took me quite a while to figure out what it was – there’s no more goths or punks. Okay, okay, that sounds like a pretty stupid and inconsequential observation to make but bear with me here; maybe this isn’t the case where you are or amongst people of your own age group, and it’s not like there were ever many goths to begin with**, but I’m talking about the kind of deeply middle-class area which is typically a fertile breeding ground for the angst-and-alienation driven, somewhat elitist goth subcultural union of fashion and musical taste.

Fashions, tastes, pop-cultural movements are ceaselessly changing, driven by an unconscious desire for the new (and the culture industry’s commercial imperative to provide it to that 16-24 demographic with their almost-entirely disposable incomes) but the goths have been hanging around with very little change in style since the 1980s, growing out of a stylistic fusion of the glam, punk, nu-wave and (early) metal aesthetics (as well as some other influence I’ve doubtlessly missed). Much like the heavy metal genres of music most closely associated with being goth^, once these influences coalesced into a codified form they effectively became their own self-referential closed circuit; metal bands influenced exclusively by predecessor metal bands and goth fashion taking its cues from goth fashion. It suggests that the secret of metal and goth’s longevity seems to be rooted in its deliberate separation, an aesthetic/genre island amidst the swirling currents of the pop-cultural sea which has implicitly positioned itself outside of and against the fluid mainstream. And this was a baton that’s been passed continuously down a line of teenagers that’s 30 years long. So how could a youth subculture so remarkably enduring shrink so quickly?

In a word: internet. Actually I suspect its a lot more (or maybe a lot less) complicated than that but in the borderless world of the internet, where subcultures and identity can spring up, mutate and die off within a matter of months and popular culture influences can spread virally at the speed of a ‘like’ or ‘share button’ click, the kind of insular stasis typical of the goth seems awfully luddite. Which isn’t to say that the flames of metal and/or punk music are extinguished (they keep burning away in their corner somewhere over there) or even that the various elements of goth’s cultivated image have disappeared from popular culture; those tastes and the fashion signifiers of the goth are now incorporated as part of an infinitely broad continuum of style and artistic consumption instead. Sprawling tattoos, interestingly located piercings, spacers,  black make-up, black dyed hair, neon hair, desired paleness, distorted riffs, double-pedal bass drums, unsustainable screamy vocals, a tendency toward fantasy or monster (vampire, wearwolf, witches, whatever) genre fiction, black lace, fishnets, and [insert any other attributes you care to name here] have all been absorbed to some degree by the people who make up our contemporary Western monoculture, each of us uniform in our cultivated individuality, and walking down the streets of any British town you’ll see these formerly-goth signifiers scattered liberally throughout the crowds of non-goths around you.

If I had to point to a single moment in music ‘history’ that sums up the two-way cross pollination of ‘alternative’ subculture with the mainstream then I’d point to the drum and bass group Pendulum’s breakthrough album Hold Your Colour^*

In the summer of 2005 Colour exploded amongst fans of rock/metal music, broadening their horizons by showing first-hand that the raw, frenetic energy of mosh-able music could be captured – nay, surpassed – by electronic dance and physically bringing the in-vogue D&B music into rock festivals and ‘alternative’ venues. It certainly helped that D&B could get us dancing in a limb-bungling style that was easy for us ‘too cool to dance’ alt-kids to adopt beyond the voluntary ugliness of the pit. Pendulum’s most interesting quality was their love of rock/metal, including their manner of dress (lots of black, ear-spacers, other piercings, tats, etc), and their second major album In Silico (2008) went even further by explicitly fusing structural and  elements of these styles with D&B, going on to be an even greater success with sections of the rock crowd. Metal kids going to raves, mingling with the ravers, inviting the ‘alternative’ to come in from the cold; the genie’s out of the bottle, the cultural sea level rises, the continuum continues.

* for non-UK readers that’s an optional post-high school education establishment for kids aged 16 to 18.

** which I suppose was the whole point of actually being a goth really… every one of us likes to think that we’re a special snowflake. Also I suppose I should make it clear that I’m specifically referring to goths in this spiel, not “people who like heavy metal and/or punk” because there’s plenty of them still around (but not so obviously demarcated by appearance as they were in the recent past).

^ You know what I mean: the heavy heavy metal and its subsequent evolutionary offshoots/branches (of which there are far too many to make it worth listing, many of those defined by characteristics which are very esoteric to outsiders).

^* The significance of the album format, with its individually structured tracks (including choruses) that stood on their own almost as ‘songs’, shouldn’t be understated. D&B fans and other ravers typically listened to mixes with the emphasis on the performed ebb and flow of the live set over individual tracks. The album form both suited Pendulum’s rock influences and commodified their music in a form that was immediately intelligible to the rock/punk/metal kids (like me) at the time. When I went to Pendulum “gigs” I expected to hear them play Tarantula and Voodoo People. Hell, many of their fans still refer to them as “a band”.

Punk’s emotional prison

Continuing with this post’s theme of stuff that was relevant to my specific and subjective experience of being a teenager in the early 2000’s, I’m going to talk about Green Day and The Offspring. “Oh fuck no, please don’t do that… I’m going to stop reading” I hear you say (and you’d probably be right to do so) but I promise you it (hopefully) won’t be as horrific a reading experience as you might expect.

Once again I should hasten to point out that everything that follows in this section is unfair and unbalanced. For the sake of weaving together a convenient oppositional story I omitted Blink 182’s Take Off Your Pants and Jacket and all of Greenday’s grungy 1990s material (i.e. that time when they were really very good). Feel free to skip to the next bit.

Amongst people who enjoyed these two bands, back at their commercial peak in the early 2000s, there was often a debate around which of the two bands was “best”*. While these debates were utterly futile since (being young and stupid) we lacked any sort of critical faculty beyond “I like this one the most”, there was one clear winner in terms of popularity and is was their work which went on to have the undeniably greater influence on the commercially ascendant emo/pop-punk/screamo scene music that was to come in the next few years. That winner was Greenday with their album American Idiot**. and of course the assertion implicit in the voices of those who sang along to the album’s eponymous single was “I am better than those others, I am a special child”  a notion that was continually reasserted throughout an album which made a nominal pretence of social conscience but mainly focused on the emotional turmoil of getting dumped. Their “Jesus of suburbia” concept spoke directly to the experience of their target audience, suburban white kids undergoing hormonal awkwardness, but did little to take them beyond that known space in the way that The Offspring sought to with Ixnay on the HombreSmash and roughly 60% of Americana.

Not that The Offspring are remotely guiltless when it comes to the growth of navel-gazing in punk. Their most contemporaneous albums to American Idiot were Splinter, which wasn’t any good and mainly focused on a narrow range of emotional states, and their Greatest Hits (which was doesn’t really count) but their slide towards the self-important emotional prison of 21st century punk was well under-way with Conspiracy of One^, the follow-up to Americana (and you could argue that all the warning signs were present in that album too, with the likes of No Brakes and the woeful Feelings). Its singles, Original Prankster (a best-forgotten sequel to Pretty Fly), Want You Bad (a humorous love song) and Million Miles Away (a standard-issue homesickness ditty with a cool guitar riff and somewhat catchy chorus, at least to a 15 year old’s mindset), neatly illustrate the start of the band’s downhill lyrical trajectory.

Once pop-punk and its audience mutated into emo, a genre that’s essentially all about you and your precious feelings, you’d have a real struggle to find anything by the MTV-approved bands with the social conscience of these tracks:

or self-effacing humour like this:

And so, after the Offspring’s peak, came American Idiot.

And after that came My Chemical Romance.

And that’s when the punk in me died.

* The correct answer is “The Offspring”.

** Remember those? They used to come on something call a “compact disc”. #oldman #getoffmylawn #youknownothingJohnSnow

^  Conspiracy was commercially stunted by The Offspring’s dispute with Columbia Records over Napster (the band wanted to use the first wave file-sharing phenomenon to give the album away for free – a move you’d never see from the likes of Greenday and it preceded Radiohead’s widely praised “innovation” with In Rainbows by the better part of a decade). As a consequence they never again got the kind of marketing push that Greenday or Blink 182 later enjoyed, though its probably for the best as they had evidently started to run out of chords in their later years. 

Mumford and class

Fucking hell… did any of you see the results of the Brit Awards? If this is the best that British guitar-music can achieve today (it isn’t) then the industry as it exists might as well give up*. Here’s a challenge for you: listen to the (award winning) Mumford & Sons track below and then think up at least three things that are distinctive or inspirational about it. I’ve probably heard loads of their music on the radio but I must have quickly forgotten about it because – honestly – I’m struggling to remember anything about this song, even the chorus, and I listened to it immediately before writing this paragraph.

Actually that last sentence was probably a little unfair of me. I remember the banjos and banjos are generally okay by me… but “okay” is the defining characteristic of that song. It’s all so safe; so patronisingly, stultifyingly safe**. The whole thing is crying out for a coked-up lunatic or born-angry young rapscallion^, possibly fresh from reading K-Punk’s Capitalist Realism, to stomp on stage with swagger and actual balls, kicking over something expensive on the way and screaming “SOMETHING INCOHERENT” before slamming out a killer riff and dying young.  

Matters of taste aside, it does look like there’s been a disappearance of the British working class from guitar music. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not going to go ranting about some elusive ephemeral bullshit like “authenticity” and claim that middle class kids (or really posh kids, in the case of Somethingorother & Sons) are incapable of producing “real” rock or anything stupid like that (especially since there’s a mountain of evidence to the contrary) but I do think it’s sad that there’s seemingly a diminished diversity of voices being represented by the (traditionally broad) rock-pop genre. Music can be many things, mostly fun things, but because it taps directly into our psyches, bypassing the rational software and reverberating the mammalian core of our mostly-simian brain hardware, it also has a unique potential to offer a subtle broadening of the social consciences of its audience. It disappoints me to think that there might be no new Libertines, no Arctic Monkeys, no young Manic Street Preachers, no Verve breaking into the head-space of young chart-listeners and rearranging the mental furniture… just the likes of Mffffnnn & Suhh doing their twee and unchallenging pseudo-charm for the kind of kids who shop in Jack Wills and are well-behaved enough to sit with their parents through entire episodes of Downton Abbey.

* Yes, I’m aware that award shows like the Brits serve little purpose beyond showing us what trends within the industry it thinks is most relevant to itself (and the all-important self-congratulation of its moguls). 

** Listening to Mediocre & Sons again while proof-reading this post and adding the footnotes actually made me feel as though all British culture is turning to shades of Tory and Ukip. Pah. Fuck ’em and their prematurely middle-aged fans. They can all go read the Daily Heil and watch Top Gear like their dads; collectively pretending that Jeremy Clarkson’s patriarchal provocations are somehow “rebellious” rather than merely being another example of the ancient traditions of triumphant selfishness, xenophobia and parochialism that represents so much of the worst of my country’s culture and history.

In all seriousness I’m not saying you’re a total shit for liking Mumble & Slog but – because I believe most people are fundamentally decent at heart – I know you’re capable of doing so much better. Please don’t let me down again.

^ Either that or Prince with his screaming hyper-phallus of musical electro-joy


Yes, let’s remember why we’re here. It’s time to talk about something good…


There’s this graphic novel* called Phonogram: The Singles Club (by writer Kieron Gillen, artist Jamie McKelvie), it’s all about music and it’s bloody brilliant. Imagine a world where music is literally magical (not so different from our own then) and in that world there’s a night club in Bristol, a special/ordinary night of special/ordinary music where various young/less-young folks go for various known/unknown reasons. That’s surely the vaguest and least effective summary of a story I’ve ever written but forget about that because The Singles Club is not so much about events as it is about people’s perception. The art is beautiful in its precision and confidence, with McKelvie producing a masterfully subtle range of expression in his characters, and Gillen’s ideas and themes should resonate with anyone who enjoys music (meaning you, obviously). It seeks to explore the way music works to construct our identities yet also enables us to transcend or escape from our sense of self, utilising the refracted lens of seven diverse characters who are all occupying the same small space and short time to bring different ideas, emotional states and interpretations of music into focus. I guarantee you’ll find yourself identifying with at least one of the kids in the story or you’ll know people just like them. Click play on the embedded song below and take a look through the images that follow**. The rest should speak for itself.


* Well it’s a comic really (they’re all comics, even that one you think it’s socially acceptable to admit to liking) but if I start by saying that it’s a comic you’ll think “what like Spider-Man? lol stfu” and you wont read it, regardless of its brilliance.

** You’ve probably noticed that all the images from elsewhere in this post are from the same comic. This is totally deliberate^.

^ It was not deliberate. Not at first anyway.

Of course the inherent irony of the kind of ‘music writing’ in this article is that most of it is wrong (except for the bit about Phonogram, I really do know what I’m talking about when it comes to comics). There could be millions of goth kids hanging around the bike sheds of this world, sneaking cigarettes and feeling their emotions; it’s true that The Offspring’s guitar riffs were often infuriatingly same-y while many of their songs were just plain bad; Mumford & Sons probably mean something significant to somebody out there, maybe even you; and most of you won’t bother to read Phonogram or even listen to the tracks I so very thoughtfully embedded here.

The point, if really there is a point to be found, is that music matters beyond the immediate pleasures of its sounds; it is not trite or banal to say that music forms the soundtrack to our lives, informing the patchily recollected lived stories which become the basis of our shared experiences, individual identities and sense of self. Stories matter and the music which underscores our stories is more important to us than any of us can ever really know, exerting a subtle yet significant influence on our momentary existence and how we reconstruct that daily life into something far greater than its accreted facts.  And that’s (possibly) why I wrote all that stuff you just read.


Not quite. Finally, here’s a little bonus for any masochists who made it this far through my torrent of garbage and bile; it’s Chvrches with their live cover of Prince’s I Would Die for U (hey that’s two Prince links in one webpage!) and if YouTube takes this video down for copyright infringement again I’ll be… I’ll be a little bit miffed:

(There’s actually some much better audio quality recordings of this on youtube that I’d recommend you check out but I wanted to use one with live footage because golly-gee crikey their singer is really rather lovely.)

Peace out yo.

35 minutes of transcendent rubbish

Earlier today, I heard a song. It made me feel good and made me want to write about it. That song was Justin Bieber’s U Smile (800% Slower) and it’s embedded below. I suppose this is a review of sorts, I’m not really sure, but the only way I could properly convert my scrambled notes was through the medium of bullet points; read on:

  • This weird, almost-miraculous thing of an audio track sounds like it ought to be a Sigur Ros concept album – with its liquid choral tones, a welcoming blanket of foreign words comforting in their sonorous meaninglessness.
  • It’s like sonic waves crashing against the jagged rocks of today’s frustrations and bitter feelings, eroding them into smooth sea shore pebbles and as the track fades, the ocean recedes it leaves behind a rock pool of calm, sheltering a skittering hermit crab of whimsy.
  • (Hey, this is my blog and I’m going to brutally torture a metaphor or simile whenever I want.)
  • Be passive as you listen, open and accepting; allow the electro violin warmth and passing distant traffic-rush to take you over on the second minute and upwards to drift on 16bit clouds of pixel-fluff. Untethered. Soaring. Free.
  • Riding high on these strange sounds; it makes me want to ingest some made-up drug that chemists haven’t invented yet and lie naked under warm summer rains, grass between my fingers, their tips making contact with the mud so there’s just enough friction to keep me from sliding off the planet (and would it really be so bad if I let go? A drifting frozen eternity,  smiling at the stars, accelerating into comet-hood).
  • Yes it’s a Justin Bieber track slowed down by 800%. It shouldn’t work, it should be horrible but somehow and some way, at the time of writing this, something so trite discovered by happenstance meant something to me.

Aaaaaanyway, you’ve read my words, now hear the tune (then come back for the final paragraph – if you’ve the stomach for any more of my semi-coherent babble)…

So now you’ve heard it, maybe you liked it. Maybe you hated it and now you’re wondering why I bothered writing any of the above and how I could ever have felt that way about a cynically motivated regurgitation of manufactured trash muzak – and you’d be missing the point, because that’s what pop is: industrial grade audio sludge, mechanically syringed into our ears by an uncaring and distant content-pump, that somehow, on some rare occasions, becomes something special to some of us, even if it’s only for a few fleeting minutes.

If you don’t like this truth, get down your local open mic night, wait for the wanker crooning a shitty acoustic cover of Babylon to his adoring, love-deaf girlfriend to finish his ‘set’ (there’s always one) and be a fucking artist.

Crikey… I really do spout some awfully pretentious guff. Apologies to everyone who made it this far. Here’s an irrelevant and amusing gif to make it all better:

Reviewing comics: process and theory

Hey there! I review comics and after a long conversation on reddit I’ve decided to write about writing about comics, based on what I’ve learned over the past year and a half that I’ve been doing it with any real regularity. In a startling example of arrogance and hubris, I think there’s a few things that could be useful for non-reviewers to understand about how the review process works and if there’s anyone who writes their own reviews then hopefully this could be of some use to them or form the basis of some discussion.

Reader beware! It seems I’m quite the self regarding so-and-so because this post turned out rather long. 


When it comes to writing a review, there are certain things I look for in a single issue which I try to separate from my personal tastes in art, genre and storytelling techniques:

  • Catharsis. Payoff. Whatever you call it and however the story can deliver it I bloody well want some  in my comics – it can come in the form of action, emotional resolution, plot development, shock, etc – and when there is no catharsis in a comic that costs somewhere in the region of $2 to $4 then I feel ripped off (UK prices depend on the retailer – keep in mind I write about American comics for an American site with an American audience).
  • Competent and purposeful art. Again, regardless of style, I want the art to do its job of telling the story and actually adding something to the script.
  • A sense of design. Hard to quantify but when a comic has a clearly defined aesthetic utilising colour, typography, page layouts, lettering, etc, it is so much better than something which feels as though it was churned out on a standardised production line process.
  • Pacing. Again this depends on the type of story being told and number of pages available but generally a well paced comic strikes a balance between plot events, build up and characterisation.

There are also things I always mark down a comic for:

  • Wasted pages. In an expensive hobby, with comics that usually feature somewhere between 20 and 44 story pages, to dedicate entire pages on achieving nothing of note is a cardinal sin.
  • Poor dialogue and/or captions. I’m not expecting Quentin Tarantino here, but when dialogue is poorly done it stands out like a sore thumb. Characters should have their own voices which aren’t interchangeable. As for the captions, sometimes it’s best when a script allows the art to speak for itself; in spite of the fact that (as Kieron Gillen said) “the plot is the work” some have a tendency to forget they are writing for the artist and over-write their scripts with purposeless captions in order to be more visible to the reader (and possibly to justify their job).
  • Bad art. This is something I am very careful not to condemn too harshly, given that my own ability to draw is on a par with a 12 year old and that different art styles will appeal to different people or suit different purposes. Regardless, there are times when it is clear that a comic’s artwork fails to live up to its intended purpose; there are other times when art is obviously rushed out to a deadline with errors, or the storytelling otherwise unclear, lacking in emotion, dynamism or vibrancy.

For bonus points a comic can:

  • Do something I’ve never seen before.
  • Be ambitious – even if it falls short then it will still be more worthwhile than a comic which aims low and hits the mark.
  • Be meaningful and/or make me think differently about something.
  • Be clever and/or make me feel clever (OK I’ll admit that’s a subjective judgement and/or an appeal to my vanity – but whoever said “flattery won’t get you anywhere” was a god damned liar).

In graphic novels and paperback collections of ongoing comics there are a few things I approach differently, for example when it comes to structure I am much more forgiving towards decompressed and slower paced storytelling than in a single issue. Then again, if a paperback collection fails to provide catharsis or meaning in the significantly greater space available for storytelling I will condemn it much more harshly.

I also think it’s important to factor in the quality of the print, including paper stock and bindings. Most of the comics I review come in digital formats so I’m unable to evaluate them on their merits as printed piece of art but, speaking as a firm believer in the inherent value of comics and books as preservable physical objects, the quality of a comic’s production is vitally important. Within a decade from now (probably a lot less) the proliferation of low cost tablet computers (iPad, Android, etc) and e-readers (Kindle, Nook, etc) will be the death of most low value printed things, with only high quality and high desirability boutique items being worth the effort and costs involved in the printing process (alongside the likelihood of a robust market for second-hand books). Consequently, when I buy a printed graphic novel or comic today I don’t want it to look like a scrappy piece of unreadable shit if I look at it ten years down the line. Unfortunately, when you buy a monthly comic from Marvel or DC (or in some cases the collected paperbacks too), that’s exactly what you’re going to get unless you go accept the cost and effort required to preserve the paper; meanwhile it’s been left up to small or mid-size publishers like IDW, Image, Blank Slate Books, NoBrow, Self Made Hero or self published comics like Michel Fiffe’s outrageously brilliant Copra to fly the flag for print quality.

Image taken from Copra #1


There’s an impressive and rapidly expanding body of academic work dedicated to the critical analysis of comics, particularly coming from groups like Sequart or Graphixia (with post-grad courses like at Dundee University or online courses like ‘Gender Through Comics’ to boot), but I could never hope to articulate the theories behind such formal analyses in the space and time available to me here.  What I can do is briefly introduce some of the various other methods of reviewing that I’ve seen used by writers elsewhere and discuss their relative merits.

  • Descriptive with an attempt at forming a relatively objective assessment of functional qualities! That’s an awfully pretentious way of summing up everything I said under “process” above and it’s the method I generally try to achieve (with varying degrees of success) for my Comic Bastards reviews.
  • Straightforward self!  A lot of reviews are written this way and it’s perhaps the most honest way of imparting your personal experience of the comic to the review reader. When it’s done well it goes further than “I liked this because… I disliked this because…” and accounts for the reviewer’s subjectivity. The main drawback is that where a reviewer’s tastes differ from the reader’s, the reviews may prove to be less useful than other methods but conversely when you find a reviewer who speaks directly to your interests it is arguably among the most practical methods of discovering new comics.
  • Hyperbolic personae! Like the ‘straightforward self’ but with the reviewer writing as an exaggerated version of themselves. These tend to be ruder, cruder, funnier but often less practical (as a method of recommendation) than other styles.
  • Soapy stakeholder! A style of review that’s most commonly applied to superhero comics from Marvel and DC, simply because the stakeholder holds no stake in comics which aren’t a part of those fictive universes and is therefore uninterested. This kind of review focuses on discussing the merits of plot developments instead of craft, generally with emphasis on the emotional impact of these events and the interplay of long-established characters; they also tend to view comics that are heavy in fan-service more favourably than I do. There’s already something of the soap-opera in the structure of many superhero comics and this kind of review (whether consciously or not) is an actively buying into that soapy ‘permanent second act’ structure. Personally I have no use for reviews like this, I don’t give a damn about the ‘shocking revelation’ of Captain Trademark’s hidden history unless it’s part of a bloody good story that’s very well illustrated, but I do appreciate that a significant proportion of the market for ‘mainstream’ comics is targeted at highly invested fans/readers and this kind of review speaks directly and purposefully to their interests.
  • Group reviews! Several reviewers contribute their opinion and it all comes together to form a stronger whole – like Captain Planet. The advantages of this form are that it’s a lot less work for everyone involved and readers are given a multiplicity of viewpoints, increasing the likelihood that their own tastes will be accounted for. The main drawback is that it generally prevents deep analysis from any one contributor. We recently started doing these at Comic Bastards.
  • Meanings and metaphysics! A review which focuses on deconstructing and analysing the meanings and implicit values of a given comic, occasionally from a consciously subjective perspective. A good example would be Mindless Ones’ Batman Inc #6 review or their retrospective of Grant Morrison’s Action Comics run. This is a fairly broad category, especially in terms of style, and it is something that is often included as one facet of a review that’s mostly written in one of the other styles I listed here – as exemplified in AV Club’s Big Issues. It’s also something I would like to do more, if only I had more time to do it.
  • Multi-review! A number of short summarised reviews grouped together to form a larger single article, generally covering a week’s most interesting releases. For this review format we can again look to the AV Club and their regular Comics Panel feature or another fine example from Mindless Ones.
  • Close reading and deep analysis! Bordering on the academic, this style of review is epitomised by the likes of Colin Smith’s ‘Too Busy Thinking About My Comics‘ blog, Sequart or Graphixia and serves a dual function of teaching readers about the comics form and advising whether or not they should buy a comic. I love reading this kind of work and I’d probably try write something like this myself if I didn’t already have a full time job.
  • Comicritical meta-comics! There’s a few of these kicking around the ‘net (e.g. Comic Critics and The Gutters) which I enjoy but generally these take the form of a commentary on the American comics industry rather than a individual comic. Given that the written word is the most effective method of reviewing prose fiction, why not review a comic through another comic? Depending on the legal technicalities of ‘Fair Use’ it might even be possible to incorporate a comic’s images directly into the panels of the review comic. Obvious drawback: the time it takes to make one.

(Looking over some of the examples I linked to above has proved to be a reminder of how  my own work is amateurish in many respects – clearly there’s a lot I still have to learn.)

There are other possible theoretical approaches to reviewing comics which I hope to discuss at some point in the future, as well as examining the various approaches in more depth.


Besides the difficulties I mentioned in the sections above, there are a few other obstacles in the path of every reviewer which are worthy of consideration:

  • Art! We’re talking about comics not prose, so it’s absolutely crucial that art is discussed on an equal footing with the way a comic is written. From my point of view, it’s often the hardest part of a review or critical piece (partly because I’m trained to assess literature) and despite the sterling work by theorists like Scott McCloud (whose Understand Comics is the essential text for understanding comics) there’s not much of a formalised lexicon to fall back on. Generally I try to describe the style and I always praise artists who make intelligent use of the comics form as opposed to simply drawing pretty but disconnected pictures. It’s all about the layout!
  • Review scores! What’s the difference between “3/5”, “7/10”, “four stars” or any other shorthand for quantifying a qualitative judgement? Can these numbers ever really mean anything? How do we define these values? There’s an argument (espoused by the likes of my favourite gaming website Rock Paper Shotgun) to suggest that if a long form review is sufficiently thorough and well written then there’s no need to assign a score – readers should have figured out whether or not they’re interested from what you write. On the other hand, a scoring system can provide an efficient abbreviation of your review and can allow the review to mark up an assessment of comic’s quality that goes beyond their subjective opinion (i.e. they enjoyed the comic in spite of its poor quality or vice versa). Destructoid, another decent gaming site, has a definition of what their review scores mean adjacent to the “whatever/10” that I think is particularly useful for both reviewer and reader. At Comic Bastards we employ the “something/5” method, which I’m happy to use (particularly since the word count of a single issue’s review can’t be as lengthy as one for a 60 hour video game) but in hindsight I have looked back on my reviews and occasionally seen inconsistencies in my use of it. C’est la critique I guess. We’ve also started using a “Buy/Borrow/Ignore” rating for our contributions to the group reviews and, though that’s an even greater simplification of the critical thought process, it immediately communicates out recommendation to the reader with great efficiency.
  • Being fair to creators! This isn’t a problem when you’re saying positive things about a comic but I find that when I start to point out aspects of it which didn’t work or were lacking it weighs on my mind. It’s even harder when it’s obvious that the creators have put their heart and soul into the work yet it still comes out with significant flaws (and to be honest I’m always slightly more forgiving of self-published or indie comics). I particularly struggled in that regard with my review of Kuzimu, a labour of love where the creator’s artwork was astonishing but the story it served was a total mess. The challenge is to address your concerns while retaining full respect for the craft at work. Equally, sometimes it’s clear when reading that the creative team and publisher have rushed their product to print or produced work that is otherwise careless or substandard and in those instances they deserve to be castigated.
  • Spoilers! The bane of my existence (“haha hashtag first world problems” I hear you say – and you’d be right). Writing about comics and being a part of geeky online communities means that it can be bloody hard work for me to avoid having major plot points of popular stories spoiled in advance of their publication. I hate spoilers. I think the culture of “BIG SCOOP! CHARACTER X IS DOING BIG THING Y IN COMIC Z! OMG!” at certain notable websites and amongst a large section of fans shows a fundamental disregard for serialised comicbook fiction as an art form and reduces it to the level of a tabloid’s celebrity gossip column (but that’s another rant for another day and I appreciate that for most sites it’s simply a case of catering to demand). Did I mention how much I hate spoilers? Consequently, I try to keep them to a bare minimum in my reviews while still discussing the structure and relevant themes of a comic as much as possible.

And we’re done

Phew! That was a giant septic tank of self-indulgent guff for you to wade through; evidently this blog is aptly named. Thank you for reading! Time is a precious commodity and I appreciate your generosity.

For further reading check out Comic Bastards and you’ll see a greater variety of review styles than most of comicbook websites out there, which is one of the reasons why I think we’re rather good. 

‘Gender Through Comics’ (aka #SuperMOOC) – End of Week One Diary

Starting Tuesday April 2, Ball State University launched a pioneering foray into the world of online education with their course ‘Gender through comics’. Think of it as being like a literature module but without the formalised grading system (or the mammoth sized essays) and delivered entirely through a web based networks enhanced by social media. As you might have guessed from the title (and the existence of this post), I am participating in the course and so far it has been a lot of fun. It’s also free to join and as far as I’m aware there’s still a number of places available for people to join in.

The course examines the concept of gender in society – how it’s created from culture, how it effects us and how it can be reinforced or refuted through art – and applies feminist theory to comics. The course features live interviews with prominent writers and artists every Thursday night – this week’s was with Terry Moore (more on him below).

Week one mainly served as an introduction to the course, going over the basic questions we should be asking in order to analyse a comic through the lens of gender. Appropriately our first week was spent studying Terry Moore’s Strangers in Paradise and the first issue of Rachel Rising. Both are led by female protagonists and have other characters which subvert traditional gender roles, neither is an example of the superhero genre that stereotypically dominates the medium; Moore’s black and white artwork is as beautifully drawn as it is realistic, with his characters never feeling as though they are anything less than a believable individual even when their actions stray into ‘wish  fulfilment’  territory. Next week we will be studying Superman, through his earliest appearance in 1938’s Action Comics #1, a ‘silver age‘ Superman story and the more recent Birthright series.

Like any kind of literary study, you only get out what you put in and because there’s no grading or essays (mainly because it’s open to up to 7000 students) there’s nothing to stop you from simply refusing to do the work. Equally, those who do invest the recommended 5 to 10 hours a week in the discussion boards, social networking and supplementary reading are going to get a lot out of it.

The only real problem I have with the way the course functions is that the Canvas discussion board web design is functionally very poor. It’s far too difficult to keep track of the conversations you are participating in if you didn’t begin the thread because it doesn’t show up under the ‘discussion replies’ in your profile unless you created the thread. On a forum with thousands of users it’s extremely unwieldy and makes the course’s most essential classwork more awkward to participate in than it rightly should be. Other than that though, everything else about the studying process, the Canvas website, the teaching and the comics themselves has been fun and informative. I was very pleased to see that the course lecturer Christy Blanch was able to cut a deal with ComiXology, the world’s biggest digital comic distributor, to offer all the required reading at a significantly reduced rate.

For me, as someone who already considers himself pretty familiar with feminist/gender theory as applied to the written word and culture at large, it’s interesting to practice its application to sequential artwork (as well as getting a good refresher in the fundamentals of the gender). For those of you who aren’t interested in comics, or sees them as a purely childish pursuit that’s dominated by capes and costumes, the #SuperMOOC is an excellent opportunity to expand your horizons; while those of you who have never studied feminism can stand to learn a lot about our culture and how the gender roles/stereotypes it imposes on us impact on our lives.

Through comics. Awesome comics.