Scan barcode
Reviews
How to Read Nancy: The Elements of Comics in Three Easy Panels by Paul Karasik, Mark Newgarden
cvall96's review against another edition
4.0
Great analysis; will always trust in fans of termite art. Could do without the modern art/whippersnapper snideness. Best parts are the appendices of Nancy strips and the historical footnotes.
hreed7's review against another edition
4.0
One of the simpler diversions of my year has been reading Nancy comics, and this book is an absolute joy for unpacking why it is that such dumb, crisp gags are so delightful and so powerful. Come for the taut formal analysis, stay for the history and the fascinating view into the cartooning life. A worthy read for any fan of the medium.
ashleylm's review
4.0
Oh, this is a hard one to rate. I'm not remotely a fan of Nancy, and to a certain extent I felt I was an unwitting participant in an elaborate put-on (could anybody be such a fan of Nancy as to write an entire book about—not even the entire strip, but just one weekly occurence of it?)
Because that's the premise of this book: one single strip, three measly panels, and an entire book about it. I've also read Richard Ayoade's Ayoade on Top, an entire book about the Gwyneth Paltrow film Vew from the Top which pretends to appreciate it as an artistic masterpiece. Was Karasik doing the same, sly thing?
I don't think so. I think he values Bushmiller's artistry and economy. And the entire book isn't quite about just those three panels: the first 71 pages are preamble, introduction, and bibliography. The final 100 or so pages are conclusions and appendices (quite interesting, actually), then 40 more pages of examples of other Nancy strips.
But that leaves over 80 pages entirely about those three panels, and Karasik pulls it off. He separates every last element of the strip into its own little essay, dealing with such matters as composition, or facial expression, or balloon placement. He begins with generalizations about the mini-subject (e.g. how balloons work in comcis), then moves on to specifics about how these balloons work in these three panels.
So I think Karasik's work is masterful, but for me it's a bit misplaced—since I really don't like Nancy and while I've come around a bit to appreciating her slightly more, she's still firmly in the negative side. So many aspects of the strip rankled me, even as a child, when I could hardly have been influenced by what the cool kids in university felt about it. I enjoyed Peanuts, I thought it was hilarious and touching. Nancy seemed ... dumb. Catering to two year olds, not big grown-up five year olds like me. Fritzi's hair never changed ... why would a glamorous aunt retain a hair cut from the 1940s? It made no sense to me.
So, like an expert cookbook beautifully written about rhubarb (shudder) or herring fillets (double shudder), I can't fully appreciate it.
Note: I have written a novel (not yet published), so now I will suffer pangs of guilt every time I offer less than five stars. In my subjective opinion, the stars suggest:
(5* = one of my all-time favourites, 4* = really enjoyed it, 3* = readable but not thrilling, 2* = actually disappointing, and 1* = hated it. As a statistician I know most books are 3s, but I am biased in my selection and end up mostly with 4s, thank goodness.)
Because that's the premise of this book: one single strip, three measly panels, and an entire book about it. I've also read Richard Ayoade's Ayoade on Top, an entire book about the Gwyneth Paltrow film Vew from the Top which pretends to appreciate it as an artistic masterpiece. Was Karasik doing the same, sly thing?
I don't think so. I think he values Bushmiller's artistry and economy. And the entire book isn't quite about just those three panels: the first 71 pages are preamble, introduction, and bibliography. The final 100 or so pages are conclusions and appendices (quite interesting, actually), then 40 more pages of examples of other Nancy strips.
But that leaves over 80 pages entirely about those three panels, and Karasik pulls it off. He separates every last element of the strip into its own little essay, dealing with such matters as composition, or facial expression, or balloon placement. He begins with generalizations about the mini-subject (e.g. how balloons work in comcis), then moves on to specifics about how these balloons work in these three panels.
So I think Karasik's work is masterful, but for me it's a bit misplaced—since I really don't like Nancy and while I've come around a bit to appreciating her slightly more, she's still firmly in the negative side. So many aspects of the strip rankled me, even as a child, when I could hardly have been influenced by what the cool kids in university felt about it. I enjoyed Peanuts, I thought it was hilarious and touching. Nancy seemed ... dumb. Catering to two year olds, not big grown-up five year olds like me. Fritzi's hair never changed ... why would a glamorous aunt retain a hair cut from the 1940s? It made no sense to me.
So, like an expert cookbook beautifully written about rhubarb (shudder) or herring fillets (double shudder), I can't fully appreciate it.
Note: I have written a novel (not yet published), so now I will suffer pangs of guilt every time I offer less than five stars. In my subjective opinion, the stars suggest:
(5* = one of my all-time favourites, 4* = really enjoyed it, 3* = readable but not thrilling, 2* = actually disappointing, and 1* = hated it. As a statistician I know most books are 3s, but I am biased in my selection and end up mostly with 4s, thank goodness.)
libby_libby_3's review against another edition
funny
informative
lighthearted
relaxing
medium-paced
4.0
ederwin's review
4.0
I thought this would be more than I would ever want to know about Nancy, but I was wrong: I want more!
The supposed main text here is 44 two-page chapters examining in great detail the same single 3-panel, single-gag comic about Nancy squirting Sluggo with a water hose. Different chapters talk about thickness of lines, placement of speech, how the text is drawn, how the balloons are drawn, punctuation (or lack of it), weird constraints imposed by publishers, etc., etc. This could seem excessive, but it rarely is. (One case where it does go to far is applying Freudian analysis. But this may be tongue-in-cheek because they prefaced it with a quote from Bushmiller saying that there is no Freud in Nancy.)
The real main text, in my opinion, is the introduction and the appendices. The introduction is a mini biography of Bushmiller and history of the American newspaper comics scene in general. The appendices cover lots of ground on various related topics.
Since this was published in 2017, it has nothing to say about the revived strip now written by "Olivia Jaimes", and can sadly shed no light on whether Sluggo is lit.
The supposed main text here is 44 two-page chapters examining in great detail the same single 3-panel, single-gag comic about Nancy squirting Sluggo with a water hose. Different chapters talk about thickness of lines, placement of speech, how the text is drawn, how the balloons are drawn, punctuation (or lack of it), weird constraints imposed by publishers, etc., etc. This could seem excessive, but it rarely is. (One case where it does go to far is applying Freudian analysis. But this may be tongue-in-cheek because they prefaced it with a quote from Bushmiller saying that there is no Freud in Nancy.)
The real main text, in my opinion, is the introduction and the appendices. The introduction is a mini biography of Bushmiller and history of the American newspaper comics scene in general. The appendices cover lots of ground on various related topics.
Since this was published in 2017, it has nothing to say about the revived strip now written by "Olivia Jaimes", and can sadly shed no light on whether Sluggo is lit.
uncleflannery's review
4.0
This book is good but also kind of bullshit. Like a three panel Nancy comic can totally withstand 40-odd chapters of analysis, that's fine, also there's a lot of fun stuff and they take seriously the work that goes into a good gag. That's cool! But the introduction talks about how many "bad" comics there are out there and (while I agree) their definition of "bad" is like... sloppy linework or improvisation or whatever.... there's something kind of macho about qualitative judgments made within. But who's more like Nancy: Marlys or one of Chris Ware's weird masturbating guys? Obviously Marlys. Sometimes fun, sometimes maddening. Do these guys even like to laugh?
More...