Scan barcode
maximum_moxie's review
5.0
This book has its faults, I'll admit: it's largely opinion based and focused primarily on "art" comics which this average reader has never heard of. But Wolk's voice is compelling and interesting, if a little self-important. His passion for the medium is always front and center, which made me want to dig up these weird comics and give them a try. More to the point, he looks beyond basic plot summary and examines comics as a film or literary critic would their chosen media.
big_goose's review
1.0
Ugh. This book doesn't actually explain how comics "work" or what they "mean." Instead, it's a bunch of self-indulgent rambling, all written like the blog of someone who is trying desperately trying to make you think they are funny.
After a much-abridged history of comics, he devotes a tiny and uninformative chapter to the actual theory of comics; most of this is him quoting more articulate people, and then saying that he agrees with their assertions.
After that, the majority of the book is him explaining why things he likes are good - but not some of the things that he likes, as they are "somehow dodgy or flawed, and [he would] rather explain what brings [him] joy about them then endorse them unequivocally."[138] Does this mean that we are to assume the comics he has selected are ones that he feels he can endorse unequivocally? if that's the case, why bother writing about them? Apparently, explaining to a reader why something that is flawed can still be good is not worth the effort. Instead, he writes the kinds of plot-summary-heavy reviews that don't tell you anything more than if you should buy it or not.
Also, he apparently believes that auteur theory is something worth talking about, which it is clearly not.
After a much-abridged history of comics, he devotes a tiny and uninformative chapter to the actual theory of comics; most of this is him quoting more articulate people, and then saying that he agrees with their assertions.
After that, the majority of the book is him explaining why things he likes are good - but not some of the things that he likes, as they are "somehow dodgy or flawed, and [he would] rather explain what brings [him] joy about them then endorse them unequivocally."[138] Does this mean that we are to assume the comics he has selected are ones that he feels he can endorse unequivocally? if that's the case, why bother writing about them? Apparently, explaining to a reader why something that is flawed can still be good is not worth the effort. Instead, he writes the kinds of plot-summary-heavy reviews that don't tell you anything more than if you should buy it or not.
Also, he apparently believes that auteur theory is something worth talking about, which it is clearly not.
devinr's review
4.0
Reading Comics would be a great book for people with a basic curiosity of the medium, but it’s also sidelined by the insularity of comics fans: it’s mostly going to be read by people who already have an interest in them. Which isn’t a bad thing, because although Douglas Wolk would hope to appeal to the “curious newcomer”, the topics covered inside should also help the “hardcore fan”. (Both terms are used on the inner lining of the dust jacket.)
Wolk is clever, sometimes self-awarely so, but presents the material clearly and in an engaging manner. He starts out with a very cursory history of the medium and talks a little about superhero comics, which are often maligned in books on comics criticism – sometimes for good reason. But the last three-fifths of the book are essays about different creators. Some are “indie” writer/cartoonists (Chris Ware, Dave Sim), and some are superhero writers (Alan Moore) and cartoonists (Steve Ditko). He covers the spectrum from pop trash (Marvel’s 70s horror book Tomb of Dracula) and the highly-regarded (Maus and Fun Home). He doesn’t cover EVERYTHING any particular reader would like, but there’s no way he could. He picks and chooses his own favourites, so there’s no way you could find serious fault by him not choosing chapters that feature, say, Jack Kirby, Carl Barks, or R. Crumb. The great thing about the book is that it encompasses so many creators that most readers wouldn’t know about all of them. So it helps break down barriers between the superhero fans and the indie fans, trying to make comics a little less insular. And if a few people from outside the comics bubble read the book and get interested, all the better. A good book for the comics neophyte, who might never read it, and a great book for the comics fan, who likely doesn’t need the reccommendation.
Wolk is clever, sometimes self-awarely so, but presents the material clearly and in an engaging manner. He starts out with a very cursory history of the medium and talks a little about superhero comics, which are often maligned in books on comics criticism – sometimes for good reason. But the last three-fifths of the book are essays about different creators. Some are “indie” writer/cartoonists (Chris Ware, Dave Sim), and some are superhero writers (Alan Moore) and cartoonists (Steve Ditko). He covers the spectrum from pop trash (Marvel’s 70s horror book Tomb of Dracula) and the highly-regarded (Maus and Fun Home). He doesn’t cover EVERYTHING any particular reader would like, but there’s no way he could. He picks and chooses his own favourites, so there’s no way you could find serious fault by him not choosing chapters that feature, say, Jack Kirby, Carl Barks, or R. Crumb. The great thing about the book is that it encompasses so many creators that most readers wouldn’t know about all of them. So it helps break down barriers between the superhero fans and the indie fans, trying to make comics a little less insular. And if a few people from outside the comics bubble read the book and get interested, all the better. A good book for the comics neophyte, who might never read it, and a great book for the comics fan, who likely doesn’t need the reccommendation.
kristennd's review
4.0
I read the first 2/3 of this while traveling at Thanksgiving, and then misplaced it for a couple months. This works really well as Comics Crit 101, which is what I was looking for. Many people who already read a lot about comics were underwhelmed, but I needed a starting point and this was very accessible. I've been reading comics for years but never feel qualified to participate in the in-depth discussions that my friends have, and this will help. I've read about 2/3 of what he covers. For the stuff I haven't read, I appreciated that it wasn't all browbeating into how a title was brilliant and I absolutely had to read and appreciate it. Some essays reinforced my impression that a title was well done but not for me.
francomega's review
3.0
Good overview of the medium, from mainstream superhero books to art comics. Wolk is an accessible, engaging writer and I learned a lot...and added a bunch of titles to my reading list.
More...