A review by big_goose
Reading Comics by Douglas Wolk

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.