Friday, March 4, 2011

Kidnapping The Golden Age


Using metals as a designation for eras is a short hand for technological capability, i.e. Bronze Age, the Iron Age.  In the never ending deification of technology, the paradigm portrays a civilization’s progress through metalworking, amassing strength, power and momentum.  Somewhere along the way, the arts adopted a similar looking way of naming eras, except with the opposite implication, one of degradation: a weakening, a dilution and a loss of value.  We’re all familiar with the notion of the “golden age of cinema”, despite it having little meaning. 
 
Comic Books are categorized in a similar fashion: Golden Age – Silver Age – Bronze Age.  I really don’t care for era headings that suggest an inexorable decline in quality, an inevitable decay.  It’s pessimistic and inaccurate.  There’s almost a religious self-loathing in the notion of an ideal time followed by a continuous fall from grace leading to the very bottom in the present.  On a grand scale, time is most easily observed as the process of entropy, but that doesn’t translate culturally to the early days of an art form being wizardry, the Silver Age being vaudeville magic shows and the Bronze Age being an unshaven mug hustling card tricks on a street corner.

I suppose, part of the designation has literally to do with the antique collectible value of comic books and that has probably been the most destructive element for comics being part of the magic garden of childhood.

Something that really stands out about comics of yesteryear is a bold simplicity and earnest clarity of line and form; of character and story.  It is easy to perceive earlier incarnations of comics as wielding a kind of purity and innocence—a golden age by way of Dylan Thomas sensibility.  Those comics were definitely drawn for and priced for children, and yet, or maybe because of it, they are sort of timeless and ageless.

I hope children still read comic books, and read them with the intensity and immersion that I remember.  But comics have matured in ways I sometimes find marvelous, but also ways that make me feel sad for the children.  I sometimes feel like we loved our comics so much that we wanted to keep them for ourselves, making them more convoluted as we aged, bogging them down with an adult’s sense of continuity and complexity, not to mention an adult’s sense of interpersonal relationships. Along the way, we may have started to lose the idea that they were for children first.

If far darker and more sophisticated storytelling is not barrier enough to children, there is also the price.  Paper and printing cost more than they once did, and artists and writers are better paid than they once were, but there is an undeniable relationship between the price of comics and the audience.  Pricing of a commodity is always based on the very most the market will bear.  A ten year old cannot compete as a target market with a 45 year old middle manager whose life still revolves around the day of the week that the comics are shipped.  From a business standpoint, that adult market is several cohorts, all more numerous than the dwindling children market, at least two generations into shrinking family size.  Of course that neglects the great wisdom of churches and tobacco companies:  hook ‘em while they’re young.

When I was a kid, most stores had a comic book rack—corner stores, grocery stores, pharmacies.  A kid could independently go on his own quest for 4-colour magic and pay for it with allowance, couch scrounged change, or even by returning a few pop bottles pulled from the trash.  Getting lost in cosmic adventures and heroic glory could be part of a private autonomous universe.  In essence, children were pint sized hunters and gatherers.  Today, virtually the only place to buy a comic book is a comic book store, a specialty shop for collectors and the obsessed.

Today, rather than the subversive act making a pilgrimage on foot or bicycle to the comic rack—sometimes a literally transgressive act if the corner store was outside of a permitted radius from home—the kid has to petition a parent to bring them to the collector store.

There is more to it than just the loss of freedom.  When I was a kid, I had no conception of comics being collected, financially evaluated and sealed away in little plastic vaults.  It would never have occurred to me that an adult would read a comic book.  Sure, by adolescence, in my hunger to read comics from before my time, I had discovered comic book stores.  They were more of an oddity back then, seedier, kind of like the comic shop in the Simpsons.  Back then, it was still common to see kids in these shops. 

In fact, as I reflect on it, I am probably of the first generation that was transitioned into being collectors while still youth, into a world that rabidly followed something akin to the stock market.  I think if you were born ten years before me, the entire formative youth years could be enjoyed in a pristine state where comics were simply a pleasure and an escape.  If you carried on reading them as an adult, it might still simply be a love of the comics even if the layers of pleasure evolved.  The Overstreet Price Guide, a bible of the cape-and-tights financial market, dates back to my youngest years and no further.

Today, after a kid has convinced mom or dad to drive them to the place where comics are hoarded, and accessed a parental credit card--since the cover price on a single comic book ranges from $4-6 these days--there is still one more loss that subtracts from the riches of a child’s own space.  The kid walks into a brightly lit boutique of dense cross merchandising.  Expensive cross-merchandising.  Aimed at adults.  The kid knows it is aimed at adults, because there are no kids in the store.  There is a table in the back, and four men in their early thirties are arguing about Pokemon.  There are two men in expensive suits frantically looking for the newest issue of whatever.  There’s another man leaning on the counter placing an order for a recent anime box set that comes with a “for mature audiences” rating.  Three more guys in their late twenties are in the “toy” aisle drooling over comic hero figurines, which are the oversized, highly sculpted $60-and-up descendents of the $2 Star Wars action figures I grew up with.

The toys themselves shine a light on the intended market.  The action figures I played with as a child were cheaply made, and cheap to buy.  They didn’t have articulated joints, they were coloured poorly and tended to come from generic molds.  To be frank, they look like crap to an adult.  But that didn’t matter because no one was trying to sell them to adults.  You have to remember, to a kid, a blanket propped up on a broom can be a hidden fortress, a cardboard box can be the Batmobile, and a small copse of trees can be Middle Earth.  In comparison, action figures were pretty heady and intoxicating.  We used them to wage campaigns and tell stories.  We also used them to make rules and learn what rules were for.  We unwittingly used them to develop into proper human beings (I forget who said, ‘it is the work of children to play’).  Again, those toys were priced in a child’s budget, and available at any department store.

I stood in a comic store one day, with a friend, marveling at the artistry and detail of today’s toys, and we both got wistful thinking how amazing it must be to be a kid today.  It only took a moment to realize we were missing the point.  These toys were priced for adults, in a shop in the business district, and were meant to be left intact in the packaging and placed reverently on a shelf.  More pointedly, I saw a human interest piece on TV a while back, about a nerdy couple and their vast toy collection.  They gave the camera a loving tour of the climate controlled toy room and towards the end of the piece laughed that the only downside was their kid’s constant complaining that he wasn’t allowed to touch them.  I’ll repeat, the child is not allowed to play with the toys, and they were laughing about it.  It was ghoulish and frightening. These are the monsters of kid’s stories: the Grinches, Selfish Giants and the Hooded Fangs.  Except in those stories, this kind of characteristic is a defect rectified by the end of the story.  

It often seems the comics these toys are based on have gone the same way.  Adults, sequestering and hoarding childhood, simultaneously transforming it into something with no more child-like wonder and ironically, no longer intended for children.

I started off on this tangent thinking about a super hero television show called The Cape.  I’m surprised it hasn’t already been pulled from the air, considering the amount of vitriol, disdain and hate it’s getting.  It’s gloriously ham-fisted, bombastically over the top, and gleefully nonsensical.  It’s a bit stilted, a little bit purple and is filled with rogues on both sides of the good and evil equation.  It reminds me of everything wondrous about any comic book that comes from the golden age, or the early days of the silver age.  In this sense, it is very perfect and very precious.  Adults (who watch super hero shows) hate it.  I don’t mean it doesn’t take their fancy and so they watch something else; I mean they hate it and want it off the air.  These are the same people who want each and every comic book movie to be darker, grittier, edgier.  It doesn’t occur to them, that the hero--The Cape--fills an urgent need for the little boy character on the show.  The tales and the way the tales are depicted are for kids.

There’s nothing wrong with enjoying childish things—have you ever watched adults in a Toys’R’Us store?  But there is something terribly tragic about clinging to childhood loves so desperately that they are warped out of any shape where they are still in fact for children.  The funny thing too, is that the broad strokes and simplistic stories and the private child spaces allowed a mythic-ness that is the very reason we retain an abiding love for the form.  It’s the reason those old comics can be read with innocent pleasure or with rich analysis.  Will today’s comic culture germinate an abiding love in today’s children?

Friday, February 25, 2011

To Hell With The Nefarious Sharing Of Social Costs.

So many momentous things happening in the world: the horrible tragedy of the quake in New Zealand, the undulating ripple of change in the Middle East, the first acrid taste of a new wave of oil shocks, it’s enough to make anyone’s head spin.

So, I will avoid all that.  I’m thinking more about the stink in the air about metering bandwidth in Canada.  I am not sure why it is news or controversy, because to my knowledge, all the big players have been metering for ages.  But for some reason, right now, amidst all the other crazy stuff going on, metering is a big deal.

Humble ape that I am, I am coming out in support of metering.  Think about it:  while I am busy as an asshole pirate-downloading 50 years worth of Coronation Street, my neighbor, a sweet old gramma on a fixed income barely navigates three emails per month containing lo-res pics of the newest tots in her clan.  Why in hell should we pay the same rate?

I am not concerned by the fact that the big providers have admitted they have bandwidth to spare for ten times the amount of traffic we have today.  I am not concerned that they only seek a way to market discrete increases in bandwidth.  I’m just really mad that some people use more than other people, and yet everyone gets charged the same.  I hate that, it’s like someone gets a freebie.  It’s like everyone bands together and some people profit more.

I wholeheartedly support metering.  Of course, I am one of those ugly consistent people.  I like the idea of metering so much, I would like it applied to everything.  I understand that internet is a utility, but, in today’s world, it is also an essential communication tool.  Seriously, try and function in the modern world without internet.  But I don’t really care about what is essential or common to all, I just want metering.

As you use, so shall you pay. Mantra gold or maybe golden mantra.  I could almost get tea party donations for this.

A gross amount of my taxes go towards roads.  I do not own a car, nor do I drive.  I would never consider it a good idea to opt out, because someday I may need a taxi, an ambulance, or a police car and they require roads.  Just the same, I do not place wear and tear on roads the way drivers do.  So, in all fairness, why can’t we meter driving?  My tax bill could go down, and for heavy drivers, bills could go up.

Another big suck on my money is healthcare.  Some people use lots of healthcare.  Breeders, with their childbirth and sick kids suck the hell out of things.  And  old people who don’t smoke ride that rail for decades of plastic joints, heart medicine and cancer eradication, not to mention lying stupid in a bed in an old folks home.  And then there are the gays and drug addicts, constantly creating black holes in healthcare dollars.  I like this metering system, where I could bypass all that expense at the cost of others.

Speaking of breeders, there is the whole business of schools.  Whether I have no children, one child, or seven children, I pay the same amount of tax because some bleeding heart thought that education would profit us all.  Yeah, whatever.  If we metered education tax to match offspring, those who use more would rightfully pay more, instead of freeloading on my tax dollar.  Don’t talk to me about what those educated tots could do for me, I'm just not interested because that is about later and i am about now.

For that matter, I never call the police, I would like to opt out of paying for that too.  Let the user pay.  I used the fire department once, my best friend never has, but we pay the same tax.

In fact, now that I have thought this through to its logical conclusion, I realize that there is no basis for community or pooling of resources.  I dismiss organizing communities to facilitate good healthy functioning safe productive spaces as pie in the sky leftist drivel.

We already meter electricity and heating energies, both absolutely essential to surviving in a northern clime.  Or in other words we already say, you are only allowed to survive if you earn a sufficient amount of money.  Let’s embrace our credo, let’s fully embrace economic Darwinism.  I never use the phone, therefore I want people who use the phone more than I do to pay more.  It’s only fair.

Ok, ok, I’ve gotten ridiculous in my analogy.  But consider, bandwidth is like a great big pipe.  You pay your ISP for access to the pipe.  They aren’t costed more by your usage(seriously, they aren't and they have admitted it), but they can make big money if they demonize the people who spend more time on the internet, and they can exclude poor people from the basic right to apply for a job, since that is the only way it is done now.  They can convince you that a commodity you use is rare, when it is not and make us all feel greedy about how much of the interent we get, and leery of others who are 'freeloading' off of us.

Oil is precious and rare, bandwidth is not.  Both capitalist and socialist communities have to figure out what to do about oil, but not bandwidth.   

Communities and societies are real, despite what Thatcher declared.  Humans are pack animals and have always pooled resources.  But he people with a lot of money would like more money—I don’t know why, after all, once your needs are met, it’s just numbers.  It’s one of those things I just don’t understand.

If you are an average citizen, what way do you really want to vote about anything that is socialized?  Your vote against socialization either penalizes you or a relative or a friend, or a nieghbour that you don’t know but might need in the future.  Your vote for socialization ensures that whatever size the pot of goods is, it is divvyed to everyone as needed.

Internet service is not exactly a noble place to make a stand, but it does illustrate a point.  Very wealthy people are quite canny about turning us against our neighbours so they can profit.  Next time that you use a service of any kind—roads, sewage, medical assistance, garbage pick up, schools, the bloody post office, think about the contributions of people you will never meet, who make it possible because they believed in pooling resources.  They believed in spending some of their resources on things that profited you more than themselves, in hopes that you might do the same for them.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

The Wayback Wayback Machine


Once, when I was green and golden, young and aspiring, I had a friend who I only held for a few short years.  He was erudite beyond his years.  The funniest thing about him other than the fact that he drank coffee from a mason jar and when he accidentally tipped a cigarette ash into his jar, covered the fact by sipping up and declaring that cigarette ash could enhance the flavor of coffee,  the funniest thing was that in his abstract world of linguistics and philosophy he taught me to love nature.

Most of the time that I knew him, I never saw his nature side.  Only because I am stupid.  He lived in a tiny room and other than a clothing rack and urn sized ashtray, his room was a tropical jungle of plants.  I don’t mean on the window sill and table, I mean there were rack shelves devoted to plants.  The entire room was devoted to plants.  We had to crowd into a dark corner where the chairs were set, outside of the sunlight.  And when I think back, the room he chose in that great old rooming house was the room with the best sunlight.

We used to drink coffee like it was beer and smoke cigarettes like they would get us high.  And talk about Wiggenstein and Chomsky. We’d crash Turgenev up against Kerouac and modify with Feynman.  Mostly I listened, because he always talked over my head.  I was a headstrong, arrogant youth, always drunk on my own smarts, but with him, I always felt ignorant and slow witted.  It would be a cliché elder mentor story, except he was the same age as I.

I can’t even imagine what he got from my own stupid opinionated grunts.  Sometimes I think he craved my insanity.  Who else would jump off a building with him, or make 3am plant stealing runs?  I certainly couldn’t keep up in the cerebral department.

He taught me Hegel and Heidegger.  He taught me to question Alan Watts.  He taught me to love but mistrust Nietzsche.  When I couldn’t understand his monologues on linguistics, he played me the Talking Heads as though that would make it all clear.  To this day, as much as I like their music, I keep thinking there is an encoded message that I cannot hear.  Maybe only he heard it.

His modesty was overwhelming.  He took a year off after highschool, not to “find himself”, but because he didn’t feel sufficiently prepared for university and wanted to “read up”.  I hadn’t attended university, but I presciently told him, “you already know more than most grads”.  He didn’t listen, he just kept misting his plants and reading advanced linguistic texts.

If that was the end of the story, he would still be one of the greatest people I ever knew.

But one spring, he asked me to come on a survival canoe trip he did every year, up past North Bay.  I interpreted the invite as for a camping trip and accepted since I rarely had opportunity to get out of the city.  I paid little attention to the fact that he started training in a gym, other than that his skinny body suddenly popped with lean muscle. (I exercised both envy and laziness in this regard)

I met his father on a stop off before the trip.  He was the sort of man who would either hammer a son into pudding or steel.  Sink or swim.  I suddenly understood my friend better.

We got dropped, with heavy packsacks and canoes into wilds I had never even conceived of.  It was fourteen hour days of paddling and portaging, withstanding swarms of biting insects, making and breaking camp every day, and often enough, sleeping on rock (dead exhausted sleep).  Two things stood out.

I saw a different side of him, hitherto hidden, a scampering, wild-eyed nature born being who was utterly adapted to the unkempt and intraversable, and who you would never think of as a person who read philosophy.  For kicks, he would pirouette the canoe while we were gasping for breath on the rocks.

The other thing, was after a couple of days, I never wanted to return to “the city” or ideas.

He had tried to show me his true world (where he grew up, where his imagination fled to) and demonstrate how it funded him.  The only thing my small mind took from it was, why leave? 

This was an eden beyond civilization, and even beyond the majority of most campers.  The only people who had been here before us were the odd fur traders.  It was sufficiently unpleasant to dissuade most.  We scaled cliffs carrying our canoes.  I had to grip canyon sides, covered in spiders (and I am normally very spiderphobic), or else we would be dashed on rocks in river flow.  As much as my life has been trepiditious, this is as close as i ever got to epic.

It’s all kind of unreal now.  And I still remember not wanting to leave, and him having to explain that we were learning things to bring back.  It was like he had shown me the universe and then said we had to live in a bunker.  Thereafter, his tiny room, clotted with plants and cigarette smoke seemed even more mysterious.  How did this visionary cope?  What did his eyes see?

A year later, I was on the opposite side of the country and phoned him in the middle of the night, addled on drugs and booze, to say I love you, and worried he might think it some homosexual thing that neither of us were.  He replied, so nonchalantly, “Of course *Idle*, I love you too.

Five years later, we ran into each other on a boulevard in Montreal, buying bootleg liquor out of the trunk of a car, and spent the night drinking and talking, sitting on a sidewalk curb.  (ahhh, montreal stories).

Ten years later, we had a beer, then two, then a coffee, while commiserating about the things we hadn’t achieved and the things we missed.

So, that is what time does to the majesty of magical moments.  I am still stuck in a city.  I don’t know where my friend is.  I do court the love of many plants in my little room, and feel good that I have nurtured a tiny bud of a succulent into an overgrown two foot tall monstrosity.  In a good year, I cultivate then eat a good garden.  In a bad year, my plants are kind enough not to die
.
His email name was waybackwayback.  Even back in the day before the internet took off.

This wayback wayback machine operation is dedicated to him.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

CBRIII #2-3: Little Things and Funny Misshapen Body by Jeffery Brown


Jeffery Brown is a bit of an enigma.  In photos, he looks a big strapping handsome man of Scandinavian descent and he has a MFA from a prominent school.  But his fame and stock in trade are crude uncertain drawings depicting a small boyish person consumed by neurosis.  A self proclaimed autobiographist, he purports to render a relative truth.  I guess he could be lying.  Or else, his drawing style, his self personification, and the clipped moments of insecure life he depicts might demonstrate the vulnerability in us all.

I’m a long time fan of brown’s work, and I often have a hard time putting my finger on anything justifiable about it.  It’s easier to say it is badly drawn and overly focused on teen-age like melodrama than to argue for it being penetrating, engaging and memorable.  For that reason, if I had guilty pleasures, his work would be in that bag.

But for the most part, Brown does remarkable things.  He displays great humility in not justifying his protagonist.  He also teases out an earnestness, a sincerity that cuts through the distanced hipster stance that might be expected among his peers.  He’s never short of a humour with warmth and intimacy, never lowers himself to a cheap or bitter laugh.  He allows moments to hang in the air.  He allows things to be unsaid.  He’ll take a risk trying to convey pages in a single glance.  And as portrayed, he’s danmned likable.

All that said, Little Things was tremendously disappointing.  I felt I had been conned into purchasing cast off half starts.  Meaningful silence was replaced with empty moments.  Carefully ugly drawings were replaced with overworked pages depicting nothing.  Stories that end hung in a precious moment were replaced with fitful cut offs that made no sense and engendered no feeling.  I highly recommend not buying it ever, unless you are a die-hard fan/stalker type.  (I’m not that type, I was just ignorant of the book).

Now, all that said, Funny Misshapen Body rolled off the press a year later and delivered not just the Brown I love, but a more mature and reflective Brown. A balance of stories, in his usual anti-chronological way that swirl together to create a full novelistic image of people, places and developments, working with new themes, and yet tied to the old and magnifying the scope of his storytelling.   

There’s also a greater range in the artwork, combining the early simple scrawl with the burdened later ink.  We see the rest of Brown’s protagonist’s life (I realize that is cumbersome, but I differentiate between an author and his alter ego): his childhood experiences, his life with art, his schooling, a troubled medical history, his jobs, his solo adventures.  We see the Brown who isn’t simply hung up on a girl. And it is captivating.

Brown’s “love trilogy” sold because he underlined every unsaid thing that never makes it to relationship stories, but that we all relate to.  He could easily keep selling books on this ‘schtick’.  But instead there is this incredible expansion.

I don’t know how to reconcile the two books.  I suppose one way would be to say I read them both in two days, some 700+ pages of work—the same pace for both the book that made me angry I spent money on,  as the one that was warm and alive in my hands.  Could be my mood, I am mercurial.  Either way, I was compelled to read on.

All of brown’s stories always have to do with a shortlist of topics—loneliness, connection, love affairs, struggle and confusion, strife and understanding.  His recent stories paint a vivid portrait of the young man as an artist rather than the artist as a young man and that has added a dimension to the tale. 

I hesitate, but will compare his work to the Alec tales of Eddie Campbell, who also utilized a difficult style of drawing and catalogued random, sometimes pointless and often humiliating experiences and worked up an unmatched  magnum opus of growth and life.  Brown has a long ways to go to reach up to those heights, but then he has a lot of time too.  I think Jeffery Brown is still just getting started and still just shaking off the discomfort of youth.