"John Solomon's" blog header.
© "John Solomon"
Solomon, a pseudonym, writes Your Webcomic is Bad and You Should Feel Bad, a blog for which all kinds of excuses are made. Some say it dismantles bad comics, others that it punctures inflated creator egos. Solomon himself takes the position that he is a critic working in defense of aesthetic standards, and that acquiescence to low standards is a contemptible failing. We don't know what's good, and he's going to whack that fact into our brains by ripping apart a comic and the person who made it.
There are several problems with this contention. First is that you, me, and most everyone else is quite clear on the fact that the majority of web comics are deficient, some appallingly so. The mutterings I hear are not terribly concerned that there are lots of amateur efforts and some plain old scribbling. The greater consternation is that fandom has brought popularity to a mix of comics that includes deserving material and some blatantly shoddy work, and we wonder why that is. If we are busting our tails to do a strip that we think is better than the shoddy ones, then we might catch ourselves feeling downright bitter now and then.
The answer as to why shoddy strips become popular is complex, and includes such reasons as the charisma of the creator, astute promotion, appeal to a loyal niche, capturing the pop culture zeitgeist just right, logrolling by other popular comics, ease of reading, advertising, lucky exposure in major media, and many other reasons, including -- yes -- there are a lot of undiscerning readers out there. Last I checked, undiscerning people were allowed to read and enjoy humdrum comics.
Another problem with Solomon's critical theory is that he is mistaking a lowbrow art form for a highbrow one, and applying highbrow standards to it. By this critical framework, every comic is artless and therefore dismissible. Similar arguments have been advanced to justify attacks on ethnic groups, imprisonment of dissidents and other repressions. Comics are a vernacular, not fine, art form.
The typical Solomon piece, which can be lengthy, starts out with a roar, including lots of personal attacks on whichever comic creator has fallen into his cross hairs. People are taken to task on their physical shortcomings, their motives are questioned, and obscene epithets are minted and fired off like poison darts.
While I acknowledge that blogs are pretty freeform, Solomon implies adherence to but fails to follow fundamental journalistic standards, launching attacks without possession of all the facts, yet presenting himself as a peer of the traditional journalist critic. Aaron Diaz of Dresden Codak, a frequent target, is assaulted for alleged weak storytelling in recent work -- a legitimate topic for commentary -- as well as long update delays, without having first been queried as to the circumstances of his life right now. What if he is suffering a crisis of some magnitude? Does that let him off the hook? Is it mandatory that he disclose this to his fans?
In my opinion, it's his comic and he can do as he pleases. The internet is not running low on pixels. If it comes out that he has been cavalier with his fans, they will go elsewhere and his reputation will be damaged. It doesn't take a barrage of obscenity-encrusted neutron bombs from an anonymous writer to save the day.
People mostly read comics because they like them. When I review a comic, I try to bring in insights that will inform prospective readers and provide a richer experience for existing ones. They don't need me to tell them what to read.
Some of my friends like Solomon's blog, and their opinion has softened my own reaction to it, which at first was dismissive. There is intelligence at work (of one person, not four, as he previously claimed), and that person is afflicted with an emotional range of great breadth. You see it come on full force after each hiatus, then soften slightly as writing a post vents some of the energy. I am reminded of a friend with a mental affliction who occasionally becomes grandiose and hostile when his medication falls short. I raise the possibility of inherent erratic behavior not to defame Solomon, but as one possible explanation out of many, and certainly a forgivable one.
The world is full of critics. Movie critics are especially savage, I've long thought, but my wife points out that movies are a team effort and blame can be spread around. Where the critic-artist engagement is one on one, as with books, there is no one I know who behaves like John Solomon, and if they did, they would be unemployable.
In the end, Solomon is guilty of the sin of the easy mark. By holding web comics to unattainable standards (even R. Crumb was placed with the lowbrows in the famous MoMA "High and Low" exhibition), Solomon can't find satisfaction and he can't enjoy the simple pleasures of good web comics. When he barks, "Stop linking to me!" it's not a clever ploy to encourage linking, it's a subtle acknowledgment that he knows what he is doing is wrong, only he can't stop himself, especially with the attention he draws. It gives him a fix. Despite the clever phrasings, despite the moments of truth in his critical point of view, despite the sensationalistic draw of the writing style, Solomon is not going to change a single thing except lower the level of discourse and undermine the hard work and dedication that many creators bring to their comics. He may even deeply wound someone fragile enough to be vulnerable to his onslaught. His work is uncomfortably close to the internet baiting by the woman who recently drove her teenage victim to suicide.
The Solomon character is too emotional to be a good prospect for rehabilitation into a sophisticated critic. He's in too much pain to resist taking others down with him. Solomon the ranter and Solomon the card-carrying intellectual are incompatible, and while he may be a bright and lively writer, the ranter cancels out scholarly pretensions. Only a few of his points survive filtration: e.g., that Scott Kurtz does not write a truly hilarious comic, even though he and his work are enjoyed by many. That's not the kind of insight most of us need to be told.
John Solomon says he's no friend of web comics. On that point, he's right. I'm not even sure he's a friend of humanity.
8 comments:
Hmm. I had heard of Solomon's blog for a while, ut had never really stopped by to check it out.
His misplaced aggression is a little offputting, especially when directed at the reader, but not am not that pointing out that crap is crap is a problem in and of itself. I find myself agreeing with a lot of what he(?) says, even if I couldn't imagine getting quite that worked up about it.
I think you might have lost me at 'holding web comics to unattainable standards', I don't really see much evidence of that. He seems to be holding them to a fairly ordinary sort of a standard, just holding it a little too vigorously or something.
And I think I maybe disagree about 'rehabilitation'. I think if they were to maybe calm down a little bit this John person would have a whole bunch of interesting and worthwile things to say. But to be fair I haven't dug too deeply into his archive - I suppose it is possible that he's just a dick.
It's a bit silly saying that John Solomon is an enemy of webcomics. I've run into his posts on other sites, and there ARE webcomics that he admires. However, there's no reason for him to post it on the blog. It is, after all, called "Your webcomic is bad and you should feel bad," after all.
@webcomicoverlook: Consider "Solomon's" own words, from his blog:
"Delete your bookmarks of webcomics and anything related to webcomics such as forums, podcasts, and blogs. Yes, even this blog, for after today there will be no new updates. We hope you join us in leaving this wretched world of online sequential art behind and look forward to the new day tomorrow when we all will webcomic no more."
But you know, a lot of that is hyperbole. It may speak well of us as a society, but bitter sarcasm is what gets the eyeballs. I think he expects you to take that particular line with a grain of salt.
Not to mention that line is taken directly from his April 1st entry. In case you weren't in on it, or if you weren't clued in by the comments section, here it is: The Powerup Comics review is itself a spoof. Do a quick search online and you'll realize that the creators of Powerup were intentionally creating a bad webcomic as a criticism of bad webcomics themselves. (I'll forward you a link if there's any doubt in your mind.)
And Solomon was in on the joke.
EDIT: I jsut reread that entry and it wasn't Solomon, but it was Ted David. Also, I should mention that the Powerup folks are basically some jokers from Ryan North's Dinosaur Comics forums. There's a page in their thread, early on, where they mention that the only people who'd figured out that it was a joke were the Something Awful forum members, which include John Solomon.
Well, that pretty much destroys that rebuttal, I concede. I didn't read the comments. I barely got through the post, it was so hollow.
As for sensationalism attracting readers, it certainly does, but my analysis is of his intellectual inconsistency. A naked person loose on Main Street attracts eyeballs too but adds nothing to scholarship.
I aspire to an empirical approach to criticism. When someone comes along and purports to write with intellectual rigor only to undermine their own claims and succumb to histrionics, they have failed. I too could declare myself an expert and great thinker and write poorly, with insults and profanity mixed in. I'd expect thoughtful people to be put off; in fact, I'd hope for it, as they are the ones who could reveal me to be a charlatan." John Solomon" can play Ed Anger all he wants and I don't care, but if he wants to be regarded as a critic with an intellectually consistent point of view, he has to describe his philosophy and stick to it. He can't pretend to have one and sneak by because many of the comics he attacks are weak. Most people will not bother to out him because they are only there for the show and schadenfreud, or because it's "only" comics or "only" a blog. This allows him to accrue momentum and legitimacy. Later, the people who didn't rebut him waddle over to the couch, click on the History Channel and ponder why no one stopped Hitler, another charismatic speechmaker who built a career insulting the vulnerable and asserting an intellectually incoherent platform.
Two final points: I can write like "Solomon" if I want (but better), and if I choose to write about you, you're not going to find it fair or pleasant. What will hurt the most is the lack of people willing to step up and defend you.
Anyway... thanks for commenting. Good stuff.
@webcomicoverlook Hey -- no snub intended omitting you from my webcomics blog link list, if you happened to see. I have a full layout on you at Psychedelic Treehouse, and I do my own blog hopping from there, so I never noticed. Anyway, omission corrected.
No prob! Thanks for including a link to my site at the Psychadelic Treehouse.
Post a Comment