Robot 6
The Middle Ground #21: Everybody Is A Star
It was, of all things, the realization that I no longer have my copy of Kevin Huizenga’s Curses – which was loaned to someone before I moved states, and which, originally, borrowed from someone else who then moved far, far away; is that the definition of “play it forward”? – that made me realize: I am a sucker for comics that celebrate the weirdness within each and every single one of us.
Okay, so that’s not the best way of putting it. But, thinking about Huizenga’s “Glenn Ganges” strips, I realized that it reminded me a lot of Nick Abadzis’ Hugo Tate, in that both were, in theory, stories about everyday people that continually and wonderfully strayed outside of what that phrase suggested – in Abadzis’ case, into a magical and metaphorical place that mixed dreams and supernatural possibilities in a way that always left the possibility open to it all being in Hugo’s head, if you were so inclined, and in Huizenga’s case, into a existential play that often pushes at the boundaries of the medium. Both strips had/have such… I don’t know the best way to say it, but such pure cartooning in them, such interest in doing more than “just” telling a story, if that makes sense – they’re just as interested in playing with comics as a medium and seeing what they can do with it as they are getting from Point A to Point B.
(As I write this, I realize that Dave McKean’s Cages – one of my favorite comics ever – potentially fits into this category, as well. Hmm.)
(I was reading the infamous Alan Moore interview last week, and that part where he essentially says, “I can’t believe no-one’s outdone Watchmen in the last 25 years,” my immediate reaction wasn’t “You don’t even read comics by your own admission, so how would you know,” but instead, “The majority of really interesting formal play in comics these days is happening away from superheroes, because the audience – and, to an extent, the creators who’d be interested in such things – has fragmented so much, and those who stick with superheroes want something else from their reading experience.” I’m not sure it entirely tracks – I still read superheroes, but I’d love for someone to play with the form a bit more, and I doubt I’m alone – but still.)
But despite the formal play and the ambition to be something “more” than just memoir comics, what makes both Abadzis and Huizenga work so well for me is that they never lose track of the humanity no matter where they take their work – There’s a vulnerability, curiosity and humor that is ever present, and keeps the more experimental moments grounded in feelings and moments that makes them more than high-falutin’ digressions or off-putting theory put into confusing practice. No matter how abstract Huizenga’s imagery may become, or how surreal Abadzis may have made his pages, there’s always something to hook onto and empathize with. No matter how “out there” their work might seem at times, it’s always something very human and understandable at its core, and in making that connection, somehow it reminds the reader – or this reader, at least – of the potential within everyone’s imagination and life.
No wonder I love ‘em both so much.
- September 14, 2010 @ 03:00 PM by Graeme McMillan
3 Comments
Sijo
September 15, 2010 at 9:39 am
“those who stick with superheroes want something else from their reading experience”
This is possible; certainly most superhero comics today are NOT Super Hero stories. They’re soaps, or dramas, or tragedies, even outright horror- but few of them are actually HEROIC- stories where the main point is to amaze and inspire the reader. I wonder if the current writers even realize that. Not that I mind other-kinds-of-stories-that-happen-to-have-superhero-characters-in-them, but I feel that when I want an actual hero story I can’t find one. Maybe that’s why the current Superman: Grounded storyline feels at odds with the rest of the DC Universe- it presents a vision of the character that’s too idealistic for the who-do-we-kill-messily-next mentality of the Company. Now if only it were actually INTERESTING…
Cass
September 15, 2010 at 9:43 am
Between this and the Jason interview posted yesterday, some of my favorite cartoonists are being spotlighted. Keep up the good work, Robot 6!
I agree that the human element is the absolute core of Huizenga’s work. When I read Ganges 1 for the first time, I remember just before the final vignette, I was starting to feel a little disengaged from the work, but now I think that might have been deliberate on the part of Huizenga, because when the final chapter rolls in, the one with Glenn and Wendy in bed, Huizenga brings round all his themes and formal experimentation and ties them into Glenn’s feelings about his wife and his fear of abandonment. It’s such a vulnerable, honest moment, I remember being shook by it then, and I’m still getting a little shaky thinking about it now. Huizenga is amazingly attuned to the big feelings that arise out of the smallest, most mundane, day-to-day encounters.
I also think Huizenga’s the best at what I might inadequately term”edutainment.” There’s a story in Curses called Jeepers Jacobs, and it’s basically a theological essay with a narrative draped over it. Yet it manages to be the standout of the entire volume, because Huizenga shows the writer of the essay acting like a real human being as he creates. Right in the thick of a very heady theological argument, the writer stops short, because he just thought up a clever pun, and he wants to figure out a way to work it into the essay. That’s what’s so awesome about Huizenga, that his realism is truly real – writers want to show how clever they are, husbands are terrified of losing their wives, etc. The reader can instantly identify with his characters, because they think and behave like real human beings and never like plot mechanisms.
Brenner
September 16, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Right on.
Right on.
Right on.
Especially: “There’s a vulnerability, curiosity and humor that is ever present, and keeps the more experimental moments grounded in feelings and moments that makes them more than high-falutin’ digressions or off-putting theory put into confusing practice.”