And I Really Enjoyed Reading Your "Thoughts"

My thanks to Bill Kartalopoulos, who points out this brief interview with Peter Bagge over at The Comics Reporter.  Tom Spurgeon fishes for comments on this essay I wrote about Bagge's political strips for Indy Magazine last fall, and he gets them:

I was enraged by that "essay." I thought the writer was a self-righteous, sanctimonious twit who put words in my mouth at every turn, and did everything to demonize me simply because he doesn't share my political views, and thus seems to be threatened by them. He also kept saying his criticism was "nothing personal" yet it was entirely personal, to the point that he declared me to be a deeply flawed human being! So much for objectivity. And this guy's a college professor! I shudder to think of the damage he's doing to his poor impressionable students.

I love quotes that aren't actually quotes.  Bagge of course conflates criticism that's subjective, criticism that arises from personal biases or grievances on the part of the critic, and criticism that reveals something about the personality of the subject, none of which are identical, but none of that matters anyway because I didn't write about any of it.  What I said was,

Although I disagree with some aspects of Bagge’s politics (and agree with others), my judgments on his Reason strips are not formed by politics alone. Even on those issues where I share Bagge’s viewpoint, such as his criticism of the nebulous and poorly managed war on terror (“The War on Terror Never Ends,” March 2002), I find his arguments so grossly overstated that they fail to amuse or persuade. The politics are merely debatable; the satire is execrable.

But that kind of criticism would be harder for Bagge to manage, so yeah, it's all because I don't share his political views.

As for the rest of his comments, I'm not surprised that Bagge would play the college radical/"poor impressionable students" card, as it's a popular one to play at the moment and it too frees him from having to engage with any of the actual criticisms I made.  Suffice it to say that most of what I teach my poor impressionable students are skills for critical reading and thinking, so they can reach and support their own conclusions about any text - exactly the kind of reader Bagge's hectoring, simplistic strips wither and die under.

His most bizarre and least defensible claim, though, is his complaint that I put words in his mouth.  My essay is filled with direct quotes, illustrations, and links to his Reason strips; I found it easy enough to hang Bagge with his own words that I certainly didn't need to invent any new ones.  Every judgment or opinion I offered is supported by examples from his writing, which is more than I can say for his tantrum.

Ultimately, Bagge comes across as a satirist (or, to put that in Baggese, a "satirist") who can dish out heaping helpings of slapdash pseudocriticism but can't take a little taste of the real thing.  If this guy is indeed "The best comedy writer working in comics, and one of the best period," as Spurgeon writes, then the medium is in worse shape than I thought.

Comments

[David Fiore]

god save us from people whose only debating technique is to cry "misrepresentation"

[Greg Morrow]

Golly, a creative person who lacks the critical faculty? That's unheard of!

Or, rather, Bagge just joins a long list of creators who don't understand criticism, can't benefit from it, and reflexively lash out when they receive negative criticism, like a monkey attacked by a force it cannot comprehend.

[Marc]

The explosion of the comics blogosphere over the past year and the new creator/audience interactions it has engendered would certainly seem to have greatly expanded that list, but then the same was probably true once Usenet first started becoming popular. You're right, though, there isn't much new about any of these complaints, even the act of the complaint itself.

[Greg Burgas]

Why are these creators so touchy? What the hell do they care what we have to say about their work? The closest I've come to this is creative writing classes in college, and if you didn't think someone "got" you, you just moved on. Take the criticisms you like and ignore the others if you can't engage in good, solid debate. Don't start name-calling. Un-frickin-believable.

[Jess Nevins]

I've been on the receiving end of Creators Behaving Badly as many times as anyone here, if not more, and I've often wondered why they were so damn thin-skinned...but the truth is that when my first book was reviewed in Locus and the critic pointed out the weaknesses in one of my essays, I was irked. Only momentarily, and I soon realized that he was right, and I certainly never called names--but reacting negatively to criticism is just human nature. None of us should be shocked that creators do that. I'm really not looking forward to reviews of my encyclopedia, since they will inevitably be negative about something, which will anger me even if the criticisms are reasonable. It's not "un-frickin-believable," it's just the way people are. It's unfortunate, and it doesn't make me think well of Bagge (or any of the other pros who've thrown a nutty online), but that's life.

[Clarence Credence]

"If this guy is indeed 'The best comedy writer working in comics, and one of the best period,' as Spurgeon writes, then the medium is in worse shape than I thought."

You lost me here with the above. So you don't like Bagge's Reason strips and Bagge doesn't like your writing about them and that suddenly negates his entire ouevre? This is just the kind of generalization that you'd be the first to call Bagge out for. So you don't like his Reason strips and he doesn't like your writing. Big deal. Hate #1-30 and Neat Stuff #1-15 remain some of the best satirical comics of this or any generation, and not because the medium is in such bad shape, but because they're absolutely hilarious and some of the best character-driven comedy in the medium's history.

[Marc]

No, Bagge's subhumorous Reason strips alone negate any hyperbole about being "the best comedy writer working in comics." And while I'm glad you liked his earlier work - okay, that's a lie, I don't really give a damn what you thought about his earlier work - I didn't find any of it so incontrovertibly great that a few simple assertions of absolute hilarity are likely to change my mind.

And at least Spurgeon limits his claims to currently working comics writers; extend them to "the medium's history" and they become even less defensible.

[Greg Burgas]

Jess: I don't mind people reacting negatively, I just think you shouldn't be reduced to name-calling - that's just silly. If you're irked by something a critic says, look at it and see if he (or she) has a legitimate beef - if they don't, simply point that out.

Looking forward to the encyclopedia, by the way.

[Clarence Credence]

"that's a lie, I don't really give a damn what you thought about his earlier work - I didn't find any of it so incontrovertibly great that a few simple assertions of absolute hilarity are likely to change my mind."

Thanks for such a polite reply.

[Marc]

My replies are indexed to the comments that provoke them (vide this entire post). If you genuinely thought I was honor-bound to share your opinions just because you threw in a couple of adjectives, you were mistaken. You like Bagge's work? Fine - I'm not saying you can't. Should it really be this hard to accept that not everyone does?

Actually, given that (and your confusion of subjective opinion for false generalization), the reply was pretty damn polite.

[Clarence Credence]

You have a pony tail, don't you?

[Marc]

Yes. Was it the headshot at Indy that clued you in?

[David Fiore]

oh my...

[Clarence Credence]

"Yes. Was it the headshot at Indy that clued you in?"

No, it was the lack of humor in your writing about humor, combined with your sanctimonious and self-righteous tone and ocassional use of latin. I haven't seen the pic, but I'm sure you're a real catch!

[Tom Spurgeon]

Thank you for linking to the interview.

[Marc]

Likewise, thanks for including a link to the original essay in the interview (and for running the brief letter I sent you about it).

It's just blogger courtesy, though, isn't it? Not that I don't appreciate the thanks, but it's a bit like thanking me for not plagiarizing you. Part of the minimal standard of behavior, not anything over and above the call of duty.

[Marc]

Things we've learned from "Clarence":

1. Humorous references denigrating fanboy favorites are mean and untrue, until you can defend them, at which point your writing becomes humorless.

2. Latin means you have a ponytail - even before you use it!

3. You don't need to listen to anonymous trolls, even if they do initially offer halfway valid opinions before descending into schizoid insults. By the way, "Clarence," you slipped up and left your hotmail address in the second link. Not that I think anyone really cares to continue this conversation with you.

[Jess Nevins]

"Jess: I don't mind people reacting negatively, I just think you shouldn't be reduced to name-calling - that's just silly. If you're irked by something a critic says, look at it and see if he (or she) has a legitimate beef - if they don't, simply point that out."

No one should ever be reduced to name-calling. And, yeah, ideally we should merely point out when people aren't making legitimate mistakes. But it's not how many creators react in the face of criticism. I think it's just human nature for people to react that way. So I think our reaction, as fans and critics, shouldn't be scorn for creators who react, Bagge-like, to criticism. We should simply feel a bemused tolerance and express mild criticism, as we would for someone breaking wind in public.

(Besides, the verbal equivalent of a pat on the head to a cranky child is *infinitely* more infuriating than responding in kind).

And my reaction, as a writer, to criticism of any sort should be to hold my peace and actually consider the criticism rather than indulging in my first response, which should inevitably be negative.

"Looking forward to the encyclopedia, by the way."

Thanks! I hope it'll be worth the wait.

[Clarence Credence]

Marc, you're a real people person, I can tell. The joy in your life is palpable!

P.S. I included my hotmail address in all of my posts. And be sure to check out my websites!

[Greg Morrow]

Jess, I think I probably agree that it's human nature to be irked by criticism; but where I think we differ is that I think Bagge is displaying a different pathology.

I think Bagger and creators like him either lack a critical faculty or are unable to apply it to themselves, and that's why they react so badly to criticism.

The critical faculty is a mental skill that needs practice. It took me a few years in the pressure-cooker of Usenet to develop even a rudimentary ability to understand my own artistic responses, let alone justify them to someone else or express them in a way that a creator could find useful. Given the number of uncritical opinions we encounter from non-creators, it makes plenty of sense that creators are also likely to lack a decent critical faculty. In addition, the legendary human subjectivity makes it more difficult still to apply a critical faculty to oneself.

[Jess Nevins]

Greg--

I agree that a critical faculty is something that takes practice to acquire--but I think lacking that faculty is also human nature. I see that as a subset of "oversensitivity to criticism" rather than something different.

[Greg Burgas]

Uh-oh, I use Latin and I don't have a ponytail. I'm in big trouble ...

ave Caesar, morituri te salutamus! (See? I can't help myself!)

[Marc]

Greg,

Because you use Latin you do, in fact, have a ponytail. Retroactively, even.

[Steven Berg]

Do I get a ponytail for using Greek? Because it's better.

[Marc]

You get a beard.