Showing posts with label chester brown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chester brown. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Fragments & Impressions: I Never Liked You by Chester Brown

If you look at the cover of I Never Liked You, it looks like two people are dancing. The girl's face is calm, almost serene, they're embracing, and there's a record player in the background. On page 105, we learn that the two people (Carrie and Chester) aren't dancing, they're locking up to wrestle. Then again, the wrestling they engage in is a dance of sort. Carrie has a big crush on Chester and everyone knows it, while Chester doesn't return her feelings. He still hangs out with her (most often by helping her with the dishes). It seems almost cruel of him. I'm not sure if it is or not. He doesn't owe her anything besides friedship, but wrestling already has a sexual element to it, first introduced when Chester and Sky wrestled earlier with Sky winning. Subsequent to this, Chester displayed feelings for Sky, while Carrie initiates wrestling with Chester on at least two separate occasions. So, wrestling is part of the initial dance of courtship... does that make any sense? Damned if I know...

***

The full title of the book is I Never Liked You: A Comic-Strip Narrative, but the contents are a series of semi-connected/somewhat disjointed strips. What is the overall narrative? The book begins with a short prologue where a young Chester (grade four) swears while about to leave for school (he says 'shit') and his mother charges into the room, screaming at him to never say that word again while shaking him. As he walks to school with Connie (Carrie's older sister), she says, "My mother says that only crude and ignorant people use words like that." The story is how Chester defines himself in relationship to two things: women and swearing. His desire to embrace the former causes him to shun the latter. It's not entirely that simple, because he never actually achieves a healthy emotional connection to any of the women in the story. It's like he thinks simply not saying the wrong words is enough... it's a passive non-action and he never seems entirely comfortable taking real action. The one or two times he does, like in drawing a picture for Sky for Christmas, he shies away from his actions (he denies the obvious sympolism of the picture).

***

It's weird to make such blanket statements about Chester since this isn't simply a character, it's a real person. But, I would hope that Chester Brown wouldn't care too much or be offended since that's a risk in telling stories about yourself: when you become a character, you open yourself to the same judgements and interpretations as fictional constructs.

***

I don't like autobiographical comics usually, but I really, really like I Never Liked You.

***

There's only two scenes depicted in the book that don't relate to Chester's relationship with a woman or to his refusal to say swear words. The first is a two-page, three-panel sequence where he takes a cracker out of a container, takes a bite, and then sees that, because of the bite he took, the cracker now resembles a heart. It's never identified as a heart, but it's impossible to mistake (unless I'm mistaken and, then, boy do I look like a moron...). Through action, Chester takes something unassuming and ordinary (a cracker) and turns it into a representation of love.

The other is a one-page sequence where Chester is walking down the street, sees a truck coming, imagines laying down in the street and having his head crushed by the truck, but doesn't do it. The truck speeds by, causing a gust of wind that makes Chester's hair stick out behind him. Chester considers action, but does nothing. That relates to the other ideas and themes of the book, but in an odd way. Here, Chester imagines dying and doesn't initiate it, but what does that have to do with actively pursuing a strong relationship with his mother or actually taking Sky out on a date? It's not readily apparent, but another big part of the book is Chester doing everything he can to be an individual and have his own identity. While his refusal to swear no doubt comes from his attempt to ingratiate himself with women, it also becomes his identity: he's the guy who doesn't say 'fuck.' He often avoids direct action, because he's selfish and unwilling to do anything that puts himself out. By acting, he would make himself vulnerable or leave his identity open to attack. Death would be the end of him (and his identity) and he won't take any action that could result in that.

At the end of the book, Sky comes over and finds Chester mowing the lawn. She invites him to the fair, but he refuses, wanting to go buy and listen to the new Kiss album. He chooses his own selfish, insular world instead of forming a genuine bond with her. If he had, he would cease to be Chester, he would become Sky's boyfriend -- part of a couple, a shared identity that's informed by another person. By choosing a Kiss album, he creates his own identity (no less informed by an external party, but a broad, general one that's almost impersonal).

***

The way that Brown lays out the pages is interesting. Scenes usually begin or end with a page that contains a single panel. The scenes flow into one another with a gentle ease. Some are more important than others, showing more significant events. By displaying them equally, there's a sense of floating through Brown's memories. A lot of pages will have six or so panels, but they don't feel like a regular grid since Brown is pasting them onto the page. Each panel is its own little slice of the memory and the fact that it's on the same page with five others doesn't produce the same density as a regular six-panel grid. An odd effect that I can't fully explain.

***

There's a Ulysses allusion that always stands out. Chester's mom is in a mental hospital and his father takes him and his brother to visit her. When it's time for Chester to say goodbye, he imagines himself saying 'I love you,' but he doesn't say it. He's unable to act for whatever reason. That reminds me of Stephen Dedalus being unwilling to kneel down and pray when his mother is dying.

***

Early in the book, Chester is sitting in the library and two girls come up to him, claiming to have something to say to him, but they're interrupted by a group of boys who want to hastle Chester for not swearing. That identity once again prevents him from a connection of some sort with women...

***

I don't know if I'll ever really understand why I like this book so much.

Thursday, December 25, 2008

I Bought Comics: The First Three Weeks of December 2008

[In which I deliver thoughts and musings on comic books which I have read, but have not reviewed for CBR. Not really reviews, so don't take them as such. Unless you want to. Okay?]

I haven't done this for a few weeks, which makes sense since at least half of what I get each week is for reviews, so letting it accumulate makes sense. I will be doing this in chronological and then alphabetical order. As well, included are two graphic novels I received for Christmas on Tuesday. Yeah, we did ours on Tuesday since both of my sister had to work today. It actually didn't change much since the actual date of Christmas is pretty arbitrary and doing it two days sooner isn't really all that different. It also meant that when I woke up this morning at quarter-to-nine, I'd slept in compared to my previous 24 Christmases. Weird.

Final Crisis #5

Well, Tim and I discussed this in a cross-blog Splash Page, so I'm not sure if there's much to add. I dug this issue quite a bit and it's fun to see how Morrison's overall plan is unfolding. Tim and I didn't discuss it, but I didn't find the art changes distracting or annoying in any way.

Secret Invasion: Dark Reign

Didn't really impress me. It's nice to see that the villains weren't planning this, this is just Norman Osborn trying to make his life easier. I actually looked at New Avengers: Illuminati to compare/contrast and, wow, Alex Maleev's art sure has changed. Namor, in particular, suffers. His Osborn also has normal hair. What the hell? I'm actually not that enthused over "Dark Reign," but that's a pretty easy stance to take when you thought Iron Man was an asshole post-Civil War. I do like the reversal, but nothing I've read including the end of Secret Invasion, this and the most recent issues of the two Avengers books has convinced me that I should give a fuck. But, more on that towards the end.

Ghost Rider #30

This book loses me more with each passing issue. What began as a quirky grindhouse horror comic has become another book about various versions of the same character with a stupidly cliche villain that's playing the turncoat for a chump. The fall of this book in my esteem has been drastic and I'm very close to dropping it. What comes down to is, I'm bored when I read it. I don't care about the International Spirits of Vengeance, I don't care about a renegade angel, and I really just don't care about this book. I may give the run so-far a reread and let that decide its fate.

Hellblazer #250

Though I buy this book in trades, random one-off or two-part fill-in issues pop up from time to time and it's an excuse to pick up a floppy adventure of John Constantine to hold me over until the next trade comes out. This holiday/anniversary special isn't bad. It isn't great either, but rarely are these fill-in issues, especially when creators are limited to short stories. That said, who cares, it's good stuff. Brian Azzarello's story was witty and, thankfully, didn't tie into his run on the book. Peter Milligan takes over next issue and his story shows promise. I'm this close to picking up the book on a regular basis with Milligan on board. Really, this book is a great pairing of skilled writers and artists, and just a joy to read. Not the best thing ever, but good enough.

Invincible Iron Man #8

Salvador Larocca's art pisses me off. It's butt-fuck ugly in a lot of places as he doesn't know how to draw a damn face/head. Add to that a plot that I don't care about. The more I think about it, the more I find the idea of Norman Osborn in charge just because he got in the shot that killed the Skrull Queen, the more I find the whole idea a waste of my goddamn time. This book is back to being officially dropped.

Punisher: War Zone #2-3

I don't know if you've noticed this, but, over at CBR, there are six comic book reviewers. Now, I like a good "gimmick," so I thought "Six of us, six issues of a new Garth Ennis/Steve Dillon Punisher book... we should each review an issue!" I sent an e-mail to Augie (reviews editor and columnist) and he thought it was a good idea, but wondered if it could work (I did too), but I mentioned it to the gang and they liked the idea. What I find very interesting is that reviews for the first three issues are up and each of us has given our respective issue four stars out of a possible five. Now, if that isn't an indication of the level of quality that Ennis and Dillon are delivering, I don't know what is. And we're all different, us reviewers (the two closest in taste would probably be Tim and myself, I think)... yeah, this is a four-star series. It's as good as it can be. The goofier aspects both add and detract (not equally, but close enough), and it's weekly, so it reads very well. I like that Marvel is releasing this book that way and wish they'd line up various minis by high quality teams to release this way. DC has it's mediocre-to-utter-shit weekly book and Marvel can have its various weekly minis that are quite good.

New Avengers #48

Did anything actually happen in this issue? No? Didn't think so. With the price going up by a buck (a buck-twenty for Canadians thanks to the exchange rate) next issue, I think I'm done with this book. Again, the new line-up isn't really all that different and the new status quo doesn't wow me. There are two reasons why I'd keep buying this series:

1. Because I have all of Bendis's Avengers work to this point. And that reason has a pull, but not a good enough one. Really, it's not even close to good enough.

2. Because I want to see what happens with Danielle Cage. This reason is almost good enough. It's very close, because I've become attached to Luke and Jessica, but I can always pick up trades or find out what happens online. It's not worth nearly five bucks each month (exchange rate, you whiny Americans!).

I do believe I will buy the first issue of Dark Avengers to see what it's like, but, that may be the end of me and Brian Michael Bendis's Avengers work. But, in January, I'm thinking I might start a series of posts looking at his run(s) on the book(s). Fun.

The Little Man: Short Strips, 1980-1995

One of the two graphic novels I received for Christmas. I've been a fan of Chester Brown for a few years now, but this is only the third book of his I've gotten. I first picked up I Never Liked You back in my second year of undergrad and, then, Louis Riel in hardcover shortly after, but, since then... nothing. This collection is nice and ranges in quality, most of the strips only two or three pages. I always enjoy collections like this, because I enjoy seeing how a writer/artist/whatever changes and grows over the years... not just in style and technique, but in their subject matter of choice. Considering that my first exposure to Brown's work was I Never Liked You, it's not surprising that my favourite strips were "Helder" and "Showing 'Helder,'" both very autobiographical. I haven't read all of the notes yet, but plan to tonight. One sour note: after only one read-through, the binding has come unglued... pages haven't fallen out yet, but it's not that fun to have a book fall apart so quickly. Ah well, it will make seem more read if anyone should ever browse my collection and make it seem like I'm a bigger fan of Brown than I am.

The Amazing Remarkable Monsieur Leotard

Eddie Campbell's annual graphic novel was my second Christmas graphic novel (if only I'd thought to put the new ACME Novelty Library on my list!) and it's a very renjoyable read. One of the pleasures of each new Campbell OGN is how he presents it--in this one, he's chosen a square(-ish) layout, often divided in four with other bits above and below the "main" panels. It's a really nice way to present the story as well as other information... I actually wish he and Dan Best (his co-writer) had utilised that space even more. Of course, that they used it sparingly makes each use pack that much more of a punch and seem that much more important. The story itself is nice and engrossing, but I always try and appreciate Campbell's work on another level, if I can. It's always difficult for me since I'm more focused on words than pictures, even with comics, and have difficulty really appreciating what an artist is doing. This was one of the books that I thought may alter my top ten of 2008 list, and I'm not sure that it has yet for sure... definitely the top twenty. But, 2008 isn't over yet, so I'm not thinking about it too much. If you haven't, though, check this book out.

That does it. Merry Christmas.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

ideas stolen from my brain

As you may know, I presented at the Comic Arts Conference in San Francisco in late February on the idea of truth in autobiographical comics. I started my discussion with a brief look at James Frey's "memoir" A Million Little Pieces and continued on to briefly mention, among other authors who deal with truth in fiction, Tim O'Brien. That all served as introduction to my discussion of one particular autobiographical comic, "Showing Helder" by Chester Brown. During my speech I made mention of other autobiographical works by Brown, such as I Never Liked You and The Playboy, as well as the autobio works of Brown's friends Joe Matt and Seth.

So today I got a copy of a new book I've been meaning to read for a while, This Book Contains Graphic Language: Comics as Literature by Rocco Versaci. Rocco Versaci is an English professor at Palomar College whose work I first became aware of via teachingcomics.org when I first proposed a comic book course in Olney several years ago. This book came out in December, and sometime between then and February I found a copy of it in Borders one day. I recognized the author's name and thought I should pick it up, but I didn't have the money at the moment. When I finally made the decision to buy it, in the hopes of reading it before my presentation, I went back to the store but the only copy they had was sold. I searched everywhere around the city but couldn't find another copy anywhere.

Recently when I placed an order on Amazon with some birthday money, I decided it would be a good time to pick up this book too. I ordered it, it came today, and I flipped through it quickly, planning to give it a proper read later.

As I flipped through, my eyes caught the words "Tim O'Brien." I stopped, went back and found the page, and read. It was a reference to his philosophy on truth in fiction as portrayed in the book The Things They Carried. I was aghast, so I turned to the front of that chapter. I discovered then the second chapter was called "Creating a 'Special Reality:' Comic Books vs. Memoir" and on the FIRST PAGE of that chapter Rocco Versaci is talking about... James Frey and A Million Little Pieces.

Versaci continues by addressing Chester Brown's use of literary techniques in some of his work on pages 39-43, particularly focusing on "Helder" and "Showing Helder" in pages 70-73. He also brings up Joe Matt on pages 64-66 and Seth on page 76.

I am really fucking glad that I didn't read this book before my presentation, because I HAD THESE IDEAS for years (and addressed some of them in the past when teaching "Showing Helder") before presenting on them, and if I HAD read this book, I would have felt like I needed to start my presentation over from scratch so as to avoid the implication of plagiarism. As it is, I feel rather foolish thinking that someone at that conference might end up reading this book and thinking I lifted my presentation from it, but there's nothing I can do about it now, as what's done is done.

I do think I'm going to email the organizer of the conference to point out the similarity to him, lest he think I'm a plagiarist. And of course I'm going to track down Rocco Versaci's email address too; the coincidence is too uncanny not to find him and point out to him.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

presentation on "Showing Helder"

This past Friday I presented at the Comic Arts Conference (which is attached to Wondercon) in San Francisco. My presentation had to do with the thin line between truth and fiction as seen in autobiographical comics, specifically in Chester Brown's short story "Showing Helder." (To read the full abstract I submitted as a proposal to the committee, click on this link to an earlier blog entry.)

Here's a brief outline of my presentation. If you'd like a copy of the entire presentation, let me know here and I can email you my powerpoint.

I started off by reading the first paragraph of my abstract as an introduction, and then I moved on to discuss some examples in other media of truth and fiction being blurred (A Million Little Pieces by James Frey, "How to Tell a True War Story" by Tim O'Brien, the Assume the Position HBO specials by Bob Wuhl). I continued by discussing the rise of the "graphic memoir" in the mainstream, citing examples of Persepolis, Blankets, and Fun Home.

I then summarized the story itself as follows: Chester Brown's new issue of Yummy Fur features an autobiographical story called "Helder." It shows his encounters with a former housemate named Helder who is an abusive bully. Chester runs into problems, however, when he seeks out feedback on the story from his friends. Their opinions vary, some of them telling him to print the story as is and others challenging its veracity. (I contrasted this explanation with two images, the first from "Helder" showing the character Helder being a bully and the second from "Showing Helder" showing one of his friends objecting to the scene depicted on the previous page.)

I talked about how the story catalogues the changes he made to the story "Helder" between its original draft and final publication. The cover image in fact from the issue of Yummy Fur containing "Showing Helder" shows Chester making a change to a page from "Helder." It's very metafictional, and the first inclination is to make you wonder if he's simply documenting his creative process. But you also think that perhaps he's simply bringing the story closer to reality, because the changes he makes are always to remove panels of narration in which he talks directly to the audience, which of course would not have happened in real life. (These also don't work from a storytelling perspective, because he is TELLING his audience things he has already shown them, a prime example of a word-picture combination Scott McCloud refers to as "duo-specific.")

I then analyzed why he asked so many people for input on the story's content, a total of five different people during the course of the story (two of which, oddly enough, were in a scene Chester cut from the final draft of "Showing Helder" that eventually saw print in the collection The Little Man, to continue the metafictional maze). Is he searching for validation? When one friend Mark disagrees with him about the story, he seems rather dismissive. Or is he seeking to bring his story closer to the truth? Again what he seems most focused on (and in fact asks EVERYONE about specifically) are the moments of narration, which didn't really happen and are simply a stylistic choice. Perhaps he is already uncomfortable with this device because it is not "true" enough for him.

I turned my attention to Chester's friend Kris next, whose opinion was the most problematic. She takes issue with the way he has drawn her at one point, and he tries to please her by agreeing to redraw that part. Is he allowing his artistic vision, his interpretation of the "truth," to be corrupted then, or is he simply trying not to offend his friend? In one scene he quibbles with how he has depicted one scene she was present for, and he argues that what is on the page is how he remembers it. Thus, by not making the changes she suggests to this scene, he is acknowledging that perhaps his interpretation of events is faulty (because he only has his senses and his memory to rely on, both entirely subjective) and he is asserting that his vision for the story will be the one he puts forth. Does that make his version right and hers wrong? I don't think he means to say so, simply to say that that is all he can do is be true to his version of events.

I suggested then that the final scene, in which Kris tells Helder that she doesn't like the narration but later admits (after he has gone about removing the narration) that this was a lie she told only to prove that he never listens to her, this scene shows Brown's true intent with "Showing Helder." In the end he DID publish the story without the narration (perhaps because he had already made the changes and didn't want to go back and redo the pages again or perhaps because he had a growing distaste for the device in his storytelling, since he similarly removed a great deal of his narration from the longer story "Fuck" when it was eventually republished as I Never Liked You). But by publishing "Showing Helder" he got to have his cake and eat it too. His audience is now aware of the version of the story which had narration, and it is up to US then to decide which version is more real to US.

I started to wrap things up by pointing out that any autobiographical comic is automatically going to be distanced from reality simply for the fact that it is DRAWN, an artist's rendering. I showed a photo of Chester next to pictures of him as illustrated by Seth, Joe Matt, and Chester himself. I then proposed that none of these were the REAL Chester Brown, merely captured images filtered through a variety of lenses, much like how each person's interpretation of the murder at the center of the film Rashomon could never add up to an approximation of what "truly" happened. I continued by illustrating how Chester tends to be his own worst critic, both personally (in his analyses of his masturbation habits in The Playboy and his failed childhood romances in I Never Liked You) and professionally (as seen in this story when he is at first pleased with a page but upon rereading the entire story feels it's horrible and that he might need to run an Ed the Happy Clown story (representing an artistic step backwards in many ways) instead.

The conclusion then draws all these ideas together by turning to the notes on "Showing Helder" in the back pages of The Little Man. In that note he explains that after this story he stopped telling autobiographical stories in the present day, for fear of offending his friends (since Kris took even more offense at her portrayal here). But I stated that I felt this decision really reflected his desire to ensure his version of events remained pure, because he did choose to continue telling autobiographical stories; he simply started telling stories of his childhood because he had lost touch with his friends from back then and none of them could complain about their portrayal. However, he did start the practice of publishing copious notes in the back of his TPBs, detailing how his version of events may have deviated from "reality" (a tradition he continued on through the historical book Louis Riel actually). This way he could again freely admit his version was simply his version, a subjective look at the events portrayed, and let his audience decide what to believe, laying culpability firmly in our laps.

(I had a lot more to say about the story too, but I had already talked for thirty minutes when I was only supposed to speak for twenty, so I cut things short at various points during the presentation. If anyone has questions, please ask and I'll be happy to elaborate.)