Skip to main content

In which Tavis explains why he should not have read The Walking Dead.

Call it a compulsion. There was a time when I would have read any and every comic I could get my hands on. I've gotten better, and far pickier. Nevertheless, after coming across a cache of the much hyped Walking Dead books, I thought I'd give them a chance, despite the art, writing, and layouts all seeming boring. About four issues in, I began to wonder why I was doing this to myself. Eventually, it felt like punishment for some unnamed misdeed.

Thirty-seven(!) issues in, I believe I can say The Walking Dead showcases the reasons there has been so little interest in comicbooks (as opposed to comic strips) in the American public. The series offers up everything that is wrong with so-called mainstream comics--the real mainstream being either the aforementioned strips, or else manga, both of which are more popular and widely read than adventure books published by Marvel, DC, Image, or so forth. I suppose this also explains its appeal to many comics readers, many of whom seem to enjoy:

-Characters who always tell others how they're feeling, their motivations, what took place last issue, and what the author wants you to think as bluntly, blatantly, and often as possible.
-False moral ambiguities masking simple conflicts between 'good' and 'evil'.
-Forced melodrama and hyper-violence for that 'gritty', 'realist' edge.
-Characters who change on the fly, to support the needs of the plot and to keep the comic going, and who are thus 'developed'.
-Dialogue which hurts when you read it aloud.
-Hilariously overplayed emotions on the face of at least one character every three panels or so, whether it makes sense or not.
-Cliffhangers and twists bordering on the absurd, even relative to the work at hand.
-Mid way through, at least one character dresses like a superhero. No cape, though.

Walking Dead is the sort of thing that convinces anyone curious enough to venture into the comics section of their big-box book store they made a mistake. Fans, on the other hand, are wont to excuse such faults (if they will admit them) as either necessary (because it's the industry standard, or else what fans want) or (even better) "random--just like life!" Uh huh. The characters act haphazardly to sustain a plot which has no catharsis, no real structure outside of its cliffhanger endings, and no reason to continue beyond being a continuing series which sells relatively well. Even were life like that, once an author has brought the dead back to life, 'realism' is no longer a ready excuse for his actions. Less so in the case of bad writing. I could draw a thousand pages of a statue in a locked room not moving or having anything interesting happen around it. That's usually what happens around statues in a locked room. This would be far more true to life than The Walking Dead, but it would also be boring and unpublishable. The former is true of Walking Dead. The latter ought to have been.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More Political Notes

-Rick Santorum seems a somewhat likeable guy who believes several crazy, distasteful things. It may not be helpful to say his ideas are nuts, but it still is less useful to fashion him an evil man because his discriminatory views don't jive with the left, centre, or centre-right in America.

-Calling a person a 'front runner' before votes are counted is just plain wrong.  Calling one a front-runner after some votes are counted is slightly misleading.  The race isn't about who the media thinks is ahead, and it is only indirectly about who gets the most votes.  What really matters is accruing the most delegates.  In the race for a major party's nomination for POTUS, the guy with the most delegates-who-will-actually-vote-for-him-at-their-national-convention is ahead. If no delegates have been awarded, there isn't really a front-runner, no matter what polls might say.

-I doubt the primary process will hurt the eventual Republican nominee for POTUS all that much.…

Pointless Ruminations on the Absurd

The world around us is in no way required to conform to our expectations, beliefs, or desires. Rather, it is all but guaranteed to disappoint us, at least once or twice a lifetime. The loftier (or more deeply felt) our ideals, the more this may be true.

When we accept this incongruity and are keenly aware of it, but cannot change our thinking, absurdity steps in. The world no longer quite makes sense. It is untethered from rational or moral concerns, adrift in a bizarre joke told by no one.
Desire for normative order is often irrational and misplaced. Placing ethical constraints on amoral matters makes no sense. Yet these appear (sometimes, seemingly) inescapable conclusions. Hence the sensation of absurdity.

We can apply these incongruous demands to anything and anyone. But this is not a universal philosophy. It is a philosophy of the self, a diagnosis.

Well now.

I think I'm going to try to revive my online writing habits, outside of Facebook.

And what have I been thinking or feeling in the interim, across the last couple years or so? Well, I'm glad you asked.

In part, this.