Review - The Graphic Canon, Volume 1

The Graphic Canon, Vol. 1: From the Epic of Gilgamesh to Shakespeare to Dangerous Liaisons

Russ Kick
Seven Stories Press (May 22 2012)
978-1609803766
512 pages
CDN$ 21.91 on Amazon
Website


Summary: A very mixed bag of pieces in a variety of styles, often in colour, which make it fun to flip through; however, some are poor interpretations, and sometimes Kick's commissions fall flat. For twenty bucks, though, hard to go wrong if you have the space.

I was terribly excited to find out about this collection, as my interest in graphic novels (comics? sequential art?) has been rejuvenated by my Book as Object course (Winter 2013) and I am, as an English scholar, intensely interested in both questions of the literary canon and adaptations of texts.

The Graphic Canon presents 56 graphic adaptations of various "canonical" works. A First Nations' creation myth is followed by the Iliad and Odyssey, excerpts from the Bible and stories from the Middle East and Asia are presented, and, towards the latter end of the work, the reader can look at interpretations of Shakespeare, Milton, Swift, and Benjamin Franklin. The variety is quite good; I appreciated the inclusion of works like Hagoromo, a Japanese Noh play, and the other non-Western literature. Although the styles of art are pretty broad, I have to point out - no manga? There must be some manga of Asian myths, or even Western myths for that matter, out there good enough to make it into such a collection. There are several depictions of nudity and sexual activity in the comics, which numerous critics on Amazon complained about; however, people (both in real life and in literature) had carnal relations back in the day, and I appreciate that the editor did not edit such representations out, especially in great pieces like the London Journal excerpts adapted by Robert Crumb.

The publication is of good quality. A large format (8.5 x 10.875) means that the artwork is of a good size, but the book is also not outrageously hard to handle, though it is relatively heavy. The printing quality is high, and the book is in general well-designed.

Unfortunately, content-wise, The Graphic Canon fell kind of flat for me. I have some issues with the overall construction and ideas behind the work, and while some of the comics were amazing, others were notably lackluster.

My expectation going in to this text was that it would be a collection of comics that have been done over the years as adaptations of canonical (Western or otherwise) literature. Kick would have chosen representative excerpts from the works that displayed how the form and content of the art, lettering, and interpretation of the original worked both in relation to and against the original material.

However, the majority of the comics were solicited by Kick. In his Introduction, he notes that "My instincts as an anthologist kicked in. I needed to gather the best of what had already been done, commission lots of new adaptations, and put it all in one place" (1).

And there, of course, is the problem word for me: "commission." Admittedly, it is interesting to see the range of artists he manages to recruit, and he writes of getting artists from a variety of countries and backgrounds (like one artist who designed album covers for heavy metal bands). However, I feel like recruiting someone to do a piece reduces the integrity of the collection a bit. (note: I'm not really sure how to put my feelings about this into words, and I feel like a weird high-low culture snob. Ugh.) The commissioned creators aren't necessarily doing this because they originally loved the material or have studied it extensively (though, to be fair, maybe they have or did!). Maybe I'm just a stick-in-the-mud academic for expecting such anthologies examining the canon and claiming to contain "the world's great literature as comics and visuals" to collect adaptations that have already demonstrated their importance in one way or another - in this case, as being recognized (by either scholars or the public) as making an important comment on the original work.

Furthermore, I consider a good adaptation to also be an informed act of criticism and engagement with the text. The spirit of the original, insofar as that can be interpreted, should be present in some manner as well, and an awareness of the original context of the work should be demonstrated. Unfortunately, some of the pieces within this collection don't necessarily fit this description to the extent I would like (again, maybe my academic stick-in-the-mud coming through).

Two final pedantic notes before on to the comics:
In the introduction, Kick says "I asked the artists to stay true to the source material - no setting it in the future, no creating new adventures for characters, etc." However, some comics are definitely set farther in the future than the original text was set or written. I'm not sure if he meant our future (?) or just made allowances for some authors, but it came across as a bit careless to me. Also, he says "The adaptations are true collaborations between the original authors/poets and the artists" (1). Umm, not really possible, as the original creators are long dead. Again, it feels like somebody missed this in editing or he had a different meaning; I haven't read anything else by Russ Kick (though apparently he's relatively well-known?) so I'm not sure if this is just his style.

Now, on the comics themselves!

First, to get them out of the way, the bad. Some comics in this collection are poorly executed. Sometimes this is a result of careless aesthetic style, while at other points the form (physical representation) just doesn't match the content (the original source material).

The worst is, by far, Medea (Euripedes) by Tori McKenna. The dialogue bubbles are carelessly drawn at some points, and although McKenna's body language is often well executed, her variable colouring and facial features (is it part of the myth that Medea's hair is changing from black and white all the time?) reduce the impact of the story. Her interpretation is far too cliched for my taste as well. My main issue is with page 74, where the step-by-step representation of the narrative is uninventive and trite.

(disclaimer: I took these pictures with my iPhone in poor light, so just imagine them all looking...well, better, I guess?)

Page 74. Licking a knife? Really? Also, the lettering is rather amateur (in a way that doesn't add to the comic)

Page 66

"Advice to a Young Man on the Choice of a Mistress," originally by Benjamin Franklin and adapted by Cortney Skinner, falls through because the single image has a basic representation of the text, but doesn't really add anything. The introduction page shouldn't have to reproduce the entire text in order for the viewer to understand the comic - that's not how comics are supposed to work. Paintings and other non-sequential visual work, perhaps, but not comics.

Page 466

The fragments of Sappho's poetry similarly fall flat. I don't really see how the text and the ghostly figure are supposed to work together in this piece.

Page 427

Others have a lot of potential, like Yien Yip's interpretation of Marvell's "To His Coy Mistress." Unfortunately, while I love her illustrations, this combination of text (I dislike serif fonts that attempt to look old-fashioned used in excess) and images (putting it vaguely in the 1800s?) doesn't stand out.

Page 454

In the same vein, I have to mention Gareth Hinds' adaptation of Swift's Gulliver's Travels frustrates me because while the art is lovely, the text. Oh, the text. Italicized and with a sometimes used background attempting to look like a journal on a torn out page. Ugh. Also, some pages get awfully text-heavy. I would have appreciated more of his excellent art.










Okay, now for the stand out comics!

"The Coyote and the Pebbles," by Dayton Edmonds and Micah Farritor, was lovely; a perfect mix of evocative art and stimulating narrative.

Page 27. It had a beautiful water colour feeling to it.

Beowulf, by Gareth Hinds, also stands out. Yes, I criticized him earlier - but for his typography and use of text, and in this beautifully paced work, it's panel after panel of action.

Pages 184-185
                                    

                                    

                               

 Eisner's Don Quixote is, unsurprisingly, one of the best of the bunch; brilliant colours and an acute awareness of the form of comics (panels, angles, pacing) makes it a delight to read. Similarly, Boswell's London Journal by Robert Crumb, another of the old vanguard of comics, is wonderful - complex and tight art and panels, and, despite a heavy amount of text, a good flow throughout the piece. His work reminds me of Hogarth's representations of 18th century life.

Page 471. My poor camera and cropping skills are exemplary here.

Page 404. The colours look so much better in person!

The final thing I will mention is some of the odd editorial choices, primarily how some comics (Gilgamesh, Lysistrata, etc) go on for pages more than needed. Anthologies provide excerpts of such long works, and that space could have been used for other pieces instead of attempts to present as much of a work as possible to the detriment of other comics.

Of course, my perspective is my own; several other sources gave the collection glowing reviews, and I encourage you to read them as well. I feel like, in general, they were too generous - caught up in the excitement of seeing classics represented in comic form, or in the ambition of such a collection existing. For example, at the New York Times the reviewer says "Here you will discover that literature can be hilarious," demonstrating an issue several reviewers seem to have of looking at the comics as being commendable simply because they make the canon more accessible. From Kirkus: "Classic literature gets desterilized with the help of the modern world’s most daring graphic artists." By far, the best review I have found was from The Comics Journal, which gave an astute overview of pieces that worked and ones that fell flat. They also noted that the collection's self-proclaimed presentation of "the world's great literature as comics and visuals" is a little problematic when the majority from from Western Europe, especially Britain.