Rating: 
Summary: Literature, Philosophy, and Superheros
Review: There isn't a lot out there written on superheroes, and this is like none of them. You can tell he knows a lot about literature and philosophy so its weird he wants to write about superheroes (I think this is his first book). But its really good, if a little out there. Its hard to describe, but its sort of interesting. One thing that's nice about it is it is just a start on comics that is made to make you think and go write more on the same subject. He doesen't say that his book is the final work and leaves anyone interested in superhero comics with a lot to think about, to come up with ideas on their own.
Rating: 
Summary: Good, but too one-sided
Review: This book is an interesting study of superhero comic books, particularly the examination of the Dark Knight Returns, but it is one-sided, as Klock solidifies his argument (applying Bloom's anxiety of influence to superheroes) through a consideration of Crisis on Infinite Earths, an event that took place in the DC Universe. This causes a problem because Klock overlooks Marvel almost entirely, which is truly ironic in terms of his intentions: he states over and over his dissatisfaction with the "archetype" idea about superheroes, and yet, DC's characters lend themselves to the "arcehtype" idea incredibly well, whereas Marvel has its own conditions under which to consider Klock's theories. I for one, feel his dismissal of the archetype argument to be ill-founded and not entirely well-thought out, not to mention poorly supported in the text itself. Perhaps his youth contributes, but I think that Klock makes a fundamental mistake in his analysis of superheroes: he is in love with Bloom's theories, to the exclusion of many others. He complains about Joseph Campbell and Jung, but like Campbell himself, gets so caught up in the poetry of his own ideas that he becomes his own demiurge, trapping himself when he could consider the stories from multiple angles, thereby creating a truly revolutionary piece of criticism. Definitely enjoyable, not exactly the most challenging read, or the most insightful, but worth a read-through. Interestingly, Grant Morrison's seminal Flex Mentallo, relegated to the "further reading" section already surpasses any theories Klock may posit, and the work does so by isolating itself from any one school of thought. Also dissapointing is his rash and entirely too flat reading of Alan Moore's Promethea, perhaps that writers best and most experimental work. Finally, however, is Klock's demonstration of his ignorance of the language of comic books. He considers the writer, or at least the words to be running the show. He hardly examines the nature of the language, the interplay between word and picture. While a good read, this book also makes one aware of the immense lack of comics criticism. In the back of my mind however, it seems that the comic form is more suited to comment on itself than is the medium of prose.
Rating:
Summary: Superhero's and Bloom
Review: This book puts together superhero comics and Harold Bloom's theory of poetry. Its called Anxiety of Influence - poetry is in a love/hate relationship with earlier poetry that it is influenced by and also has to outdo. Most of academic criticism nowadays is deconstruction and postmodernism and its cool that this does something else - Klock comes up with a strange idea to put these subjects together. Harold Bloom HATES all forms of pop culture and all his writing is on poetry and Shakespeare, and its bizarre to see how well comics and Bloom go together. (Maybe he should get another job!). You cannot believe all the stuff in your superhero comics that you never knew about. Its really really bizarre but after you read the book its hard to say it doesn't work. Klock makes his points well and its very very smart intellectual writing that uses some big words, but isn't insane academic writing that makes no sense. Some writers don't make any sense to cover up the fact that they have no idea what they are saying. Klock isn't one of them.
Rating: 
Summary: Superheroes fighting their own past
Review: This is a terrific book, but the title is somewhat misleading. It's not a general overview of superhero comics or how to read them. Instead, it's a specific (and fascinating) look at how recent comics writers have dealt with the issue of continuity in the face of decades of tangled comics history. Klock analyzes this using Harold Bloom's tools for discussing how poets interact with the history of poetry -- and the result is pretty mindblowing. He offers insights that I guarantee will have you going back to your comics and finding stuff you never knew was there. My favorite moments were his analyses of Joker's dialogue in "The Killing Joke," and of fascist politics in "Tom Strong." Other comics analyzed include "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns," "Watchmen," "Marvels," "Astro City," Alan Moore's whole ABC line, Grant Morrison's "JLA," "The Authority" and "Planetary." There are no illustrations, and Klock uses some dense academic language, but he defines his more obscure terms and the book is clear and well-written. A serious look at a strange phenomenon: how superhero narratives became self-conscious of their past and started to behave a lot like literature.
Rating:
Summary: A good introduction into Comic academics.
Review: This was a good introduction into superhero comics criticism, but I disagree with a lot of his conclusions. Mackie's Ghost Rider was not poorly written as he claims, and inter-company crossovers are often handled by a publisher's best talent, not by the hacks he claims do them. Beyond that, he claims major events occuring in inter-company crossovers (WILDCats/Aliens is his main example) are rare, odd and unusual. In fact, they are fairly common. No room here to give exmaples, but quite a few inter-company crossovers have had far reaching effects (I'll briefly mention one - the Devil's reign Top Cow/Marvel crossover had far reaching effects in both comics universes).
He also never really fulfills the title - he talks about how to read superhero comics, but never really deals with the "why." He tries at times, but it comes across as half-hearted.
I reccomend this book, but take all of his conclusions with a grain of salt. Either way, a valuable addition to the academic conversation.
Rating:
Summary: A good introduction into Comic academics.
Review: This was a good introduction into superhero comics criticism, but I disagree with a lot of his conclusions. Mackie's Ghost Rider was not poorly written as he claims, and inter-company crossovers are often handled by a publisher's best talent, not by the hacks he claims do them. Beyond that, he claims major events occuring in inter-company crossovers (WILDCats/Aliens is his main example) are rare, odd and unusual. In fact, they are fairly common. No room here to give exmaples, but quite a few inter-company crossovers have had far reaching effects (I'll briefly mention one - the Devil's reign Top Cow/Marvel crossover had far reaching effects in both comics universes).
He also never really fulfills the title - he talks about how to read superhero comics, but never really deals with the "why." He tries at times, but it comes across as half-hearted.
I reccomend this book, but take all of his conclusions with a grain of salt. Either way, a valuable addition to the academic conversation.
|
