The Problem with Ted Rall
I used to hate Ted Rall, but since Sept. 11th, I thought his column was uncharacteristically well-written and focused. Now he’s got a blog entry that reminds me why I didn’t like him in the first place :
- People like me, who have no shortage of ideas but aren’t the best draughtsmen around, end up doing smart, wordy cartoons for alternative newspapers using styles that allow us to avoid having to do a lot of detailed rendering. In other words, we work around our drawing handicaps.
. . .
Pick up a copy of Ware’s “Quimby Mouse” in a bookstore near you–don’t buy it, you’ll just want to bring it back–and you’ll see what I mean. The damned thingn [sic] is beautiful. Unbelievably pretty. And there isn’t a single idea in the whole goddamned book. But people buy it, and pretend that they “get it” when there’s nothing to get, because they feel stupid admitting that they don’t get it. And also because they can’t imagine that such an accomplished artist could be so bereft of original–hell, any–thought.I’m thinking that postmodernism/deconstructionism is essentially a plot by folks without ideas to convince the world that an absence of ideas is itself an idea. The emperor, no clothes, you know.
So a world divided between idea people and art people has become a world divvied up between smart people who can’t draw and dumb people who can. Bee-utiful.
Just like his now-infamous attacks on Art Spiegelman, Ted Rall primary concern seems to be that he’s not getting the praise that he thinks he deserves. And if he’s able to get that attention by attacking a sacred cow of the comics industry, then all the better for him. Rall even admitted that Spiegelman was “a guy with one great book in him”, but if Rall wants to throw hissy-fits about it, where’s his great book?
The fact that Ted Rall considers Art Spiegelman “the Quentin Tarantino of cartooning” is a funny comparison to me. Although he uses the comparison to say that Spiegelman is a “one-hit wonder”, in light of his blog entry I imagine that he’s also making the argument that Spiegelman is one of his “dumb artists” who, like Tarantino, fill his work with good visuals that have no substance. (Of course, I strongly disagree with this). Well, if Art Spiegelman is the Quentin Tarantino of comics, then Ted Rall is the Kevin Smith of comics.
Like Rall, Kevin Smith’s work is about the writing, not the visuals. Unlike Rall, however, Kevin Smith is more concerned with producing work that pleases his fans, than attacking his peers. A few years ago, I posted a question about this on Smith’s message board and his reply summed up his work pretty well :
- It just seemed to make sense. I wanted to write, but I didn’t want someone else pooching the delivery of the dialogue. I wanted to tell stories, but I wasn’t a very visual person. I wanted a baby, but I didn’t want to give some man legal rights to my body (that made a ‘Sexual Suspect’). And when I saw what folks were doing in the indie field – making films that didn’t have to be visually stunning (Richard Linklater and ‘Slacker’), I wanted to be a part of that.
And while I’ll never… NEVER… be much better at crafting the images that convey the ideas and dialogue in whatever scripts I write, I can’t say I’m bothered by that notion. I’ve carved out a niche for myself in the cinematic landscape. It’s not a massive one, but it’s nothing to scoff at either. Folks that like what I do really like it. Folks that don’t like what I do never need watch another one of my efforts.
And at the end of the day, the films I make please me. They’re economic in means and presentation, but they’re packed full of ideas and humor. They’re somewhat easy watches that audiences mostly enjoy. And they’re smart investments. We do them fairly inexpensively, so we always profit (even ‘Mallrats’ eventually profited, thanks to the popularity it found on video). And since I don’t see my budgets ever climbing that much, I’ll probably be allowed to make movies for as long as I want.
So if I’m happy with what I do, the audience seems largely happy with what I do, and the financiers are happy with what I do…
Well, where’s the harm?
If Ted Rall was making movies, he’d be bitching that Hollywood always gives Oscars to movies about the holocaust. That may be true, but it doesn’t make Mallrats a better movie than Schindler’s List, and it sure as hell doesn’t mean that My War With Brian is better than Maus. If Ted Rall wants mainstream success, then he needs to make mainstream work. Otherwise, he should quit bitching and take a few lessons in humility from Kevin Smith.
11 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
First of all, Ted is being a jerk, and apparently he isn’t reading a lot of comics lately. I’ve said before that I don’t get the feeling that Ted actually likes comics very much, and it shows in his work. I happen to admire him greatly as a professional role model, (In terms of diversity of output and proliferation) as you know, but this is pretty retarded.
I do think that in spite of his obvious ignorance to the wonderful comics out there, he might be onto something about the disconnect between good writing and good art that seems to be happening in some amount comics today. (Tom, you might disagree with me, and you’re probably right, but this is how I feel). Not everyone can pull off something as good as One Fine Day of course. Maybe it’s because comics is a medium often at it’s best when it’s collaborative, and collaboration isn’t as common with indeed comics as it is in mainstream evil corporation comics. Indie and art comics are often DYI affairs, so people who make them make them on their own. As a result, you have incredible art, and incredibly hilarious (or touching writing), but the two don’t always meet.
But now that I think about it, this is something that can be said for all forms of comics. The Sandman, my personal favorite series of the last 20 years, happens to have what I consider some of the most original and exciting writing ever, yet for the first 25 issues, the art almost always felt like a huge let down. That didn’t actually mean that I thought the comics were poor quality, or that there was something wrong. It just means that the problem of writing vs art might be something that’s always been around.
Perhaps it’s because the the tensions between excellent writers and excellent artists vying for their perosnla visions means they don’t always work well together, and one vision or the other will end up prevailing.
But to return to Ted’s not reading comics much, he only needs to check out the Anthology Tom is in to see excellent examples of Great Art and Great Story telling. I would also direct his attention to the True Porn Anthology. Ted might think Quimby Mouse is Boring, and frankly, while I love the art, I think it’s boring too, but that doesn’t mean he has the right or even the knowledge to malign all current comics. It’s like someone who hasn’t bothered to take a trip down to the music store and listen to things like hip hop for instance, complaining that there isn’t any good music anymore.
I think he has some legit things to say about certain comics, but damn, he gets so into the turning-sacred-cows-into-hamburgers thing that he keeps making these stupid, uncalled for personal attacks.
And furthermore, I don’t thik the cartoonists he mentions are dumb people. That’s just a stupid thing to say. He sounds more like an angry 15 year old than a competent 40 year old professional.
Comment by Ross Angeles — October 21, 2003 @ 2:00 pm
collaboration isn’t as common with indeed comics
This should have read “collaboration isn’t as common with INDIE comics”
Stupid spell check.
Comment by Ross Angeles — October 21, 2003 @ 2:01 pm
well, i think ted is an idiot when it comes to his opinions on comics. he’s just a crybaby who can’t handle the fact that he doesn’t really have any respect in the comis world, so he spends his time tearing down those who are at the top. and he never does it when they are unknown or rising stars- it’s always once they are at the top of their game and reaching widespread notoriety, that ted decides to say they suck. he probably secretly idolized Ware and Spiegelman until they got successful, then (like the teenager who rejects his favorite punk band for signing to a major label) he proclaims that they suck. ted is just a jealous crybaby who can’t stand it that he doesn’t get the same ammount of respect, but he really doesn’t deserve the same ammount of respect.
anyway… like i said, i think ted rall is an idiot. i’ve never liked him. he occasionally writes a decent essay, but i’ve hated every comic he’s ever done. and every time i read an interview i hate him even more. he’s just a whiney little bitch.
however… i was amused at his point against Chris Ware, because i actually have a similar viewpoint of many of todays alternative/indie comics out there. for example Kramers Ergot 4. this is an anthology of impressive scope. but overall, i think it’s kind of a waste of space. there are a handfull of good stories in it, but the rest loses itself in an attempt to “push the envelope” into experimental territory that fails to “advance the medium of comics” to a new level. there are several pages of crayon scribbles, pointless collagework, and masturbatory-sketchbook-pseudo-conceptualism. and i couldn’t word it better but to quote ted when he said:
” And there isn’t a single idea in the whole goddamned book. But people buy it, and pretend that they “get it” when there’s nothing to get, because they feel stupid admitting that they don’t get it. And also because they can’t imagine that such an accomplished artist could be so bereft of original–hell, any–thought. I’m thinking that postmodernism/deconstructionism is essentially a plot by folks without ideas to convince the world that an absence of ideas is itself an idea. The emperor, no clothes, you know. ”
my sentiments exactly- if those thoughts were applied to all the pseudo-avant-garde crap that is becoming popular in the indie comics world lately. i mean really- publishing 10 pages of crayon scribbles may be edgey (if that’s what you call something that no one with a brain would bother publishing) but “comics” it aint. so don’t waste my time with it. there are so many of these pseudo-artsy-fartsy-avant-garde- comics being made these days that it makes me sick. and i completely agree that these things are getting published because people are afraid to admit that they don’t “get it.” when in reality, there’s nothing to “get.” most of this stuff reminds me of what i was doing when i was a freshman art student in college- everyone goes through an experimental avant garde phase. and too many people, unfortunately, take it seriously because they think they’re supposed to. books like Kramers are fine as experimental art books- but that’s all they are. i would be surprised to see any of the stories in such a book having any influence on the future of comics.
that is not the case with chris ware. chris ware is a genius. read jimmy corrigan if you have any doubts. the story is amazing, the art is amazing, and his mindboggling page arrangements are from another planet. Ware’s work really does push the envelope of comics. it pushes it so far that i do’nt think anyone understands it. his brain works in ways that no one else’s does.
as for Ware’s quimby book- as i understand it, most of these are experimental in nature. they were little side-projects that he worked on while plugging away for ten years at his epic novel “jimmy corrigan.” they aren’t meant to be great stories. they are experiments in art and page arrangements and random jokes and throw-away stories. Rall apparently missed this point- which should be obvious to anyone who has kept up with the acme novelty library. Rall is right that they are all “art” without “substance.” but they aren’t meant to have substance in the sense that Rall is looking for- sometimes the substance is in the lines, or the composition, or the arrangements of panels on the page, or the use of color- all of which are things Rall knows absolutely nothing about because he’s not an artist.
Comment by tom — October 21, 2003 @ 5:26 pm
Yeah, I should have been a little clearer: I agree with Tom that Ted doesn’t really know what he’s talking about (Though I refrained from using the word idiot).
It distresses me that someone with so many opinions on other cartoonists doesn’t seem to have very much knowledge about comics in general, nor does he seem very interested in getting better as an artist.
I once looked up to the man, but aside from his essays, I’m done. I think he’s projecting. I think he himself actually disrespects comics as a meduim, or at least, I have to assume so since he almost never actually talks about the comics he does like.
Comment by Ross Angeles — October 21, 2003 @ 6:03 pm
Kevin Smith’s excuse for bad cinematography is his genius dialogue? I think Smith’s insistence that his actors say his lines verbatim is what makes his movies completely unbelievable. The people in them use comic book dialogue–which works great in the comics medium but sounds forced, trite, scripted, and painful when said by a good actor. A comic book needs words to work for it, because the characters’ voices and actions are frozen on the page, and something has to create that emotion and pathos. But in cinema, the real presence of time and the actors’ own ability to vocalize and to ACT means they can be expressive without being didactic. Yeah, Kevin’s not hurting anybody with his movies, but neither is Greg Araki (yet they both still make largely wooden films)
Comment by Danimal — October 21, 2003 @ 6:43 pm
Look, I can break down the Kevin Smith problem for you as simply as this: He’s a writer who makes movies. That’s like a carpenter designing a building. He’s working in a medium that he doesn’t seem to fully respect, so it really shouldn’t bother him if people don’t respect his movies. The *art* of cinema is not the art of screenwriting. I’ll take it a step further. I even agree with Ted on the postmodernism idea. Look at the comics in LA Weekly, and tell me how many of them are actually good and how many of them are just about the form, doing nothing more than calling attention to the way cartoons work?
Comment by Earnest — October 21, 2003 @ 9:13 pm
” Look at the comics in LA Weekly, and tell me how many of them are actually good and how many of them are just about the form, doing nothing more than calling attention to the way cartoons work?”
i agree… that’s the idea behind postmodernism in every genre- making art about art, or comics about comics, or films about flims. it’s kind of a sad pathetic state when things degenerate to that. but i’m guilty of it in some of my own comics and art. and i’m guilty of enjoying many of these “postmodern” artforms. luckily, i think the best “postmodern” works in any genre are able to continue to tell good stories, while they deconstruct their own medium. but that’s a rare thing.
as for Kevin Smith… i think his only really good movie is Mallrats. that’s the genre he should be working in- Smith should have been the next John Hughes- making smart movies about teenagers and nerds. unfortunately, he came at a time when everyone was looking for the next Tarantino in the indie film world, and he was given a lot more credit than he deserved, and taken a lot more seriously than he should’ve. oh well… i’m sure his next Ben & J-Lo film will be the last nail in his coffin as a film-maker.
Comment by tom — October 22, 2003 @ 10:09 am
You were kidding about Kevin Smith’s humility, right? That’s like calling Sam Kinison a mime.
Comment by Mark Spittle — October 22, 2003 @ 2:06 pm
I read one of Rall’s graphic novels, 2054 or 2154 or whatthefuckever. He really doesn’t have a fuckign clue what he’s talking about. I liked his weekly comix so i thought i’d like his novel. It was terrible. Terrible. No ideas that were new or presented terribly newly, no characters you felt sympathy for or anguished with. Nothing, Zip, Nada.
On the other hand, I’m reading Quimby the Mouse and find it often visually stimulating and sometimes terrifically touching, like Jimmie Corrigan (one of probably my favorite novels of all time, graphic or otherwise). There’s a Quimby the Mouse where’s he’s talking about his bizarre obsessiveness with his grandmother, how he kept everything of hers, every single thing. Then he talks about her toaster oven and how he’s even kept hte little piece of foil she kept in it to catch drips. He says he eventually threw it away, thinking how his grandmother would have laughed at his mockish sentimentality. Later, we see his Quimby character lying in bed looking anguished thinking, God…why did I do that?
It was, astonishingly, touching in a most profound way. I just about cried myself.
Quimby, Ware explains in the intro, isn’t so much about a great “Idea” as it is about trying to convey a certain honesty of emotion from a time when he was very young. It is both hysterical and profound.
Rall as a novelist, and as a columnist, sucks. He is terrible in any medium I have ever experienced him in save his weekly comic.
Comment by j — October 22, 2003 @ 3:37 pm
oops… i finally read the intro (i was originally too anxious to read the comics and skipped over the pages of tiny text) and i was wrong… they weren’t side stories that he did over the last 10 years, they were all experiments in comics that he did in college for the college newspaper. jeez- and when i think back to what i was doing in college… the man’s a genius regardless…
and to further point out that Ted Rall is an idiot- the introduction to the Quimby book makes several attempts to tell the reader that this book is not very good, and that you shouldn’t by it because it reprints old comics that Ware is not as proud of today… anyway… that’s all
Comment by tom — November 3, 2003 @ 9:59 am
Well, there we go. I think nothing makes me feel better about myself than reading people who hate Ted Rall. Except people who hate Ted Rall and also don’t like Kevin Smith. Let me go out on a big ol’ limb here: I bet you don’t like Janeane Garofalo much, and if Bill Hicks were not safely dead, you’d loathe him too. These are guesses, of course. Let’s see, what music wouldn’t you like? i am assuming you want less-edgy, know-your-place serf-rock. You would have been among the Crass nay-sayers. I’m stretching a bit more, but I bet you don’t like Chumbawamba or Billy Bragg much?
Comment by Marion Delgado — September 19, 2004 @ 8:49 pm