Customer Reviews

How to Read Superhero Comics and Why

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I devoured this book in a day, supremely happy to find a text that took superhero comics seriously as a topic for detailed literary criticism.
Klock's central premise, that contemporary super hero comics survive and reach great heights in how they interrogate and relate to the bewildering history of superhero comics, is well-argued through the poetic analysis of Harold Bloom. It is a thrill beyond words to see the arm-chair analysis of Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, or Ellis' Wildstorm work be given such a rigorous academic treatment, and to find it all so readable.
This is a fantastic find for any comic fan who has come through a liberal arts program and can handle a few chunky quotes.

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.

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.

It is the Why which is driving How to Read Superhero Comics...and Why, which suggests a particular prism through which to see (or "read") the history of superhero comic book. Klock puts forth his multigenerational contention that the definition for each era of superhero comics emerges from an Oedipal interrelationship with the past in the tradition of theorist Harold Bloom. The book is most interested in making big arguments, many of which are both creative and novel. His exploration of Warren Ellis' ingenious, airtight would-be origin point for The Authority and his reading of Planetary's relationship to his antecedent fictions are welcome, overdue, innovative additions to the discussion of superhero comics. But too often Klock's book remains locked in either abstract or the broad; it suggests several intriguing avenues to pursue, routes that would surely benefit further from such clever analysis. It is an invitation: With all of his concern for Bloomian rewriting, Klock seems to be soliciting the next wave of critics to carry his banner further, either with books he overlooked, titles to come, or simply the theorists he has highlighted.

Living in Portugal, and being, well, 47 years old(!), I remember my first dazled look into superhero comics through portuguese translations in brasilian editions (b/w) by Editora Abril when I was just 10 or 11 years old. I collected some of the titles, nevetheless confined to an offer of major superheros like Superhomem (Superman), Batman, Flash, Atomo (Atom), mainly from DC and later on from Marvel (Capitão América, Quarteto Fantástico (Fantastic Four)). But I had a penchant for the american editions in full colour with the striking Jack Kirby artwork from Marvel, like FF, and Giant Size editions (or republishings), as well as the titles of Spider Man, Daredevil, written by Stan Lee and with artwork from (for instance) John Romita or Gene Colan and others great pencillers (that's why I still own some editions of comics like Spider Man #70, the early Captain Marvel (yes!), DD, FF, Sr. Strange, SSurfer, etc., from circa 1969-1970. But as I grew older I got tyred of american comics and began coleccting european adult and mature readers comics, mainly from french and belgian sources, (much late with the exception of some post-modern new classics such as Watchmen, and Frank Miller's Dark Knight. Recently, however, I went to a comic book shop and bought Mr. Klock's book. I read it and I was absolutely appauled by the variety and deepness of new or renewed characters studied by Klock. I was so impressed that I began buying acomic books, mainly writen by Ennis, Morrison, Bendis, Straczinsky, Millar, Waid, Buziek, Kirkman, etc. And till this day I'm really delighted by the rich contours of the genre. I owe it, totally, to Mr. Klock's book, which can be read as a thesis, but also as entertainment, even if you don't know some of the comics described and studied by the author (you certainly will get the same "re-discovery" fever that I got...!).
Highly recommended -but only if you're willing to spend money on comic books...!

There are some interesting ideas in here, but it's a pretty exasperating book - it reads like a mediocre PhD thesis (it probably is one) that's kissing up to the candidate's advisor.

It draws quite heavily on Harold Bloom's lit-crit ideas and goes out of its way to disparage other approaches (Jung and Joseph Campbell come under fire a few times). Based solely on my reading of this book, I'm not planning to venture into Bloom's work or lit-crit circles any time soom.

The book relies extensively on a specialist vocabulary that is both confusing and annoying. I'm not looking for a dumbed-down vocabulary, but "rhizomatic" and "misprision" aren't terms I'm familiar with and the author made little or no attempt to clue me in. In addition, certain terms ("misprision" and "over-determined") are repeated so often that they get positively annoying.

Worst of all for me was the way the author speculates on one page, then treats that speculation as fact on the next, sometimes phrasing things in a way that implies that the author he's discussing intended us to see things the same way he does.

For all that, the book does have some interesting food for thought and it pointed me towards some titles I'd not read. I should second the other reviews that have pointed out how nice it is to find some analysis of more modern titles.

While I often found myself disagreeing with the author or being frustrated with him, I also found the book quite engaging. It's certainly gotten me thinking and that's (almost) always a good thing.

First off, it must be clarified that despite its title, "How to Read Superhero Comics and Why" is not an examination of the mechanics of the superhero genre in comic books a la Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art, which is one of the truly indispensable books on the subject of comic books. Instead, Klock's work is a scholarly examination of postmodernism in superhero comics over the last 25+ years, and a speculation on the future of the superhero comic book. It is for more of a specialized audience and not, it seems, necessarily intended for the casual comic book enthusiast.

Klock's basic argument is this: with the advent of Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' Watchmen in the mid-1980s, the two most consequential revisionist superhero yarns (which themselves tried to place superheroes into a more realistic, modern context), the comic world faced a crisis of identity. As a result, other postmodern comic books, such as Marvel Comics' Marvels (Marvel Premiere Classic), DC's Kingdom Come, and Image's Astro City (volume One of which is Life in the Big City (Astro City, Vol. 1)) sought to rehabilitate the image of the superhero and react against the dark and grim ruminations Miller and Moore had brought to the fore. Klock also looks at Alan Moore's ABC line (Which includes "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," "Tom Strong," and others) as well as "The Authority," and posits that comics such as "Planetary," with their metatextual readings of superhero comics, point the way to the future of comic books.

First, the Good: Klock's book, though now a few years out of date, is valuable because it dwells on recent superhero comics, instead of comics 50-60 years old. We rarely see good, scholarly examinations of newer comics in the literature, and Klock's insights are much appreciated. Additionally, Klock offers insightful readings of "Dark Knight" and "Watchmen" that, I think, rival those of Richard Reynolds in his important Super Heroes: A Modern Mythology (Studies in Popular Culture).

Now, the Bad: Little, actually. Klock's writing is lucid and flows well, though the work is probably too dense for those without a scholarly interest in comics. Additionally, Klock's assertions are often, it seems, highly debatable, though he supports them with good evidence - readers with a good background in comics of the last 25+ years may find themselves disagreeing with his take on the trajectory of comics and its reasons.

In the end, Klock's work deserves to be read and considered by comic book scholars, and it is a valuable addition to the literature.

Geoff Klock's book How to Read Superhero Comics and Why is absolutely essential reading for anyone curious about the ongoing evolution of superhero narratives. The book purposely eschews structural mythology and archetypal interpretation - because that thesis is already covered in a multiplicity of sources - most notably Super Heroes: A Modern Mythology by Richard Reynolds. Instead, Klock's book sets out to interpret the superhero narrative through the lens of Harold Bloom's literary criticism and explain which aspects of the superhero narrative need to be acknowledged and understood in order for the superhero narrative to continue to evolve.

It is commonly understood by superhero fans and scholars alike that superheroes started in what is considered the Golden Age of superheroes with Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and others in the late 1930's. The second age of superheroes came with the Silver Age that some believe started with the appearance of the new Flash in the mid-Fifties and peaks with the appearance of the Marvel heroes such as the Fantastic Four, Spider Man, Daredevil, and the Hulk in 1961. Instead of ascribing to the common perception that superheroes just passed through a Dark Age from 1975 to 1995 - Klock posits that the so-called Dark Age was merely a redundant Silver Age - which actually culminates with Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns and Alan Moore's Watchmen. Mostly using Harold Bloom's theories of literary criticism, Klock sets out to help us identify the direction the newest age of superheroes has taken with books like Planetary and Authority over the past ten years.

I'm not setting out to interpret Klock's theories for you here - because that's the purpose of the book. If you're interested in what I pointed out above - then read it. Some of the reviews posted here show a love for the reader's own opinions preventing themselves from comprehending what Klock was even talking about. I am not informed by Bloom's criticisms. However - I am informed by the superhero narrative and have studied every book Klock references in his book to the point of meme-like synchronicity. Anyone that states Alan Moore's Watchmen is not influential - should obviously stick to reading Harold Bloom and leave the superhero narratives to the rest of us - because you don't know what you're talking about. Geoff Klock goes to great lengths to explain how the use of realism and psychology in Watchmen and Miller's Dark Knight Returns influenced comics in the late Eighties and Nineties and laid the framework for every superhero to come. Their influence is still felt today - and if you don't believe that - then you simply must not read superhero comics anymore. However, if you still comb the monthly racks for something to read - then you will know the above statements to be resoundingly true.

The reason Klock seems to avoid Marvel comics is that there were so few Marvel comics in print at the time of the writing that followed Klock's thesis. Klock does describe the place of the mini-seires Marvels - but then moves on following the natural evolution of the superhero narrative - which DID NOT occur in Marvel comics at the time. Likewise, Klock points out in his book that he purposely detailed books that were easily obtainable in trade paperback format or reprints and avoided nascent books that the average reader would have a hard time obtaining.

One of the other "reviewers" complains that Klock focalizes on the writer over the artist - when Klock takes the time to explain the importance of not only the artist - but the colorist as well - and purposely chooses to identify with the writer due to the common practice of recognizing the writer as the progenitor of the superhero narrative - for simplicity's sake alone. This is not a book about comic book layouts and the artform itself. Anyone interested in the artform of the sequential illustration would serve themselves well to track down Scott McLeod's works and Will Eisner's seminal Comics and Sequential Art for a proper lesson - but that is not the stated purpose of Klock's book. Outside of Grant Morrison's metatextual works - the medium of sequential illustration has very little to do with the evolution of the superhero narrative - and no place in the thesis presented herein!

If you are interested in how the Silver Age culminated when the superhero narrative was brought into the real world by Dark Knight Returns and the Watchmen, and you want to see how books like Planetary and Authority have lead the superhero narrative through the real world and into the fantastic world of the newest age of superheroes via metatextual awareness - then this book is for you. How To Read Superheroes and Why is not about superheroes as mythology or archetype. It's not about why some stories are good and others are not. It's not about panel to panel relationships found in sequential illustration. Those theories are neither ignored nor refuted - they are for the most part - not a part of the thesis presented herein. This book is about the evolution of the superhero narrative via metatextual awareness and what superhero narratives need to address in order to keep evolving.

I am not a psychology student or literature major - so I had to keep the dictionary by my side to help me navigate through Klock's book. In the end, it is all worth it, as Klock's work gave me a new set of tools with which to examine the superhero narrative. Klock has given me the ability to recognize which superhero comics are simply regurgitating the tropes of the past - and which ones are pointing the way to the future and beyond.

Highly recommended and absolutely indispensable for anyone that wants to work with superhero narratives.

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.

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.