Dostoevsky Comics
Sep 19th, 2007 by abi
I have recently had sent to me a link to this comic. It really is rather good and as a ’Crime and Punishment’ fan I admit I rather enjoyed it. I had a suspicion, though (and I apologise if I’m wrong), that it was sent to me to challenge my perceived snobbery and that I was supposed to look at the comments at the bottom as much as the comic strip.
Yet again I feel compelled to clear a few things up. I fear I must have a communication problem because whatever I say on this subject people always seem to assume I mean something else.
So, here goes. I really liked the comic. It was clever, nicely done, perceptive, witty and great fun. It was in great sympathy with the book and I thought very neatly got the philosophy across. It could not have been created by someone who did not understand and appreciate the novel. The guy commenting that it was dumbing it down therefore missed the point. I think maybe that he perceived comics to be too lowbrow or something, I just don’t know. I don’t have a problem with playing around with works of art and interpreting them in interesting ways and this kind of intelligent game playing is great. It’s why I like the guys who do the ‘Reduced Shakespeare Company’ shows. They show great knowledge and appreciation of their subject matter and don’t patronise the audience, they assume you’re in on it too. And it’s just a good laugh.
I guess the mistake people make is to assume that different genres have different claims to the allusive ‘quality’ (or whatever we’re going to call it). I still can’t get over this notion that some things do ‘work’ and others don’t, that some things are ‘good’ and others not so much and I really don’t see how it can be subjective. Just because I believe this doesn’t mean that I support the assertion that all opera =good and all rap music =bad. I believe that some opera reigns supreme and that operettas are meant to be a bit of fun. I know absolutely bugger all about rap music and would defer to someone who did know until I had listened to it myself enough to be able to form a valid opinion of my own.
Other than being ‘good’ I think a work of art does need ’substance’, that element of universality I have mentioned before. I think people misunderstand what I mean by this because I find it so difficult to explain. Some things have it and some don’t. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a comic, a thriller, a pop song. It can still have that quality (or not), irrespective of the medium the artist chooses to use. It just means that they can speak across centuries and across continents and I think the words of Shakespeare and the music of Beethoven do that whereas lesser writers and lesser composers don’t. These are just made for the here and now and a specific commercial audience. I think that in 150 years time someone who had read ‘Crime and Punishment’ (which will, as a great novel, still mean something to people in 150 years time) would look at that comic and find it funny.
I guess what I’m saying is that an art form is not good or bad, worthless or great, because of its genre, format, or style, it’s good because it connects with us as humans beings. It’s the painting that makes you stop or the piece of music that makes you want to cry, even if you can’t analyse it or say why, as opposed to the pleasant enough musak you have in an airport lounge or the nice, unchallenging picture you hang on your living room wall.
That is probably inadequate and muddled as usual but I am just getting a bit tired of people missing the point and thinking I have one opinion where actually I don’t. It just hurts to have people criticise me for a view that is not my own.
So, thank you, I enjoyed the Dostoevsky comic very much. And now I have burnt my supper.
