tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post2491307589883839395..comments2014-12-09T17:25:07.561-08:00Comments on Words and Images: Crumb's Genesis: Illustrating the AbsurdAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post-46137378790633569002014-10-24T17:51:25.476-07:002014-10-24T17:51:25.476-07:00I like your intro. Is it possible, though, that t...I like your intro. Is it possible, though, that the lack of irreverence might actually be an approximation of reverence? I don’t think the possibility should be dismissed, even if you are ultimately right. Your discussion of the film is compact and focused.<br /><br />“Both types of work have the same purpose. In his typical comics, Crumb observes the ridiculousness that is inherent in our routines, beliefs, and assumptions. He then cartoons them in a grotesque fashion so as to bring them to light. In Genesis, he illustrated a sacred text extraordinarily close to the wording it provided. By depicting it realistically, he actually accomplished the same goal as his usual work.” -- This is good. If you want to revise, I think it would be most effective to do more detailed work with his earlier work *and* in Genesis - to work through in a little more detail how his earlier satirical techniques have survived and transformed (maybe you’re basically just arguing that he has gotten subtler, but is doing the same thing?)<br /><br />I think your description of Crumb’s interpretation of God is reasonable, but I’d like to see you flesh it out. In particular, I’d like to see you take it on at its most challenging moments - for instance, what if you focused on the scene of murder/humiliation which seemingly prompts God to flood the earth? I think that’s a scene that could work with your argument, but also poses interesting challenges to it (because the depravity being exposed here is *seemingly* human depravity).<br /><br />Overall: This is smart and well-written, and makes good use of the film. It’s light on detail where Genesis is concerned, and thus ends up seeming a little speculative - the idea is good enough for a revision, but it would take lots of cutting and lots of expansion.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post-37608003923753483672014-10-23T10:25:09.305-07:002014-10-23T10:25:09.305-07:00Sorry, this is a little late. Good essay. An inter...Sorry, this is a little late. Good essay. An interesting argument to make- the idea that he is disgusted by seemingly happy families because they outwardly show no conflict stood out- and how you turned that idea into him being disgusted by the seemingly nice Bible. Although, just in my experience, anyone who has ever actually read the book would know it has some dark stuff. Perhaps making it a comic makes it more palatable to people who don't read often- and also blatantly points out the dark stuff in case they don't get that. You also mention his depiction of God and how He is never described as such in the Bible. But this God is still depicted as the popular culture depicts him- perhaps you could expand on why that is, why he chose that depiction. Another place you could expand- when you talk about his earlier work you mention that it not only depicts the seediest parts of human nature but also his own personal seediest fantasies. Does any of that bleed into the Bible. Does he expand this 'straight job' of depicting the past to comment on current culture? Or perhaps does he sometimes insert his own dark thoughts into the illustration at anytime?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301340552112841884noreply@blogger.com