Skillful unpacking Paul. I read this biography last month. I wanted to know more about Crumb’s Philly/Delaware life, but I also felt I got a real education on the history of comics, including the ups and downs of the business, and that was more interesting than I might’ve imagined—cashing in on waves of culture. I think I always assumed that Crumb was rolling in it, rather than resisting it, almost morally.
I, too, figured he was making real money. And yes, the whole scene, as explained in the book, was fascinating to me. My experience with underground comics has been three or four issues of "American Splendor" that I bought 40 years ago (with some Crumb illustrations in it) and Zweigoff's "Crumb" documentary, which I think is really terrific. But that's it. Oddly, I have something of the same relationship with Crumb as I do William Burroughs. I'm interested in them as complex people; their art is rather secondary. Frankly, I think Burroughs is full of shit, the cut-up stuff in particular, but I'm still interested in the whole Beat scene. I'm fascinated by how social pressures generate these schools of linked artists, many of whom didn't even know each other when they started creating similar work. I think Crumb is more talented than Burroughs, though, by a considerable distance. Some of his work is beautifully conceived and is saying important things. But certainly not ALL of it.
I think Burroughs is absolutely brilliant for 4-5 pages. Much of his work, not just the cut-ups, read like vignettes randomly strung together. I also prefer him when he’s writing about ordinary things, living in the EV, working as an exterminator, etc.
I even get the shocking appeal of some of "Naked Lunch," but I also think a lot of it is garbage. Having the balls to write it is not the same thing as it actually being good.
Skillful unpacking Paul. I read this biography last month. I wanted to know more about Crumb’s Philly/Delaware life, but I also felt I got a real education on the history of comics, including the ups and downs of the business, and that was more interesting than I might’ve imagined—cashing in on waves of culture. I think I always assumed that Crumb was rolling in it, rather than resisting it, almost morally.
I, too, figured he was making real money. And yes, the whole scene, as explained in the book, was fascinating to me. My experience with underground comics has been three or four issues of "American Splendor" that I bought 40 years ago (with some Crumb illustrations in it) and Zweigoff's "Crumb" documentary, which I think is really terrific. But that's it. Oddly, I have something of the same relationship with Crumb as I do William Burroughs. I'm interested in them as complex people; their art is rather secondary. Frankly, I think Burroughs is full of shit, the cut-up stuff in particular, but I'm still interested in the whole Beat scene. I'm fascinated by how social pressures generate these schools of linked artists, many of whom didn't even know each other when they started creating similar work. I think Crumb is more talented than Burroughs, though, by a considerable distance. Some of his work is beautifully conceived and is saying important things. But certainly not ALL of it.
I think Burroughs is absolutely brilliant for 4-5 pages. Much of his work, not just the cut-ups, read like vignettes randomly strung together. I also prefer him when he’s writing about ordinary things, living in the EV, working as an exterminator, etc.
I even get the shocking appeal of some of "Naked Lunch," but I also think a lot of it is garbage. Having the balls to write it is not the same thing as it actually being good.