The whole team sits down with the newest Daniel Clowes book, Patience. That's right! D CLOWES!
« BEAT CONNECTION 017-2: Early '16 Heat Check (Part Two) | Main | I'M JUST CRAZY... ABOUT THIS STORE »
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
I think this is the most wrong-headed comics discussion I've ever listened to -- and that's really saying something.
Posted by: Jeet Heer | 2016.03.31 at 15:26
Finally, I've done something of permanence.
Posted by: Joe McCulloch | 2016.03.31 at 16:30
pdf versions of comics suck shit. i still would take wilson over patience eight days a week, but man alive, fuck a pdf.
Posted by: tucker | 2016.03.31 at 19:05
Lol
Posted by: Matt Seneca | 2016.03.31 at 20:09
Seriously though, Jeet, if you're up for elaboration, I'd be glad to hear it.
Posted by: Joe McCulloch | 2016.03.31 at 22:25
Hey guys, interesting episode as per usual, but i do hold the comic patience in greater esteem then you do it seems, coming at it from the theme of "love" as a last resort of all of Daniel Clowes previous charaters and previous themes.
Sure it is a bit naive, but it still is touching, taking into account his usual jaded synicism, and doing a straight narrative and ending this narrative with about how salvation lies with the "other".
Might be a dorky statement, but, i feel, him going at it sincerely without hiding behind his usual synicism is pretty brave in his oeuvre.
Posted by: Ghadi | 2016.04.02 at 05:24
I took Patience as consistent with Clowes's ongoing effort to plumb the depths of toxic masculinity and selfishness. It's like the unholy child of Weisenger and Ditko. In this respect, I think it's unfair to describe it as a lesser version of more contemporary genre works (I'm looking at you Mr. Stone)... Seneca sort of gets at this in his suggestion that this is Clowes doing the "bad comics" thing. All that having been said, I like the book better in retrospect. I found reading it a bit of a slog. Still, it stuck in my craw, and I suspect I'll go back to it soon.
Posted by: Nate A. | 2016.04.03 at 17:41
I didn't describe it as that. I said that IF it was that, which i don't think it was, it was a bad version of that. There's a distinction there that I may not have made clear, but it isn't a one-to-one.
Posted by: tucker | 2016.04.04 at 13:01
Or I just misunderstood... I was referring to your unfavorable comparison of "Patience" to "Interstellar," which I took as a one-to-one comparison. But I can see the distinction you're making.
Posted by: Nate A. | 2016.04.05 at 08:33