UPDATING OCCASIONALLY (FOR NOW)

9 thoughts on “542 – Catching Up”

  1. Keith

    Some friction, but yeah. IRL, I’d like these two…they should have kids. 😉

    1. Dawn

      I might have to draw out what their kid would look like. First thought is that their kid would look like Ongo Gablogian from “It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia”

    2. Scarsdale

      He’s pushing 60, she’s maybe 30, more likely less. Chuck is most likely shooting blanks, and besides, he’s talking to her like a baby sister than a love interest.

      1. Keith

        Up in these hills, sometimes family is all y’gots. 😉

  2. ConcordBob

    It is really hard to have a favorite character, as there are so many good ones. But I think Rosa is my favorite. Chuck is a good accomplice in sneaking work, but not much for romance. Uugh.

  3. Otaku

    I mean, if they don’t have at least an inkling of what’s going down, I’m actually disappointed in Clearstream. If anything, I’m starting to wonder if they caught on and realized “Wait, we can use this.”

    Because of course they can. 😉

  4. Dr. Norman (not a real doctor)

    I’m way ahead of you – I’ve been waiting for you to catch up. From November 2020:
    I would hope for nothing less – her and Chuck have the potential for a great deal of positive mischief.
    Speaking of which, I received the email notifying me that my order for the NSFW “Chuck and Rosa Finally Do It” (age verification required) limited edition hardcover is going to be delayed due to the pandemic. I think it’s really cool that you’ll be adding some additional stretch goal goodies when it ships – thanks for all your story and art.
    As for the inscription, ” We owe it all to you ” will be sufficient.

  5. Crazyman

    Partners in crime! 😈

  6. TKG

    A crime so perfect she went full on wall-eye!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

 

542 – Catching Up
Posted on April 9, 2025 by Dawn

Putting the -ism in literary criticism.

Posted on March 22, 2017 by Clint
As you might imagine, it’s a pet peeve of mine when comics are categorically dismissed as an art form or as having any merit beyond the purely commercial. This attitude has seemed to soften in the 21st Century with works like Watchmen earning literary recognition, but traces of it linger, as I was reminded just recently by this article in the Irish Times. The dismissed parties in this case are not comics authors, they are authors of prose crime fiction, but the details are all too familiar. In the midst of a sprawling essay by a former professor of English at a prestigious university praising one of his unsung proteges of creative writing, there is a sudden, almost non-sequitur lashing out:

“But authors make mistakes, too. Very few non-commercial writers know how to successfully advance their careers. Michael was no exception. He changed agents, publishers, gave up writing short stories – a critical mistake in this country, if you want to continue to be noticed as a literary writer – and attempted to jump into the crime genre to entice the vagrant reader. If bestsellers were easy to write there would be more of them. Michael, unfortunately, had, has, too much talent to succeed as a crime writer. He doesn’t possess the fatal lack of talent required. He asks too much of a reader. America really doesn’t possess enough of a literary culture anymore to maintain a writer like Michael.”

The article I linked above was a response to this portion, which in the original essay is truthfully only one paragraph out of many. And yet, what a terrible, bitter thing to write. What a sadly unchallenged view it still is, in certain circles of academia, that entire genres of fiction are somehow inherently inferior, a view often based in a few bad examples or just outright ignorance based on nothing but inherited or imagined prejudice. And as I thought about it, I thought how that seemed eerily familiar. Dismissal of genres (or in the case of comics, an entire medium) as inferior is nothing more or less than literary bigotry, with no more merit or justice to it than if you were to similarly discount say, certain minorities. Or women. Speaking of which–just in case you think I’m reaching with that comparison–the original essay had this to say as well regarding Michael Collins’ career success problems:

“One difficulty is that Michael, unlike the three writers mentioned above, is not a Dead White Male (a category anathema in US literature departments for the last 30 years), but a Live White Male, not a demographic entity that is much in fashion these days. Though globalised in actuality, Michael is not globalised by background or genetics.”

As a Live White Male myself, I will admit to not being much in fashion — at least in the sense that I love aloha shirts to what is, arguably, a fault, and have taken to wearing a pith helmet in the rain. But I halt well short of any implications that I am being unfairly passed over, and were it me being referenced in the paragraph above I would have to thank the professor for his efforts on my behalf, but ask him to stop “helping.” Anyhow, I’m not so bitter yet as to apply Sturgeon’s Law to people, but where literary criticism is concerned, literary bigotry is easily avoided by remembering that ninety percent of all fiction is crud, regardless of medium, genre, source or marketability. And keep in mind that they all also have that remaining ten percent which justifies the rest.