A review by ashleylm
How to Read Nancy: The Elements of Comics in Three Easy Panels by Paul Karasik, Mark Newgarden
4.0
Oh, this is a hard one to rate. I'm not remotely a fan of Nancy, and to a certain extent I felt I was an unwitting participant in an elaborate put-on (could anybody be such a fan of Nancy as to write an entire book about—not even the entire strip, but just one weekly occurence of it?)
Because that's the premise of this book: one single strip, three measly panels, and an entire book about it. I've also read Richard Ayoade's Ayoade on Top, an entire book about the Gwyneth Paltrow film Vew from the Top which pretends to appreciate it as an artistic masterpiece. Was Karasik doing the same, sly thing?
I don't think so. I think he values Bushmiller's artistry and economy. And the entire book isn't quite about just those three panels: the first 71 pages are preamble, introduction, and bibliography. The final 100 or so pages are conclusions and appendices (quite interesting, actually), then 40 more pages of examples of other Nancy strips.
But that leaves over 80 pages entirely about those three panels, and Karasik pulls it off. He separates every last element of the strip into its own little essay, dealing with such matters as composition, or facial expression, or balloon placement. He begins with generalizations about the mini-subject (e.g. how balloons work in comcis), then moves on to specifics about how these balloons work in these three panels.
So I think Karasik's work is masterful, but for me it's a bit misplaced—since I really don't like Nancy and while I've come around a bit to appreciating her slightly more, she's still firmly in the negative side. So many aspects of the strip rankled me, even as a child, when I could hardly have been influenced by what the cool kids in university felt about it. I enjoyed Peanuts, I thought it was hilarious and touching. Nancy seemed ... dumb. Catering to two year olds, not big grown-up five year olds like me. Fritzi's hair never changed ... why would a glamorous aunt retain a hair cut from the 1940s? It made no sense to me.
So, like an expert cookbook beautifully written about rhubarb (shudder) or herring fillets (double shudder), I can't fully appreciate it.
Note: I have written a novel (not yet published), so now I will suffer pangs of guilt every time I offer less than five stars. In my subjective opinion, the stars suggest:
(5* = one of my all-time favourites, 4* = really enjoyed it, 3* = readable but not thrilling, 2* = actually disappointing, and 1* = hated it. As a statistician I know most books are 3s, but I am biased in my selection and end up mostly with 4s, thank goodness.)
Because that's the premise of this book: one single strip, three measly panels, and an entire book about it. I've also read Richard Ayoade's Ayoade on Top, an entire book about the Gwyneth Paltrow film Vew from the Top which pretends to appreciate it as an artistic masterpiece. Was Karasik doing the same, sly thing?
I don't think so. I think he values Bushmiller's artistry and economy. And the entire book isn't quite about just those three panels: the first 71 pages are preamble, introduction, and bibliography. The final 100 or so pages are conclusions and appendices (quite interesting, actually), then 40 more pages of examples of other Nancy strips.
But that leaves over 80 pages entirely about those three panels, and Karasik pulls it off. He separates every last element of the strip into its own little essay, dealing with such matters as composition, or facial expression, or balloon placement. He begins with generalizations about the mini-subject (e.g. how balloons work in comcis), then moves on to specifics about how these balloons work in these three panels.
So I think Karasik's work is masterful, but for me it's a bit misplaced—since I really don't like Nancy and while I've come around a bit to appreciating her slightly more, she's still firmly in the negative side. So many aspects of the strip rankled me, even as a child, when I could hardly have been influenced by what the cool kids in university felt about it. I enjoyed Peanuts, I thought it was hilarious and touching. Nancy seemed ... dumb. Catering to two year olds, not big grown-up five year olds like me. Fritzi's hair never changed ... why would a glamorous aunt retain a hair cut from the 1940s? It made no sense to me.
So, like an expert cookbook beautifully written about rhubarb (shudder) or herring fillets (double shudder), I can't fully appreciate it.
Note: I have written a novel (not yet published), so now I will suffer pangs of guilt every time I offer less than five stars. In my subjective opinion, the stars suggest:
(5* = one of my all-time favourites, 4* = really enjoyed it, 3* = readable but not thrilling, 2* = actually disappointing, and 1* = hated it. As a statistician I know most books are 3s, but I am biased in my selection and end up mostly with 4s, thank goodness.)