A review by mschlat
All of the Marvels by Douglas Wolk
3.0
The premise: Douglas Wolk has read every single Marvel comic book (with a few caveats), is viewing that reading as the exploration of a single fictional setting, and is carrying out a critical and cultural exegesis of the Marvel Universe. So - as a long comics reader and Marvel fan - this book should be right up my alley. It's not, and here's why....
1) Wolk is writing more as an apologist than as a critic. Wolk loves Marvel comics (and perhaps you need to be to read 27,000 issues). And that love often shows itself in promotion of the work (and his project) rather than examination. For example, the first three chapters focus on how you, the reader, can start reading Marvel comics anywhere, and it will be okay --- you will eventually figure out what you need to know.
When Wolk moves to the actual description of the comics, there is more criticism. As one example, his dissection of the different phases of Spider-man comics (with the Lee/Ditko issues focusing on finding father figures for Peter Parker) was very illuminating. And, in general, Wolk is very talented at finding the key themes of early Marvel work and pointing out how creators after Lee, Kirby, and Ditko had difficulties finding a new ethos for the characters they wrote.
But the critical focus is almost always concentrated on helping a reader see the grand themes. Wolk is helping you become a better Marvel reader. He's rarely interested in challenging the texts (as in --- to pick an extreme example ---[b:How to Read Donald Duck|197739|How to Read Donald Duck Imperialist Ideology in the Disney Comic|Ariel Dorfman|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1172607383l/197739._SX50_.jpg|191273]), reevaluating the idea of heroism (see most of Alan Moore's work), or exploring any extensive interplay with the historical context and the market-driven nature of the genre. In the end, the writing reminded me of biblical commentary from a fundamentalist perspective: the focus is making you a more educated Christian, period.
[My wife joked that I wanted The Comics Journal version of this book, and she's right. And if you understand that comment, you probably will have issues too.]
2) The writing style is too fragmented. In many chapters, Wolk organizes the material by introducing an issue (e.g., "Fantastic Four #whatever, written and drawn by such and such, published whenever ") and then using that issue to illustrate the theme he is exploring. Part of the charm of the book is how Wolk jumps from title to title and decade to decade in doing this; by no means is this a chronological history of Marvel. But his commitment to that structure means every time he jumps to an issue we stop, get a synopsis, and then continue with the criticism. After a while, I found the jumping tiring and wished there was a more straightforward way for him to use the texts as evidence.
So, not my cup of tea overall, but I absolutely enjoyed bits of it. (Wolk has the best take on the differences between Claremont and Byrne that I've ever read.) I just don't think it's the critical exegesis I wanted to see.
1) Wolk is writing more as an apologist than as a critic. Wolk loves Marvel comics (and perhaps you need to be to read 27,000 issues). And that love often shows itself in promotion of the work (and his project) rather than examination. For example, the first three chapters focus on how you, the reader, can start reading Marvel comics anywhere, and it will be okay --- you will eventually figure out what you need to know.
When Wolk moves to the actual description of the comics, there is more criticism. As one example, his dissection of the different phases of Spider-man comics (with the Lee/Ditko issues focusing on finding father figures for Peter Parker) was very illuminating. And, in general, Wolk is very talented at finding the key themes of early Marvel work and pointing out how creators after Lee, Kirby, and Ditko had difficulties finding a new ethos for the characters they wrote.
But the critical focus is almost always concentrated on helping a reader see the grand themes. Wolk is helping you become a better Marvel reader. He's rarely interested in challenging the texts (as in --- to pick an extreme example ---[b:How to Read Donald Duck|197739|How to Read Donald Duck Imperialist Ideology in the Disney Comic|Ariel Dorfman|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1172607383l/197739._SX50_.jpg|191273]), reevaluating the idea of heroism (see most of Alan Moore's work), or exploring any extensive interplay with the historical context and the market-driven nature of the genre. In the end, the writing reminded me of biblical commentary from a fundamentalist perspective: the focus is making you a more educated Christian, period.
[My wife joked that I wanted The Comics Journal version of this book, and she's right. And if you understand that comment, you probably will have issues too.]
2) The writing style is too fragmented. In many chapters, Wolk organizes the material by introducing an issue (e.g., "Fantastic Four #whatever, written and drawn by such and such, published whenever ") and then using that issue to illustrate the theme he is exploring. Part of the charm of the book is how Wolk jumps from title to title and decade to decade in doing this; by no means is this a chronological history of Marvel. But his commitment to that structure means every time he jumps to an issue we stop, get a synopsis, and then continue with the criticism. After a while, I found the jumping tiring and wished there was a more straightforward way for him to use the texts as evidence.
So, not my cup of tea overall, but I absolutely enjoyed bits of it. (Wolk has the best take on the differences between Claremont and Byrne that I've ever read.) I just don't think it's the critical exegesis I wanted to see.