Return to active status delayed, but...

By Alex Ness
January 4, 2021

I've had to go on hiatus before, and usually it ends right away, I love comics, movies, books and games.  (Music too, but I am aware I tend to like or not like stuff and that's as far as the discussion goes).  In this case, due to health issues related to surgery, I am not ready to return.  The original description of my situation was that I had a degenerative disc disease, and I needed to be operated upon to help deal with that.  But when the surgeon made his entry he discovered a broken bone, a missing disc, a calcified piece of bone, a torn spinal cord, and fluid leak.  I'd obviously had a fall that led to damage.  When after the surgery I asked the doctor if it had really been that dangerous, he said, had your airbag gone off in the October car crash you had, you'd now be a quadriplegic or dead.  Which is a statement that will linger, I promise.  Healing and sleep have both gone very poorly, even if all healing takes time, it's been a long journey.  As such my return won't be immediate, and I am not aware of any way I could make my presence regular.  Every two steps forward I seem to take two steps back.

As a result of actions by some very kind people, my life isn't all poop. A generous person gave me a Chromebook so I can continue to work, as my normal computer crashed twice between December 2019 and February 2020. I was barely getting by. I received support from family and friends who know I make very little money. They bought books or donated money. Having 2 MRIs and dozens of dr visits, along with surgery, has a cost. My outlook has been good, even though what I'm going through has been brutal.  In this dark place of 2020 memories, I didn't read as much as I'd have liked, the focus needed to do so was usually interrupted by pain and lack of sleep.  So, the idea that I could compose something of worth to say, is questionable, more so than in the past, at least, as there are people who think I've never had anything worth saying, even finding my best interviews tedious.

In the time I've spent not writing about comics or books, I've had a number of people in the journalistic side of comics write to me and ask weirdly similar questions about people I've interviewed, primarily Chuck Dixon and Mike Baron. I respect both the work and the person's creating that work. I like them.  The asking me of questions such as is Chuck Dixon racist or is Mike Baron religious or from a certain ethnic group are pointless exercises. I don't know. Even if I know the people, I can tell you that while you can make your own mental groundwork by reading their interviews, or reading their work, you'll get far more from actually asking the people themselves rather than me. I've regarded both as friends, so I get wanting insight into their being. But both men are on social media, and both are very responsive. (I do know, whatever my views of Chuck are, on Facebook and especially Twitter, when I shared an interview I did with him, or reviewed a work of his, or shared his Youtube content, I'd always lose followers from the comics world. Every single time.)  Chuck and Mike have both been very generous in the time I've been in the periphery of writing about comics.

I think it is true that, there are nasty evil people in every field of human endeavor, including the creative arts.  The desire to follow only your version of morality is understandable, even if it is limited, and creates an echo chamber.  When I grew up, many many years ago, I was told we live in a world of free speech and the marketplace of ideas is one where the best reasoned and rationally argued view will win the day.  We are not there now.  In fact, I think the way society is at present is approaching bankruptcy, because, if one is honest, no one is sinless and whoever is making the judgment of the artist is no more free of sin than the artist being judged. Then the one judging make things worse as they reject whatever the artist creates out of a misplaced sense of self righteousness.

As an example, and I acknowledge that this was naughty of me, I found a number of images of paintings by Adolf Hitler.  Without letting the person viewing it know who created the images, I asked them if they found them beautiful.  In most cases the viewer did.  But when notified that the art was from the bad ol' Hitler, they were in most cases horrified, and in one case pissed off.  I'm not suggesting ideas and philosophies should be absent from any work. I am also not saying I won't like a work if I don't like or agree with the philosophy expressed. My concern comes from, how does it affect the work. If you read the book Anthem by Ayn Rand, by the end of reading it you'll have to agree that it is a pure form of propaganda. And as such I appreciate the quality it has, but, realize it was meant to illuminate a certain worldview.  As such, my outlook towards the final product isn't really if it is good quality art. It uses art, but the goal isn't to express creatively, it is to creatively use a narrative to teach. I could accept the work, or not, but never said it shouldn't be read because it was political, I'd say, it was a political work.  (I might dislike Ms Rand in general, and think most of her work is less than enjoyable for reading material, Anthem worked in its own way.)

In general asking me about this is something that isn't productive.  I look at the art, and judge that. I get rather annoyed when people only think of the person creating it. I can appreciate the art of John Byrne, even if the things he has said are assholish. I appreciate a wide variety of creative and artistic people, without a single thought to their political outlook.  A better example of how I view the work first, only thereafter the artist is When I first read the comics by Josh Howard I was unaware of his religious outlook, and in my review I said I was amazed by the quality of work but my single caveat for the reader was, he seemed to have a religious theme that was underneath the rest of the work. Not knowing where it came from I just said it to mark an awareness of a theme, without being able to say anything more deep about it. The ideas expressed were interesting, but it didn't make the art at all solely or even mostly propaganda.  (Josh Howard is an awesomely talented, kind and moral fellow.)

So, the lesson for the day is not politics or religion or philosophy are bad.  I don't judge a creator's views by his or her art.  Just as an actor can play Hitler without having Hitler's worldviews or diseased mind, one can write work without it being a political memorandum or testament.