Mister Wonderful + George Sprott

This week I read Mister Wonderful and George Sprott. I've had some experience reading Clowes before, but none with Seth.

Mister Wonderful was in some ways very similar to Ghost World, but at the same time a very different setup. I was already used to Clowes use of dialogue heavy writing, but I felt one thing that was very interesting was how he placed it within the frame. At times it's cutoff by the edges of the frame, but one of his more constant themes has been using thought boxes that completely overpower the actual audible dialogue in the story. Because Marshall is so completely self-conscious and overthinks every situation he's in, it overtakes reality and it seems like the stories being played out in his head become more important than what surrounds him. Although this story really only documents the span of one night, he plays it out to be this gigantic event. As a character Marshall has his ups and downs; at times he can be very collected and quiet, but then he can have explosive moments (such as when he screams at the homeless man or when he blacks out and gets in a fight with Noah at a party). However, the ending brings him finding someone who can accept his inherent flaws and still enjoy his company regardless. That is something that I believe to be at the core of most relationships, albeit not necessarily to the extent that exists with Marshall and Natalie. They both feel like they have a lot of baggage but it's enough for both of them to handle. I feel the strongest part of this book is the way that Clowes arranges his panels and text boxes. The wider format creates an almost cinematic feel to some of the scenes, which makes perfect sense as these scenes are very common in film (I.E. first date at a restaurant, party scene). Again, the overlapping text is what I feel to be one of the most interesting parts of this story, and how it really explains more about Marshall and how he's viewing the situation.

George Sprott is my introduction to Seth's work, and I'm very interested in reading more of his work now. This book also happened to be in an unconventional format, I had to pull it from the oversize section of the library. However, the amount of space is necessary for how much information he needs to squeeze into these boxes. The story reads as a series of interviews with people associated with George, a deceased television show host. One thing I noticed by the end is how little they actually show about George doing anything with the broadcast. I feel that this is pushing the idea that a career does not necessarily define a person, but instead it just happens to be a catalyst for the other events in his life to unfold. Each person identified George by two things: the way he treated them, and the place they associated with knowing him. This ranged from the arctic to the diner that he ate at regularly until the day he died. A lot of this story also focuses on the idea of modernization and how that has affected things that were thriving in the 70's. What I find most interesting about this is the method of storytelling; it's a biography, and the character being written about does make appearances in small flashbacks, but we learn the most about him not through his own actions but through the descriptions of his friends and family. I thought the ending was pretty funny, interviewing the stereotypical obsessive collector as a final remembrance of George. I also enjoyed the role of the narrator, who is at times very passive and reserved with what he feels he needs to share with the audience. I think that this is what is the backbone to this story: the selective nature of the storytellers. Because George himself doesn't tell the story, it is really up to the reader to decide which people to believe, and for that matter it's entirely up to the interviewees to decide how much they want to tell everyone and what sort of an image they wish to portray of George.

--David