A crítica na parede
Na entrevista que fiz semana passada com Moon e Bá, perguntei a eles sobre o que achavam da crítica de quadrinhos aqui no Brasil e pedi uma nota a essa crítica, no que eles me responderam:
Fábio:
De zero a dez, cinco. São bem intencionados, são apaixonados por quadrinhos, mas falta profundidade.
Bá: De zero a dez, 3. Primeiro, é difícil ter uma crítica de uma produção tão pequena. Outro porque, na maioria, os críticos são fãs e muitas vezes perdem o olhar crítico da essência mesmo da história ou da técnica. O que se vê por aí são resenhas, resumos. Pouca coisa aprofundada mesmo.
Ainda levantando o debate (no qual e e outros estamos na berlinda), hoje, o Newsarama postou o seguinte:
Time for another roundtable! For this edition, I thought we’d examine an issue somewhat related to the last discussion: Why don’t comics critics talk about the art?
That seems to be one of the consistent complaints regarding comics critics these days. That, whether due to lack of the proper vocabulary or art background, laziness, or just plain ignorance, most comic reviews seem to focus exclusively on a book’s dialogue, plot or general written elements, and avoid mentioning the art work as much as possible.
I’m not 100 percent sure that’s true. I can think of a number of critics, online and off, that intelligently and effectively discuss the art work when reviewing a particular comic or artist’s ouevre.
On the other hand, if I’m being be honest, it’s not like I myself am some paragon of reviewing virtue. I have easily and on more than occasion struggled to come up with words in an attempt to articulate a particular artist’s style or method. And certainly, when space is tight (as it frequently can be when you’re writing for print), I will more often focus on what the book is about rather than how it goes about its business.
Para ler o debate completo, clique aqui.
