The second of the nominees I’m going to cover is Schlock Mercenary by Howard Tayler (art and script). Book 10, The Longshoreman of the Apocalypse, is the collection eligible for the 2010 Hugos. It’s not yet available for purchase, but a reader can easily go to the archives and choose which book they’d like to read. You can start at volume one if you like, but it’s easy enough to follow without reading several years’ worth of comic. (Because there are a whole lot. It would take a considerable amount of time to read a decade’s worth of comic in the short time available before voting ends.) Tayler has also created a quick-reference for any new readers that delineates the characters and setting, which is a nice touch.
Schlock Mercenary as a whole is a comedic space opera done mostly in single-strips on a daily basis. It’s like reading a newspaper comic with similar art style and tone, which makes it different from the other nominees for the award—it represents a different medium of comics, not just because it’s a webcomic, but because it’s a humor strip. Tonally speaking, it’s a whole different universe.
The Longshoreman of the Apocalypse follows the crew of the mercenary ship Touch-and-Go through what should have been a routine food delivery to the Credomar habitat, a human space colony that’s having some—a lot—of political problems. The contract didn’t mention the political problems. Through various stages of combat and comical mishaps, the Touch-and-Go crew tries to stay alive and deliver the food to somebody, without being sued into oblivion. The titular character, Lota (Longshoreman of the Apocalypse), is a robot who in the end manages to be the savior for the Credomar habitat and the Touch-and-Go, thanks to too-smart programming. Lota stays on Credomar as duly elected king at the end of book 10 while the Touch-and-Go move on to their next assignment.
I find this nomination curious and interesting. In fact, I don’t quite see how it made it to the list not just this year, but last year, too. After all, you rarely see humor novels nominated for the Hugo. It’s not that I don’t like humor—but I see the Hugo as an award for excellence in storytelling and craft. Rarely, and I mean rarely, does a humor novel have the thematics or craft work to match up to the “serious” novels of that year. (Which is not to say that they never do: Douglas Adams, for example, is quite the master.) I would argue that’s the problem I have with Schlock Mercenary and why it won’t be my pick. I like it, make no mistake, and I love that a webcomic done in “newspaper” strip style made it onto the nominee list. I even like that a humorous story made it on there.
But I’m not seeing that excellence, here, especially in comparison to other comics that came out in the same year. For a graphic story award, a piece needs to show mastery in at least one of two things, ideally both: art and story. Tayler is a productive artist—he manages to keep a hard schedule of publication, day after day, for years. That’s impressive, even if he was only doing the script, but he also does the art. The thing is, that art is simple caricature work. It’s perfect for the strip-comic style, yes, and probably the only manageable thing for such a heavy schedule. So, cross off art from the list of “excellence” qualifiers: it’s good for what it is, but it’s up against things like Fables, which is known for its gorgeous illustration. (Or, if one wants to limit to webcomics, take a look at the art for Girl Genius.)
When it comes to story, there’s nothing wrong with Schlock Mercenary. It moves along at a good clip, it’s readable, it’s funny. I can’t say enough that I like this comic and I don’t think there’s anything bad about it, because this seems like such a negative review, but only in the context of the Hugo Award and its history of winners. The problem I have is that, without extraordinary art, I want a mind-blowing story that really does some strong narrative work. Schlock Mercenary doesn’t do that. It’s relatively predictable and moves along the general paths of a humor story—lots of mishaps and adventures that allow for jokes—but that’s a problem for me when it comes to an award like this. Fun is not enough. I don’t want to just like it, I want to twist my brain around it and spend hours pondering the work the author did with the characters and plot once I’m finished. Some sort of moral complication, maybe? I don’t know. Reading this with the intent of judging its place on my potential ballot was a different experience than reading for pleasure.
Schlock Mercenary is a good read and I recommend it, but not for the Hugo Award. If I could extrapolate a little, I think that its nomination is a hint toward the reading habits of the average Hugo voter—they’re SFF fans. While a lot of SFF readers like comics, most of them seem to have a brief touching point with the genre and that’s it. A free webcomic, a space opera no less, is going to appeal. It’s easy to access, friends can link you to it, it has genre-relevant jokes and gags. I’m also aware of the other “side” of the Hugo, the part that is all about fan love and popularity, and I like that half too. I suppose if it’s a vote for the most-read, not the-absolute-best, then it works for me.
You know, I could pull that reading habits theory over the other nominees, too: the two Universe stories are by, respectively, Neil Gaiman and Paul Cornell, who SFF fans are already familiar with and love. Two other nominees are free webcomics. Fables is just about the only comic on the list that I don’t see having a tie, via author or easy access, to the SFF fandom. Then again—the Hugo is an SFF award. I’d just like to see the voters branch out more to unfamiliar people and comics that aren’t directly part of the usual circles.
Feel free to argue with me. It’s just that—being a comics reader as much as an SFF reader—I see so many things that were passed over, likely because they were not as readily at hand for the voters. Then again, people argue every year that the Hugo is too narrow a circle of super-popular authors and artists. Sometimes I agree with that, sometimes I don’t, but I am beating a dead horse and readily admit it. On that note—
Tomorrow: Girl Genius!
Lee Mandelo is a multi-fandom geek with a special love for comics and queer literature. She can be found on Twitter and Livejournal.
I kinda wish one of the “Locke and Key” series had been nominated, personally. It’s such a fascinating series that, in true Joe Hill fashion, keeps getting darker and more twisted and convoluted as it progresses.
I think we’ll have to look at the list of nominated works that didn’t make the ballot to get a better idea of what people nominate and see if that also supports your theory. (the list will be published after the winners are announced
Every year, some people wonder why this novel or that fanwriter didn’t make the ballot. Often it’s found that a handful extra nominations would have been enough to change things.
This year I nominated Freakangels and Mousegard, Winter 1152, neither of which made the ballot (Freakangels for the second time) All we can do is keep nominating as well as getting as many people as possible to nominate and vote, and to nominate properly (by properly, I don’t mean “nominate what I think you should”, but “write the title and bibliographical info down correctly so the administrator knows what you’re talking about”).
cybernetic_nomad:
“This year I nominated Freakangels and Mousegard, Winter 1152, neither of which made the ballot (Freakangels for the second time)”
You don’t say how you nominated ‘Freakangels’, but as you make reference to how it performed last year, I think I must point out that it will never make the ballot if it is only nominated as ‘Freakangels’. You – and anyone else interested in nominating it – would need to nominate the specific eligible book from the series, rather than the series as a whole. Though, having said that, I see at the end of your comment you do mention getting the bibliographical information right, so I apologise if I’m teaching you to suck eggs here.
‘Mouseguard, Winter 1152’ was released in 2008, so would’ve been eligible for the award last year. Not this year, I’m afraid.
Going back to Brit’s original post, now:
“You know, I could pull that reading habits theory over the other nominees, too: the two Universe stories are by, respectively, Neil Gaiman and Paul Cornell, who SFF fans are already familiar with and love. Two other nominees are free webcomics. Fables is just about the only comic on the list that I don’t see having a tie, via author or easy access, to the SFF fandom. ”
Your theory is pretty much spot on, I’d say. Girl Genius and Schlock Mercenary both encouraged their readers to nominate them for the Hugo, Paul Cornell used his blog to tell people how they should nominate his comic for the Hugo if they wanted to (which is more than understandable, given what happened last year), and Neil Gaimen… well, he’s Neil Gaiman. Fables, as you say, is a bit of the odd-one-out here, but like Y: the Last Man last year, it’s the most well known, critically acclaimed, and clearly SF (in the speculative definition of SF) work out there, so just about manages the most crossover between SF fans and comics fans.
What Fables doesn’t have that the rest do is a writer who has a website where the work is promoted as a Hugo contender. Look at the figures last year – Girl Genius got by far and away the most nominations, Schlock Mercenary had about half of what Girl Genius got, and the rest of the ballot got, IIRC, less than half each of what Schlock Mercenary got (roughly, 65 for GG, 30 for SM, and 13 each for the rest).
To be clear; I’m not saying there’s anything wrong, per se, with people pimping their own eligible works (it happens across the board, after all). But in this category, it does appear to be having a disproportionate effect, and I think we (being the SF community as a whole) need to figure out what we can do to level the playing field a bit. I think one of the things is that SF comics could be covered more in SF blogs and magazines, so I’m pleased to see these articles appearing on Tor.com at least, and am hoping that it won’t end here.
I seem to have digressed somewhat, it would appear. For the comic under discussion, I fear in my case I have to play the “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all” card and sit on my hands a bit.
I’m on a borrowed computer so I can’t post much in detail but I will say that as an 6 year reader of Schlock, I love it. My personal opinion is that humor will never be as well awarded as drama. Western culture just doesn’t value it, I’ll amend that if people disagree but from my perspective its accurate. If Schlock Mercenary doesn’t win a Hugo, I won’t be surprised. But on merit I think it deserves to be on the list as much as any of the others.
Mouseguard, Winter 1152 was started in 2008, but the last issue came out in May 2009, making it eligible for the 2010 Hugo. See http://www.mouseguard.net/books.htm for a complete list of the issues, including release dates.
@cybernetic_nomad:
Ah. Wikipedia is wrong, then, as that has the last issue as having come out in August 2008. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouse_Guard#Mouse_Guard:_Winter_1152
The fault is entirely mine, though, and I really should know better as I’ve ticked people off in the past myself for basing comments on comics entirely off erroneous information on Wikipedia. I normally use Comic Book DB for this sort of information (and checking it now, that has the same information as you say), and I really don’t know why I didn’t use it this time. Possibly because I already had a Wikipedia window open.
Mea culpas aside, having looked at the publication dates for the issue – two years to get six issues out? Ouch. That’s an awful schedule, it really is.
It’s interesting to me that you say Fables has no tie via easy access or author to SFF fandom.
I’m currently entertaining the theory that the reason I’m less active in SFF Fandom than I used to be is that its cast of characters is a lot less like the dramatis personae of Fables than it once was.
You hardly ever see con reports and fanzines in SFF fandom, these days, from Gary, Cindy and the Page Sisters (or even Flycatcher)!
@Milo1313
I think a lot was missed out on this year, really. A whole lot.
@psychoferret
I don’t think I can agree–after all, the quote that comedy is harder than tragedy is English. But I also don’t believe I should hold anything humorous to a lower standard than I would a non-humorous story. I hold comedy to the same standard of storytelling I do drama. (One of my favorite books is actually “Good Omens,” a humor novel if I ever saw one, but it’s also Doing Something narratively.) I expect a humor story to pay just as much attention to its narrative as its jokes. The fact is, they usually don’t, and that’s a shame. I like to laugh as much as the next guy/gal.
@lennyb
Bill Willingham is just not as famous in SFF as Gaiman or Cornell. (Not many people are as famous as Gaiman, in comics or SFF.)
As for humor being less well regarded in Western culture, I also have to disagree. “Dr. Strangelove” is often considered one of the greatest movies ever. I think though, that dark humor is usually held as superior to lighter comedy.
To be exact, I pointed out the *precise form of words* required to successfully nominate Captain Britain and MI-13 for a Hugo. I (really) wish I didn’t have to do that, because I hate Hugo-pimping, but the previous year’s problems rather forced me into it. I did also post two blogs of ‘Comics Hugo Voters Should Read’, with, I think, 35 titles in all, only two of which made it to the nominations. There’s no doubt that Fables should win a Hugo. It just… doesn’t *have* to be this year!
@Paul Cornell
I feel I should apologise; what I meant to say in my original comment was what you’ve said in your own, though looking back I see that I perhaps wasn’t entirely clear in my own phrasing. Sorry about that. As I said, I completely understand your position.
I realise this might be a bit soon to ask, but will you be doing further blog posts on ‘Comics Hugo Voters Should Read’, highlighting comics for next year?
FWIW, Paul Cornell’s Hugo recommendations really rocked.
@Holden Carver: Actually, the Mouseguard thing illustrates a problem with nominations: what if the source of information people access to see if a work is eligible is incorrect and so they don’t nominate something that _is_ eligible? And yes, David Petersen is killing me with his release schedule.