Oh! You pretty things!

Webcomic: Angry D. Monkey

It took me more time than I expected to review Keon Brown’s “Angry D. Monkey”. Partly, because ADM is a tricky case, it verges on the thin line between not taking yourself seriously and not having anything to take serious. So it took me some time to figure out to which side ADM is closer. Besides, my review of “Reckless youth” seemed confusing to people, so I didn’t want to make same mistake and took my time in straitening my thoughts. Then I was out of town for five days and on second day, I was very clear on what I am going to say about “Angry D. Monkey”.

So, without a further ado, a digression:

Ha ha ha.

But seriously, a digression that is going to introduce us into the matter.

Reviewing or criticizing a comic (or anything else) means, most simplified, scaling the comic on two scales: first, a scale of realized intention; Which means, figuring out to what the intention of author was, and how much successfully it was realized. You’ll agree that it is not fair, comparing, for instance, a lighthearted comedy made for one-time fun with a complex drama about man’s inner doubts. In comparison, lighthearted comedy will always lose, unless you’re of opinion that serious topics have to place in art (which, hopefully, noone does). The truth is, these two have to be observed on completely different scales, by completely different rules. The one-time comedy is successful if it entertained the reader for the time it took him to read it. Inner-doubts drama is successful if it is telling the reader what it was aimed to tell, if it is provoking him to think about the given topics, and if it is not fun all the time, if it does not make you laugh or sit at the edge of your seats, that’s perfectly understandable, because it wasn’t its goal anyway.

But then, there is another scale, the one that compares different intentions of authors. Now you gotta admit: a lighthearted comedy made for one-time fun must be on this scale significantly lower than a complex drama about man’s inner doubts, for various reasons; For one, I strongly believe that the second one is telling us more about this world than the first one. Second one is also harder to make good; With drama, you always have to verge on the edge of being pathetic and pretentious; There are to punchlines or byway jokes to save the shaky plot. Dramas mirror reality, therefore their scenes, dialogues are restricted to it; One-timers usually don’t have this limitation and therefore more things are passable. Etc etc, I’m sure you could think up a few reasons yourself, but my point is that there is a scale of how ambitious the author is, and the real evaluation of the comic should probably be some kind of combination of these two.

Badly done comic, no mater how ambitious it is and how complex it’s initial concept is, is still bad; And good comic is still good no matter how easy-going the initial premise is. But then, among good comics, there are variations based on what they achieve.

“Angry D. Monkey” is, before all, a relaxed comedy, so relaxed that it’s self-aware and self-parodying all the time. If I was clear enough in my previous paragraph, then you know that there are genres (well, genres is not a good word; Better: conceptions, intentions;) that I value much more than this one; But then again, ADM is good in what it does, and that’s definitely better than unrealized expectations of some much more serious but failed conceptions. Perhaps later, I’ll manage to explain just why ADM is good at what it does.

Ok, now, “Angry D. Monkey” is a story about Angry, boxer champion monkey who retired to a sort of abandoned island with this younger brother Happy and his frog trainee Ton. Some laid-back adventures ensue, laid back because most of the plots quickly resolve by Angry beating up someone. Storylines are quickly introduced and quickly resolved that way; Most of plot resolve around Angry’s past glory coming back to haunt him in one way or the other and indeed, he is a standard past-troubled character with torturous flashbacks that pop-up in most intense moments. Crew is joined by Aphrodite, goddess who has an obsessive crush on Angry.

Characters are cleverly conceived: Angry is perpetually mad person, we rarely see a grin on his face; On the other side, Happy is a wide-eyed kid to whom the world is a big adventure, and it’s scare how these two characters are similar in a weird way. Spotlight-stealer is Ton, the frog, Angry’s trainee and fan, and it is his constant clumsy imitation of Angry that brings a laugh most of the time (I’d even say that, while most of jokes in the comic deserve no more than a grin, it’s Ton’s remarks that get a laugh out of us). This brings interesting dynamics in the comic: sturdy, manly character of Angry, followed by his reflection is a funhouse mirror. Ton, who keeps repeating and rephrasing Angry’s lines and actions.

Artist of ADM went from first influences like kiddie anime shows and ended up in an unexpected place: something close to American mainstream caricature style; Still he’s much better when he draws animals, while with human characters, character designs are sometimes overly simplified in a way a kid would simplify their drawings. The look ADM is going for is a kind of children picture-book, and this impression is actually emphasized by the script most of the time. Lineart uses simple, thick lines, a bit shaky at times, with thicker outlines of objects (he is resourceful, though, at times he comes up with interesting solutions, from the early scene when Ton catches the fish to the later fight scenes): all this brings to mind old colouring books. On the other hand, colouring is bright, contrasting colours are brought together and, all in all, art is very colour-happy. There is no shading, colours are flat, it seems like an effort is put to keep images flat and two-dimensional.

All this seems like a part of conscious effort to bring the feel of the children picture-book that features a bunch of funny characters looking for whoever stole the pie from the window or something like that. And not even one of those gracious fairy-tale books for older kids, no, one of those books for the smallest kind. But ADM gives a wink (by swearing, mild nudity or violence – nothing big but still obvious hint) that it is actually a mock picture book intended for grownups. This kind of setup is successfully made by now and I am interested (perhaps even concerned) to see what author will do with it; I believe that this concept deserves to be more than just a frame for some wacky adventures. I believe than author manages to lure our inner child out by using familiar picture-book style, now what is he going to do with that inner child? I believe that there are opportunities for exploiting relationship between inner child and outer adult here, and in that way, ADM has managed to set the stage but has a long way to go.

Incidentally: it seems like placement of speech balloons sometimes isn’t properly thought out in advance, so these balloons, added later, cover up some important objects in picture in a few instances. Tiny thing that I noticed.

Now I’d like to return to writing. As I said, main characters are well-concieved and at best when they counteract with each other, and dialogues help them; Stories are simple, and as I said, so far they worked for the whole. But then, sometimes I’m not even sure what happened in the end (Kortlando storyline); Sometimes I’m not sure about character’s motivation; Sure, in picture-book villains do vile stuff because they’re evil, that’s all the motivation they need in ADM too (just like all motivation Aphrodite needs to fall in love with Angry is that he’s a main character); But when I smell that someone’s actions are plot devices, that’s when wheels start to squeal and characters stop being convincing as picture-book characters as well as real characters (for instance, Mulligan’s manager beating up Happy seems like just a plot device to get Happy dead).

There is a thing about Angry’s character that is both useful for the whole comic, and ungrateful for its author. Angry is what I like to call a perfect character. Namely, a kind of character whose skills have to real opponent – like Superman, a character that needs some sort of plot device (kryptonite) to make stories into something more than beating up the enemy. Take Angry: he’s obviously the best fighter in this comic’s universe, and with Ton’s help, he could wrap up any storyline is matter of seconds. He is also serious, smart, but he can also be emotional. He is the only man who can resist Aphrodite’s charm. He has a lot of characteristics that define him as a perfect character. Then, of course, he needs his kryptonite too, and it appears to be his past (including abandoned fame and long-lost love) and his concern for Happy, who seems to be the only person he cares about. Ironically, this makes him even more by-the-book character (even a Hollywood writer tells Barton Fink in the eponymous film that the wrestler in a wrestling film needs someone to protect, probably a single mother or an orphan). But this seems ok, Angry has some cliché in him, but I think that fits. When his first flashback appeared, it even got a laugh out of me, with a comment “I knew there was to be a flashback to traumatic past sooner or later”. It was so loveably campy.

But what really concerns me about all perfect characters is that, having but one kryptonite, you know that all more serious stories have to rely on it to make a tension. Sooner or later that gets boring. In “Superman”, you have a feeling that kryptonite grows on trees, because every second episode someone gets his hands on it – to the point where it gets silly. Of course, this is the case of un-resourceful writers but even then, just how many times or how often can you use one device? Angry, being of a perfect character profile, could get to the point where this happens one day – heads up to the author, that’s all.

In current storyline, ADM unexpectedly went serious – serious in topic, death of a relative, but not in storytelling style; At start my inner feel refused to take this story too serious, when Angry first said “Today is the day that Happy died” I actually laughed – it all seemed like a badly-staged drama, related to earlier intentional easiness of ADM. Later it got a bit more serious, but it still couldn’t bring me to the edge of the seat, even though the plot itself was lending a lot of tension. See, all this time I had that “everything will be allright in the end) feeling; I was still reading a picture book, and in picture books everything is allright in the end. Therefore, any heart-ripping drama could’ve been presented to me, I’d still read it easy, without tension. Was this the intention of the storyline? To present us heavy things and show how we can detach from them by looking at them through inner child eyes? Or through what we, adults, think that inner child eyes are (since children often understand things we wouldn’t expect them to)? If it is, then Bravo!

There is another thing I’d like to discuss, and it’s a matter of Keon’s skills. Namely, a lot of people will take ADM as done this way because author has no skills to draw more realistic or white more complex. A put off for those who like slick art and complicated plots, if you think that ADM is a work of learning, a stage with which, author will advance to more skilled technical work – so why not wait a couple of years until he does advance? Luckily, technical knowledge is not everything (proven by many skilled artists or writers who simply lack context, inspiration, energy, etc etc. After all, if you want to read technically superior comics with no substance, why reading webcomics? There’s enough of that in printed comics) and it turns out that less skilled artists have a lot to offer, sometimes more than pros.

It seems that Keon is not the top artist: his line is often heavy and shaky and we can see how the movement of his hand is as heavy when he makes that line; I mentioned the way his human characters come out sometimes, lacking some stylization possibilities that animals have. His art skills probably aren’t limited to what is displayed in ADM, but there is no doubt that he couldn’t execute realistic drawing. There are signs to show that the complexity of his stories is limited by his writing skills – though, on the other hand, those skills must be limited by the fact that his interests lay on the side of simpler stories, which is why he hasn’t gained practice in more complex or serious stories. But the fact is that both of those fit in ADM’s picture-book concept so far that you can say that even little things, like said shaky lines, add to the whole. From which I draw a conclusion that you might find unexpected (digression ahead):

Remember last year when Webcomic Examiner made a round table on topic of “Future of webcomics”? It was basically an attempt to spot the most perspective style/genre/school/element, the one that is most defining for webcomics and that is probably going to be most developed in future. Of course, this should’ve been taken in the most abstract possible way, and it should’ve in no way represented a limiting or defining factor for webcomic artists to follow. The thing is, when I first heard of this round table, I realized that I never really thought of that topic, it was a kind of topic that I wouldn’t even thing worth discussing, because such things come naturally without the need to be discussed. But then my curiosity made me think about the topic later: what is it that I would pinpoint as the defining element of webcomics? It should be something that’s ultimately endemic for webcomics, and on the other hand, omnipresent. I figured that that would be artists with limited skills. On one hand, those artists usually don’t have access to print comic industry, thus they’re endemic for webcomics. On the other hand, even if we dismiss stick-figure comics that update three times and never again, technical skills of 90% of webcomic authors are below what is considered a standard for print – thus, they’re omnipresent.

But then, print comics are fencing themselves from the kind of energy that such artists can bring. Those artists often prove to have more fresh ideas, more honesty, more direct approach than professional artists. Even more, I knew a pro artist who claimed that, as you gain technical skills, you slowly forget everything else and inevitably became drawing machine with no inspiration or emotion. And after all, it was not once that the entire culture was turned upside down when people with skills above (what was considered) standard were allowed on scene (think rock-and-roll, punk, underground comics…) Some of the most innovative webcomics were drawn by artists with limited skills (Framed, 0/1) and then, even, webcomic standard is starting off as a bad artist and gaining skills along the way.

But what fascinated me even more is that webcomic artists often find a way to implement their limited skills in the comic in a way so that the comic gains from it. These comics aren’t so good despite the lack of skills, they are good partly thanks to the lack of skills. Take “0/1”, it was crucial that its comic style would be so simplified and sketchy because the whole comic presented one simplified universe with simple social structure, in which some elements of society could’ve been presented in a way that could’ve been grasped with one look. Any more complicated drawing would’ve stood in the way of the message. Other example is “Ashfield Online”, Keenspot comic that featured always the same drawing of professor Ashfield doing various stuff. The idea of the comic was to interpret the same image in many different ways, which is where comic’s wit was coming from. And then, I could mention “Roughies”, “Spare change” and many other comics that would’ve lost something of theirs, were they drawn with more skills applied. You could call this a kind of “B-production” of webcomics; Just like cheap technical equipment and limited scene sets gave those films the feel that is the subject of a cult nowadays, the same way webcomics often rationalize with their surface element to, perhaps, open the space to something in depth. If there was one thing that I had to choose as unique, defining element of webcomics, that’d be it (although, to clarify, I don’t think that there is just one defining element of webcomics, or that, in any way, webcomics are so simple).

Well, I guess now you have to trouble to place “Angry D. Monkey” in this story: it is a “b-production” webcomic, taking artist’s limitations almost to the level of the message.

So far, ADM is interesting lighthearted, self-parodying comedy with unique graphic style. If I was to give it stars, I’d have to set it on the same scale as, for instance, previously reviewed “Darken” that fails in some ways, but then again, reaches for more, is more ambitious, and is in all harder to execute (while, in all honesty, ADM doesn’t seem like a tedious and complicated task); this would be very unfair which is why I’d never accept star rating system. If I was to compare it with other comics of the genre, I think that its picture-book conception would win me over.

On the other hand, picture-book conception leaves ADM possibility to evolve into something more than light-hearted comedy – a comic able to tackle the childish and adult in us at the same time, and Keon has so far made one step in that direction.

That’s the problem with reviewing webcomics: they’re never finished; You never have a complete comic in front of you.

posted by Srdjan @ 6:40 PM