Oh! You pretty things!

Webcomic: Go for it

Those who followed my wade into webcomic reviewing know that this is the last comic in my queue. Being that the queue was formed by application, and noone else applied, I don't have any more particular reviews in mind. However, everyone can still apply for a review here. But before you do, please make sure to read previous reviews so that you know what you're getting into. So that there's no regretting afterwards.

***

Ahem. "Go for it".

Go for it is not for everyone’s stomach or for everyone's taste. It has some drastic scenes and ideas, like bloody murders of childhood and family entertainmeat icons, people eating fecals, joking on account of family tragedies or mental deviations, to name just a few most extreme. But then, is "Go for it" a shock comic?

In last rant I defined shock comic as something that brings shock, insult and mostly (and on the lowest level) gross-out, for their own sake, something of an unprovoked assault on senses. This kind of shock has no cathartic effect or perhaps isn't even intended to shock - it is intended to give satisfaction to authors and readers, of being involved with something that can shock someone. It gives them "the edge". Makes them "mean". Teenagers like to be grossed out, that's why "American pie" was so popular. And on some level, audience of shock comics and "American pie" isn't so different.

In this strict sense, "Go for it" is, I believe, not a shock comic. This is because it actually contains the "edge" that shock comics are looking for; this edge is not, as they'd expect, in shocking images, but in biting satire. Shock is there just to emphasize it's effect. As it proves with every purposeful work of this kind, it is substance that is really assaulting, and whether your comic is going to show bashed heads or not - is just a matter of form. "Go for it" is to, for instance, late "Mall monkeys", like "South park" to "Ren and Stimpy”.

Of course, in final calculation, it might appear that the audience of shock comics is drawn to "Go for it" for shock elements; being that this audience is often an object of satire in "Go for it", that would be an irony. But irony is not a rare thing.

Technicals: "Go for it" is first and foremost a satire of consumerism society, of bying for the sake of buying, forming view of the life through funny lenses of TV and video games, advertising, stupefying mass media products, with accent on showing effects that these have on people; also, with personal beef on anime. There's a lot of stupid people to mock to (and, frankly, be scared of) walking through this comic, but the comic is never deciding on whether they're stupid because as a result of consumer culture, or the consumer culture is the product of stupid people. That's one message that comic never manages to deliver, thus we're short of explanation whether we laugh at culture that is making people stupid - or simply at the low IQ. This is a great difference because in basis of dilemma is whether "Go for it" is humanistic comic (ie. comic that criticizes dehumanizing) or just an exercise in cruel looking down at people.

While we're at that, "Go for it" indeed is cruel. When showing an obsessive videogame fan it will not only point at how miserable his life is, but also at how it will never be any better and it will perhaps go so far as to assume him an early death from consequences of such life. I don't wish to go into discussion at whether this kind of extremeness is necessary; it is, like many things in comic, a matter of taste. "Go for it" violence and misfortune has a sort of cartoonish note in it. Some people like violence, I, on the other hand, never even liked to see Wille E. Coyote falling off a cliff.

But let's turn back to technical part: "Go for it" features a cast of people of whom most are, I presume, in college. Main star is Alex, snarky guy who looks at the world with sleepy, yet observant eyes. He's, you know, a kind of guy who, noticing all the gross absurd of modern world, decides not to deal with them but to hide behind ambivalence. He is brutally honest and cruel, just as the comic is, so it is not hard to perceive him as the author's alterego. Alex gets away with most of things he says, sometimes because his sarcasm isn't caught, sometimes because he is ignored; it actually seems very unlikely that a person who says such things has so little troubles in life because of that.

Now there's a little quench in this character (and i hope i didn't just make that word up), it seems like for the author, it is important to underline that Alex is ambivalent toward most of things, and not hateful. His comments, thus, are not the result of pessimism but of good perception. This characterization, I don't buy. To me, Alex appears as a person with exquisite talent for spotting negative sides and ignoring positive sides of life. Perhaps it is because we never see Alex smile or actually enjoy in something, we always see him constantly surrounded by ignorant people so much that we start thinking that he purposefully chooses such surrounding in order to keep this negative view of life fresh and motivated; all in all, we don't manage to see Alex as objective observer which is, seems to me, the role that author has given to him. The impression is that Alex's drive is hate, hate gives him the consistency in his view of the world; Then, he masks hate behind ambivalence in order to maintain a "cool" look, and only lets it out through his words, seemingly inevitable due to honesty, but biting like snakes. His eyes remain sleepy but inside, repressed emotions rage.

Still, this is also a plausible character.

Perhaps some glimpses of human warmth ill break through, specially in his relation with his brother, Torrey: though Torrey represents everything Alex hates, there is still some brotherly fondness between them (or did I imagine it?) and this comes as a very realistic portrayal of the awkward family relationship. Torrey is, in short, uncontrollable, brainless, destructive force, a teenager who will, given the means, do irreparable damage. He, on one side, works as the subject of satire, he is that product of excessive watching of TV, a kid who cannot differ reality from fiction, thus cannot realize that cartoon violence has devastating effects when applied on reality, he is the one we will laugh at. On the other hand, he also takes a role of avenger, unintentional though, as his outbursts of mayhem are usually turned toward subjects that author despise even more, for instance Anime club. Of course, consequences of his beef toward such subjects are much more extreme than the ones of Alex; While Alex delivers just a snarky comment, Torrey delivers material damage, even life danger. Torrey’s duality of as a subject of satire and as avenger is at the same time intriguing and beneficial. On one side, he is allowed a lot more than other characters are; comic is cruel, but it's characters aren't. Torrey is not cruel because he is not aware of the consequences of his acts (read: too stupid). Thus he is a perfect avenging tool, and all characters that might've been held responsible for such extreme acts like destruction or murder, have their hands clean. This is one of ways in which authors keeps his main characters good guys, a lot more about that later. Anyway, bad side of Torrey’s duality is, the tone of some comics is too indecisive, and it's not a very good pun when we're not sure what to laugh at, actually. An example of this is thanksgiving comic in which Torrey fires up a rocket and blows up a newly bought, uninsured car of some cubicle worker. This, clearly satire of the dangerous tradition of blowing up stuff on 4. July day under suspicious security measure, is obstacled halfa way by the fact that the comic gives us another subject of satire half way through it: a car owner, shortly described as a tool. His years spent in working for a car, an object, a status symbol of consumer culture, are something to be satirized, but not in this comic because that directly confronts the first satirical line. We are in doubt toward the act of lighting a rocket - is it the act of stupidity or of ironic justice? We are in doubt toward Torrey’s role, because he tries to assume both of his roles at the same time and then undecidedly shifts between them. Perhaps author was sticking to the first satirical line but then, wasn't able to show enough compassion toward the car owner, a kind of compassion necessary for first satirical line to work? Perhaps he satirized him out of habit? Alternatively, this could be just a comic about a bunch of stupid people blowing each other up, and we're not supposed to feel anything about any of them, as it doesn't concern us? Not very likely.

Lily is Alex's and Torrey's young sister and she is, in short, female kid version of Alex, though with something of kiddie naivety and wide eyes. Her purpose is to provide same scenario in grammar school surrounding and, perhaps, to throw some light to characters of her brothers. Her look, very close to Alex's, is a fine point noticeable when you see her first - you don't need to be told that she's Alex’s sister to know it.

As a character with lots of "camera time", I will mention Lina, school activist, enthusiastic and it's just that enthusiasm that, in author's opinion, makes her naive, which is a very debatable premise. However, she's a sort of in-the-middle character who, also in communication with the world he despises, still deserves Alex's respect.

Then there are other characters, most of them are walk-through eccentrics, fanboys, geeks, lunatics, fanatics of many sort. Others are straight people who provide a necessary shocked face to counterpoint outbursts of first. Some of them have their place in a slick flash-animated cast page (authors always have crude form of cast page to deal it and author of "Go for it" found a satisfying solution) although they aren't memorable enough to Be assumed main characters. Some characters (especially female) are hard to differ at first, and it isn't helped by the fact that cast contains a pair of identical twins.

Otherwise, art is Very good, and author is keeping himself away from drawing bugs. Robust, with stabile form and appealing character designs. "Go for it" is mostly a dialogue comic so it roughly falls into a category of "talking heads" (but mostly drawn without copy-pasting). Still, art lets as assume that author is capable of more. Colouring is standard cartoon style, with standard colour schemes applied, art would be best described as "webcomic influenced" as it is closest to the amalgam of elements of American school, animation stylization, manga, and beginners mannerism, all of those mixed into a style that doesn't really contain strong elements of either of those. Such is the are style of "Go for it".

Humor is mostly funny, manages to get a big laugh out of us once in a while, all of that, of course, if you're not of so sensitive nature that the comic leaves you speechless and laughless (again, a matter of personal taste). Sometimes, this laugh will be bitter, but then again, so are the topics it's dealing with.

Timing is essential and it is often a main star of the gag. Speechless panel is never there to fill the quote of four panels, but to delay the punchline for it's maximum effects. Not very funny punchlines are sometimes saved by perfect timing. Sometimes, even, last panel is the speechless one, pushing us to think of repercussions of previous three panels. "Go for it" manages something that not many other comics do (and many try): to change the course in the middle of the comic and to finish with punchline seemingly unrelated to the starting premise (something that I like calling "anyway..." syndrome); "Go for it" gets away with is without being unfunny or fake. There is, for instance, a strip in which girl assumes by mistake that the guy is a gay and then, to illustrate how uncomfortable he is, he brings up an old event from the summer camp. And then, in next strip, author actually does exactly the same thing again, and only in that moment, supported by repetition, this routine works and we laugh.

So with all these nice things say, but once again, I saved the worst for the end. The thing is, I don't think that "Go for it" brings it's satire (which means, it's main point) quite successful; and the reason for this is that "Go for it" is too black-white comic, with good guys, and bad guys, and good guys always win, and all. I can easily draw parallels between "Go for it" and some clichéd cartoon or action comic with villains rising their hands in the air and yelling "Curse yooooou!" The difference is that in "Go for it", place of good guys is taken by smart, cynical people who don't fear to stand up to bad guys. Place of bad guys is taken by stupid people which means, sometimes Torrey (when he doesn’t take his avenging role), other eccentric characters, but also a lot of walkthroughs, anime fans, gamers, geeks, managers, profiteers. There is the third kind of characters, used to underline the difference between first two, but effectively unimportant: smart people who, because they don't break their connections with stupid people, usually can't act. Think of them as, if we stitch to action story terminology, incompetent cops, good guys who would like to help but in aftermaths, only stand in the way. Lina, Janet and some other characters.

See the idea? Good guys aren't morally superior here, but intellectually and culturally. They are white not because everything they do is right (which would be the case in lame action conics) but because everything they do is smart, reasonable. Bad guys here are black because everything they do is stupid, unreasonable.

So this is how the parallel goes further: bad (stupid) guys are menacing society by: boring good guys with their stupid interest; by endangering people with their negligence; or just By being stupid and led on (in this system of values, that is a crime). Good guys win in the end by: making up a witty retort to which bad guys cannot reply (Alex); by blowing them us (Torrey); or, in the end, bad guys do that to themselves with their reckless behaviour.

There is a rough simplification in idea that characters can be divided this way; in reality, smart people will act stupid on occasions (Alex never does) and stupid people will have their moments of sophistication (which, needles to say, stupid people from this comic never do). It is a sort of simplified look at the world that is grating in the same way too strict black-white characterizations are grating in action comics.

Finally, the postulate that good always wins, is here out of place, unrealistic, even contradictional. See, Alex will always have a smart reply that will shut the opponent up. In real life, would a guy Be able to shut up religious fanatic? More likely, fanatic would keep talking, completely sure of what he's saying and ignoring every intelligent argument. Also: Torrey will always blow up stupid guys. In reality, noone blows up anyone, and even if they do, victims are much more random and much further from this comic's standard. Finally, star wars fan will realize that he wasted his life - not very likely to happen.

Sticking to black-white division of characters, "Go for it" fails in it's, perhaps, the most important or at least the noblest goal: to be a picture of today's society. So we became less likely to believe in what this comic has to say, it seems too far from realistic presentation (even if distorted) and too close to... Well, wacky cartoon that shouldn't Be taken very serious. "Go for it" is most telling to people who already know what it is saying, to people aware of flakes of modern consumerism, to people who encounter obsessive fans, dangerous eccentrics, desperate geeks, in real life. And that's not much, telling something to a small group of people who already know it.

But thanks to the fact that good (smarts, that is) prevails in this comic, it turns comic into something else: a vengeance area, a punching bag for it's author to, at least in one way, get back to people who irritate him in real life. Some might think this is ok; I don't really think that comics are suitable punching bags. But then again, I am a strange that way, when I see a boxer beating the bag, letting the rage he collected somewhere else out, it is always the Bag I feel sorry for. On the other hand, perhaps making comics is better way than actually really blowing something up, but that has little too with the quality of the comic.

I said that Alex never makes mistakes: that's wrong, that's just what makes him not very likely character. He never laughs, as if that's one of mistakes he could've made. On the other hand stupid guys never do anything right, which makes them just as unrealistic bad guys. Think about that obsessive anime fan for a moment: does he have anything good about him? He must have, simply because everybody has. Wouldn't it make stronger scene, if his good sides were shown before he was shown descending into his obsessiveness? That would be a critique of society that causes potentially good people to be wasted, ruined by mass media and such, that diminishes all their good sides; this way, it is only a critique of society whose members irritate main character of the comic. Again, significantly less than it could (should) be; what is worse: the fact that the system ruins lives, or that it irritates some guy over there?

But that's all because comic shows very little compassion to anyone but a few main characters (just as bad guys will be shot dead by one bullet while go guys will be able to receive a kilo of lead into their chest and remain on feet). It ignores many of possible victims of the society it is satirizing. Take as one example an earlier mentioned case where comic fails to show compassion to the guy whose car is blown up and, instead of that laughs at him. Somehow, comic assumes that people are always to blame for their own problems, which is simply not true. Furthermore, comic has special treatment for main characters (including Torrey) so they are never to blame for their problems. One problem of Alex might be that he is constantly approached by weird people. Isn't he, in some way, partly to blame for that? Comic never considers it.

All in all "Go for it" is a bold, possibly influential comic, dealing with topics that aren't brought up often, it is a fun read if you have stomach of steel; Yet, because of mentioned problems, it never goes very deep, it only makes some waves on the surface that quickly calm down.

posted by Srdjan @ 12:23 AM