If this were an Amazon review I have no idea how I'd rate this book. On the positive side it reads well, and it's nice to be get an overview of the events. On the negative side the book gives far, far, far too much weight to John K's detractors and doesn't answer the question, what were the innovations that Spumco was famous for, and how did they come about? It's hard to resist the conclusion that these were inadequately covered because an honest assessment would have made John look good, something the book is determined not to do.
The book does do a good job at describing TV animation before John. The industry was so corrupt, so lacking in even the attempt at any real artistic expression, that it was teetering on the edge of collapse. People tried to change it, but the obstacles were daunting. The industry had an enormous financial stake in staying exactly how backward it was, and a lot of animation artists had been so corrupted that they couldn't even conceive of anything better. I would add that only someone as combative, as driven and as stubbornly idealistic as John could have broken through the barriers and made the changes that we all benefit from today.
It's easy for the author sitting in his living room in suburbia, with a well-stocked refrigerator and a nice DVD collection to criticize John, who was fighting for his life in an unprecedented environment and had to improvise every detail of what he did during the day. John had to run an unconventional studio full of rebellious artists and simultaneously be a world-changing wunderkind. How many people could have done that? Not me. I'd have had a nervous breakdown. Did John insult people unfairly? Did he contradict himself? Did he sometimes do things that were in bad taste? Probably. Does it matter?
But ingratitude is the modern disease, isn't it? Moderns are skeptical, always looking for the tabloid dark side. If Louis Pasteur made his discoveries today we'd be regaled with stories about how the bum treated his lab assistants. Look at the way Thomas Jefferson is treated in books now. Geez, moderns are so self-righteous, so easily offended, so quick to condemn.
I'm not finished the book yet but I peeked ahead to the end which, if I'm not mistaken, seems to say John created only one good cartoon in the post Nickelodeon years, "Ren Seeks Help." Maybe I didn't read it right, but if I did then that's ridiculous. Examples to the contrary are abundant. The cartoon that preceded it, "Naked Beach Frenzy," was hilarious. Watch it from end to end and see if you agree. I think the last 2/3 of that cartoon was the funniest short any animation studio turned out in 40 years. John is still wildly creative. Talk to him for just an hour and you'll walk away with your head in the clouds, full of thoughts of new possibilities and new directions.
38 comments:
I wasn't expecting the whole thing to be glowingly positive. I had a feeling it'd try to mediate things. Say some of the Games episodes weren't so bad and some of the Adult ones weren't so good. To create a creamy median.
I also wasn't expecting a book about the animation innovations of the show ( much as we need one!). It's more of a, dare I say, Michael Barrier style history of the shows production.
I'm still going to thoroughly devour my copy. A book on Ren and Stimpy is a must read.
I can't really comment about John personally, but he's given me a ton of great drawing advice in the past and really motivated me to strive for the highest standard possible. Same with you and Vincent Waller. You've all been very nice, receptive, but constructively critical to artists like me. Like the Ron Paul newsletters, the "racism" that used to exist at the Mises Institute, or Murray Rothbard's dispute with the Cato Institute and form of dogmatic anarcho-capitalism, I wasn't alive during much of that time period, so I don't really have anything else to say that I can defend or attack John or others with. I brought those other things up because it seems like in every great kind of movement like the attempt to get cartoons back on track or libertarianism, there is always some figurehead that's seen as a dogmatist, an ideologue or someone who is heavily worshiped too much and I think John is one of those people in Thad's eyes. You can sort of say that about Ayn Rand depending on who you talk to, but Leonard Peikoff is the modern ideologue who turned that movement into a cult from what I can understand.
From what I understand, it's like attacking and dismissing the ideas of John Maynard Keynes because he was an anti-Semite, Thomas Jefferson because he kept slaves, Karl Marx's neglect for his children, Milton Friedman for his "association" with Pinochet, or Ludwig von Mises for his comments on Mussolini. Take any great thinker or innovator that you don't like and make ad hominem attacks about him or her because of an unsavory personal belief they had or action they commited rather than the ideas they presented to the table. I hope you don't mind that I used economic thinkers here. I feel this whole John K. situation has a lot in common with what's been going on in the libertarian and economics community.
Thad Komorowski is a good egg and I love his blog, but I guess he wanted to write a different kind of book where other people who worked at Spumco would get to share their opinions about their days of working on Ren and Stimpy. I have not in any way read "Sick Little Monkeys" yet, but I'm going to buy a Kindle version soon, so I might offer some more thoughts on the subject later. These artist feuds are a complete waste of time and energy and have nothing to do with the one thing we all have in common: making funny, silly, well drawn cartoons!
I think the biggest problem that I've seen brought up is some dispute that Bob Jacques and John got into after the Spike TV Ren and Stimpy shorts were made and how John owed money to Bob's studio or something like that and how Bob Camp and others were treated during the time he worked at Spumco and Games.
Economist Gene Callahan, who has become one of my favorites as of recently, made the exact same point that I tried to convey in my comment. He has been influencing me a lot in terms of my political thinking. He used to be associated with the Mises Institute and has been trying to save people from blindly worshiping Rothbard.
http://gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2012/12/stupid-human-tricks-part-lxvii.html
Is the book even pretending to be fair or objective? The creator of the show wasn't interviewed or consulted for it. That glaring fact alone seems to be a smoking-gun admission of bias. The author, or someone using his name, has left comments all over the Internet, literally going back years, that indicate a kind of juvenile, hate-filled vendetta. He detests Kricfalusi, but hasn't the balls or the integrity to admit it. When challenged about his objectivity recently on Cartoon Brew, he chose instead to cower and lie. Were you ever even contacted by the author, Eddie? I know I wasn't. Do you really think that was an accidental oversight?
"s the book even pretending to be fair or objective? The creator of the show wasn't interviewed or consulted for it. That glaring fact alone seems to be a smoking-gun admission of bias. The author, or someone using his name, has left comments all over the Internet, literally going back years, that indicate a kind of juvenile, hate-filled vendetta. He detests Kricfalusi, but hasn't the balls or the integrity to admit it. When challenged about his objectivity recently on Cartoon Brew, he chose instead to cower and lie. Were you ever even contacted by the author, Eddie? I know I wasn't. Do you really think that was an accidental oversight?"
Hey Mike! I thought Thad had asked John and several other people, but they declined. Glad to hear your side of the story.
"Not true at all and that's a gross, exaggerated misinterpretation of what Jerry wrote and of my intentions (though this IS Ren & Stimpy we're talking about, so that's par for the course). If all of the some sixty/seventy-plus people I interviewed/spoke with "don't like the guy," it's news to me. Believe me, the "authorized" version wouldn't have considered taking the opinions of even a fraction of those I interviewed into account."
Thad Komorowski on Cartoon Brew.
I think that's the whole point in calling this "unauthorized." Someone on CB claimed that John wrote Wild Cartoon Kingdom article. So much vitriol being thrown everywhere. I really do think that Thad had good intentions and has learned a lot over the years, Mike.
I want to read John's book.
Personally, I don't think this deserves any attention.
@Roberto:
I should make clear that I haven't read the book yet. I'll reserve judgement on it for that reason. However, I can't help but be suspect of the author's intentions. I've seen way too many one-sided, hateful comments from him over the years.
BTW, the Wild Cartoon Kingdom articles were written by Chris Gore. Unlike Thad, he witnessed the operation at Spumco firsthand, and had access to and input from both sides.
If anything, I'm amazed HOW MUCH of John's POV is presented in the book as fact, from the TONS of articles, interviews, blog posts, and commentaries the man has done over the years. It's a 100% fair book in my opinion.
But I do agree with Eddie about there being a difference between being a kid writing about history and actually being there. It reminds me of the poem The Man In The Arena.
To me the only flaw of the book is some of the grammar and its relative brevity. It's remarkably objective and fair, and actually quite complimentary to John in many sections.
Thad wanted to interview John for the book, and John turned him down, and Thad even blames his own immaturity in "feuding" with John over the internet for this rejection in the foreword.
I also think a flaw of the book is not enough time is spent on Spumco cartoons aside from Stimpy's Invention relative to Games and APC cartoons.
Steve is delusional if he thinks such a great book isn't worth attention. But I doubt he even gave it a chance.
I don't think that the book fails to answer the question of "what were the innovations that Spumco was famous for, and how did they come about?" at all. Let's not forget that not all of those innovations took place at Spumco, as needed attention is given to Bob Jaques' Carbunkle studio, where the most acclaimed Ren and Stimpy animation was actually produced (albeit following Spumco's layouts, but a lot of problem solving was undergone to make them work for animation).
I wasn't there at the time, though really, having the benefit of being distant allows for a more neutral and balanced perspective of events, but I believe that Komorowski gives a very fair assessment of John K. Many of his accomplishments are praised, and his more questionable behaviour is presented in a manner which allows the reader to assess their own opinion of the man's personality, but his artistry and talent is undeniable.
But really, the notion that the success of Ren and Stimpy can be entirely credited to John K is nothing short of ridiculous. Also, its not as if unanimous praise of him is unavailable elsewhere, this blog being one such example. One particularly interesting thing about the book is how it highlights talented people who usually get overlooked; Lynne Naylor, Chris Reccardi, Jim Gomez, Bob Camp, Mike Kim and others, who all were part of the large group of people that brought the show to life.
Jeez, I almost forgot about this guy. Well if he doesn't recognize John K as a genius, he at least recognized him as a great way to make a name for himself.
I think Steve is being too hard on this book and should read it. As I said, I respect Thad and his extensive knowledge about animation history and I'm sure he did a good job trying to present an alternative viewpoint to what happened during the production of Ren and Stimpy and maybe getting in some legitimate criticisms in.
Jorge, I'm happy Thad admitted that was part of the reason why he couldn't get John to interview him. It makes so much more sense.
Nick, you are right on the money. It wasn't just John that helped make R&S a success, but the combined efforts of him and the artists that he worked with.
Mike, thanks for clearing that whole article business up.
I can't wait to read what you have to say about all of this, Eddie.
I understand where Eddie is coming from. John is a great friend from his POV and someone that he knows extremely well and has known for a long time now. He's obviously going to see certain things in a different light. Something that John said that might have been interpreted as a joke or a screwing around moment might have been interpreted as an insult by someone else who didn't know John as well.
Roberto, Jorge: You're right about one thing, Thad has improved over time. I didn't think the Thad who engaged in so many reckless flame wars on the net could have written a book as readable as this.
I even see an attempt at balance in the book, it just doesn't go far enough. Where's the balance if you only interview John's detractors? The quick disclaimer in the beginning doesn't make up for what followed.
As for Thad defending us against dogmatists like John...I don't know what to say about that. John can be frustratingly hardnosed but only somebody like that could have made the advances he did against overwhelming odds.
He reminds me of Steve Jobs in that respect. John K and Jobs were both hard to work for, but they both left their industries much improved.
Steve: Well...that's the right thing to do in some cases, but not here, I think. People assume that where there's smoke there's fire.
Nick: Actually I'm glad to see the credit given to Bob Jaques and others. That's not the part of the book I have trouble with.
Roberto: Aargh! I can't type any longer. I'll get back to about the Libertarian link.
Pappy: I want to read John's book, too! Let's hope there is one!
Joshua: I understand what you're saying. I have a bias, which is that any book about an entertainer should reveal how he did what he did. If it's about Houdini I expect some secrets to be revealed, and some of his theories about stagecraft and publicity.
If it's about a cartoonist or a cartoon director I want it to explain the nuts and bolts of how he made his work look so good. Historical items are nice to read but they're of secondary interest to me.
It's probably not fair to apply that to Thad's book since it's a history of Ren and Stimpy and not John specifically. Also you could argue that John's routinely shared his secrets on his blog for years. Even so. I have that bias, and I apply it to all entertainment books, not just Thad's.
I think the logic behind Thad writing a book like this and saying that it really didn't matter whether he got John's permission or not is that John has already talked about what happened at Spumco so many times whether it be through interviews or his blog and the dozens of posts he has done on animation principles, construction, and all the stuff that made the old cartoons of the Golden Age look so fun and appealing. The most diehard fans want to know more, even if it includes any dirty laundry that occurred when the show was being made.
Maybe John K. was a very commanding and harsh perfectionist like Buddy Rich in those infamous bus tapes who expected the highest standards out of the people he worked with, even if that meant having to yell and say nasty, vulgar things in order to discipline them if they weren't giving John the type of product he was expecting. Perhaps John went overboard several times and certain artists just couldn't take the heat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-ssZeOZkWU
Jerry Seinfeld was inspired by these bus tapes and incorporated some of the dialog into his sitcom.
A YouTube commenter put it wonderfully:
"This is what it was like. Alot of people think he was a douche, but in all reality this is how it was. If you were a professional. there weren't many bands that tolerated one missed note. Benny Goodman, Chick Webb, etc. all were pretty strict like that. That's why they were professional. Yeah, he was quite a bit more vocal about it haha, but don't hate him cuz of this, it's their career, and most of the time, his name."
I could see why the most thin skinned of people would interpret something like this as abusive and unfair. Maybe John took credit for certain things he shouldn't have or overstated his importance and that made some artists mad.
I like this longer video of those Buddy Rich tapes best, but you'll get a good idea of what I'm talking about. The audio is clearer. Warning: Strong language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=covUesgI6fA
That the book is a history of Ren and Stimpy exactly why it's of interest, especially because the story behind the show is so unique. The details behind certain aspects have always been murky and what previously accounts there have been are undoubtedly biased. I also doubt that a meticulously detailed tome on the genius of John K would be of much interest to the general reader or casual fan.
You can admire a person's work even if you dislike that person. I'm not aware of the nature of the past "reckless flame wars", but I don't think that Thad truly dislikes John K either. There's an interview with him here in which he clarifies his position.
http://oldschoollane.blogspot.com/2013/01/old-school-lanes-nickelodeon-tribute_25.html
Eddie: With respect...
Hinkley->Reagan
Chapman->Lennon
I've encountered many remarks by Thad over recent years that I disagreed with, and am reluctant to buy the book based upon that. However, I do appreciate your reviewing of it. Also, I hope that the legit Spumco/John K. bio gets picked up and completed, to John's satisfaction desgin and content-wise.
Robert; Yikes! I got the name wrong. Thanks a million for the correction! Okay, Chapman shot Lennon, not Hinkley!
Nick: Thad himself refers to his previous internet mistakes in the interview you cited. I don't want to give him grief for it because he's obviously put that behind him now and is a better writer for it. I only mention it because it indirectly effected the present book. People who would have defended John stayed away because they didn't think the old internet Thad would treat John fairly.
As for Thad liking John...it's possible that he sincerely does like him, in spite of the fact that parts of the book seem designed to convince investers to stay away from him. That's an odd thing to do to someone you like.
After Chapman shot John Lenon one of the first responders asked him why he hated Lennon so much and Chapman answered that, quite the contrary, he loved Lennon and was his biggest fan. Was Chapman sincere? I think so, but I'll go to my grave not understanding it.
On another point, I agree that a book which only praises John's genius is not what the world needs right now, but a book that analyses that genius is desperately needed, and books of that sort will always be needed. It's the author's way of giving a leg up to the next genius that comes along.
By the way, in the interview you cited, Thad implies that John's own book (yes, there was one, and it was lavish in its praise of his co-workers) never turned up because of John's erratic behavior. Thad was misinformed. On Cartoon Brew you can find the fascinating history of that book written by one of the editors, Amid Amidi.
I'm not being delusional or too hard on the book. I'm considering the source. I've seen first hand the ugliness and mean-spiritedness that the author of this book is capable of. I have no interest in revisiting that sort of stuff. I worked at Spumco side by side with John for a decade. I know exactly who he is, and I know enough about what came before my tenure there to not need to know any more about it.
I came in when Spumco was laying dormant and helped John rebuild to create Comic Book, the Bjork video, pioneering web cartoons, commercials, TV series and a prime time special. Ren & Stimpy was a great show, but John hasn't stopped there. I'm more interested in the stuff that looks forward than reading the equivalent of pseudo-journalistic salt being rubbed in long healed wounds by an autistic fan with a grudge and a very nasty streak.
The profession of "animation historian" doesn't attract the "best and brightest". That's why I've never really identified myself as one. I'm a "producer". I help artists make things. I'd rather occupy my time hanging out with cartoonists and helping them make cartoons, which is what I'm doing right now thankyouverymuch.
The book is even handed--much fairer than it could have been, and in many minds, much fairer than it deserved. But I'm glad as even handed as it was. It's "show business." The self created dramas behind the scenes are well known and well documented.There are no martyrs--and no saints, in this story. Just reality. It's a very fair book.
Sorry, Jorge - but I'm with Steve on this one. Thad is simply being hoisted by his own petard, and deservedly so. His long, documented history of malignant commentary will come back to bite him, as well it should. So now he suddenly wants to be taken seriously as an impartial journalist? Excuse me for remaining unconvinced. He didn't merely conduct a "feud" with John K. It was a deliberate, relentless campaign of character assassination -- vindictive, personal and sometimes disgusting. To Steve's list of Thad's "attributes," I'll add infantile, spiteful, revisionist and ignorant. If he's since apologized for his former conduct, I haven't heard it. Nor would I believe it. He's beneath notice and beneath contempt. He is simply an embarrassment.
Anonymous: You're a peacemaker, which I usually am too, but some situations don't lend themselves to that.
I worked with John full time day in day out, week in week out longer than anyone. Ten years straight. I worked with John longer than the guys who were with him during the Mighty Mouse/Beany and Cecil/Ren & Stimpy era. I was there even longer than Kevin Kolde. People should be asking me who John is, not telling me that I need to read a book by a hateful, vampiristic kid who has never even met John.
I know exactly what it's like to have people you thought were your friends and colleagues stab you in the back and try to take over what you poured your heart and soul into building. It isn't fun, but it taught me one thing. I don't assume that people are real friends just because they're working along side me. But the ones that I am totally sure about, I stand with.
Sorry if this is off topic, but it always bothers me when I read that some fans hate the APC Ren & Stimpy episodes!
I LOVE "ADULT PARTY CARTOON"!!! All six episodes are Pure Classic! It's some of the best animation and cartoon comedy Ever! and it's just as good as the original R&S series.
I Love "Ren Seeks Help" and "Naked Beach Frenzy"! I can never stop laughing at "Fire Dogs 2" and "Onward & Upward"! and "Altruists" and "Stimpy's Pregnant" are Pure Cartoon Classics!!!
John K is a Genius!!! I'm still sorry that he never got to produce the episodes "Life Sucks" and "Wilderness Adventure" with George Liquor! those would've been great!
The truth very rarely lies halfway between opposing viewpoints.
I don't know, Mike and Steve. Interviewing well over 60 some odd people for this book who were affiliated with the show in some way should say something significant. Thad has changed for the better and has improved immensely in his journalism skills if he's able to get that many people to work with him like this. Are they suddenly involved in some conspiracy to smear John for their own self-interests, whatever they might be?
I think you two need to live and let live and forgive Thad for his past transgressions. People do really stupid, foolish and misinformed things when they're teenagers, like getting indoctrinated with Marxism. I bet a lot of politicians end up in that kind of a situation when they to go college and grow out of it. I'm thinking of all the obtuse allegations people have made against Barack Obama and his so-called "Marxism," "Leninism" or any kind of 'ism you can come up with even though they have no idea what the word even means or that his presidency is really an example of late capitalism in a real Marxist's eyes. These people are trying to block reality with ideology. They don't know any better until they've stepped into the real world and their fantasies have been crushed. Then they become true men and women, unless they studied an economically worthless subject in college and have no other source of employment except in politics and government positions.
You're going to have to trust me on this one. There's been no change and no apology, and I'm not expecting to see one. I was John's point man to the public for a long time and I saw exactly what was going on. There are aspects of working for a public figure that the average person knows nothing about.
"I worked with John full time day in day out, week in week out longer than anyone. Ten years straight."
That explains a lot.
Eddie,
I've read the whole book, and I haven't gotten the impression that Thad intended it to be a hatchet job against John. His most damning criticism of the man is that he was TOO much of a perfectionist over his cartoons, and how that put Nickelodeon in one bind too many. Thad also spends much of the book waxing harmonically about John and his commitment to cartoons, and the end-results (Stimpy's Invention, Stimpy's First Fart, Sven Hoek, Man's Best Friend, etc.)
Some of harshest criticisms in the book are actually for the Games cartoons (including, nay especially, those of Bob Camp). There's plenty of criticism to go around.
My favorite part of the book was the chapter about Stimpy's Invention. Even though Thad stresses how Nickelodeon was by and large not to blame for its lateness, A fairer assessment of Spumco's strengths has never been written.
Roberto: Haw! Man, you've really grown intellectually!
Kevin: My impression of the book's theme is that everybody involved was equally right and equally wrong, which is simply not true.
I don't blame you for thinking that was the case, and I really should back up what I'm saying with examples, but I'll have to tackle that in a longer format when I'm able.
Comparing John Kricfalusi to Louis Pasteur...Jesus Christ
@Dan Waters:
I think you missed the point.
really good book. Just like 'The History of glue' I couldn't put it down.
Such a monumental shift in the world of animation with so many immensely talented fellows. If there was 'no' taking sides and crossed words i would be surprised.
Post a Comment