{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032926829268292684, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00853658536585366, 'mean_word_length': 5.091584158415841, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The elephant in the room: women draw their world

constructive criticisms on the populist side of the discussion. In ‘The Limits of Realism,’ the tension between ‘commercial genres’ and ‘fine arts’ comes to a head, taking Chris Ware’s Building Stories to task specifically (134, 152). A case study in the process of comic canonisation follows Ware’s anthology, as Singer takes a hard look at the criticism of Persepolis. In short, Singer encourages a more critical eye, as it remains unclear if Satrapi’s work is cherished because it does something new or rather because it appeals to the familiar for Western readers (186). Problems of canonisation continue in an examination of Nat Turner, calling scholars to deal with ‘fabrications’ of history honestly and openly (190). While comic creators often reject scholarly interpretations of their work, critics are often wary of pursing criticism of concepts accepted in the popular mind, even when such things might be false. Singer’s ultimate frustration is summarised in his concluding essay, ‘Never Apologize, Never Defend.’ For Comics Studies to make useful contributions to disciplinary discussions, there must be a critical reckoning of sorts. Situating Comics Studies in the larger categories of the Humanities, Singer laments, ‘Perhaps politicians and the academic-managerial class would not have found us such ripe targets if we hadn’t spent the last three of four decades arguing against our own existence’ (245). Breaking the Frames argues for rejecting such nonsensical approaches to interdisciplinary work. For Singer, the stakes are high for both the readers of comics and the folks who work hard to say something meaningful about comics. But at the end of the day, Singer’s audience in this book is his peers. If that were in doubt after 248 pages, he concludes his work with ‘Comics Scholars, assemble’ (249)! But while many of the specific applications of criticism he explores are geared towards comics studies, in truth, Singer’s advice has broad implications. Ultimately, Singer is concerned with the humanity, the human-ness, of both the populist and academic patrons of comic books. And his warning, that the mutual exclusion that often happens is something akin to mutually assured destruction, could just as easily describe English, History, Film, and Philosophy departments across the country. Polarity is a broad problem. Singer’s work is an excellent step towards repairing the divide.