Achewood’s confused hilarity stems from its fidelity to a dynamic and porous narrative skin. While character personas remain consistent, the reader’s relationship to the characters is in a constant state of flux….Achewood’s textual landscape fundamentally resists definition.
Now that is some funny shit, as Quentin Tarantino once said. Or at least a character played by Tarantino.
I am all about the value of education and academia and the humanities and all that, but it still boggles my mind that people pay large amounts of money to learn to write phrases like “fidelity to a dynamic and porous narrative skin.”
And I didn’t even include the part of “pure, aestheticized contingency… at its core.”
Here’s my review of Achewood: It’s a funny comic strip, that is in turns hilarious, ridiculous, disturbing, disgusting, beautiful, touching, wise, and weird. I will be reading it as long as Onstad keeps writing it.