Reviews and Comments

Frank Miller is not someone who I like, and I honestly think he's done more to harm visual storytelling media than... not. I don't think he's set out to do so (it's not like he can be blamed for being an influence on others), but the grim-dark method of storytelling with excessive panels and small details and a lot of text... It's a very confusing comic book to look at, and it's just... hideous. Very little pops out, many of the elements are hard to follow, and everything has a feeling of sameness. This is especially bizarre when they do try to include bright pops of colour, since it still manages to feel incredibly similar to everything else. It's... not great.

This also doesn't help when there are a lot of perspective shifts. The sameness actually makes it harder to follow than anything else.

The story itself is also... awful. While violence doesn't innately bother me in storytelling (it's something that can be discussed within narratives), the ways violence is portrayed often come off as being... about gratification. And it's regardless of who is doing it. I also find the perception of "excessive violence" as being "more adult" a bit absurd. If anything, excessive and gratuitous violence is something that I'd stop and question as an editor of a story. What is the point of it? How does it drive the narrative or character development? Does it actually harm the story?

But Frank Miller has been known for his... I'd charitably say questionable decisions and statements on these series. And I'm not a fan of those, either. This whole thing isn't gritty; it's needless and infuriating.

I generally really like narratives that are driven by characters, where the focus is primarily on the characters themselves and how one little thing can upend their whole lives... but this book so, so dull.

Also, I wanted to like it because the concept is interesting (a kidnapped child who is unaware that they were kidnapped as a toddler and discovers it because of one small constant "Missing Person" reminder? Intriguing).

Part of the problem is that, as with many books where the characters are teenagers, the author has seemingly forgotten who teenagers are and how to relate to them. And while I'm quite aware that teenagers are prone to being silly and doing goofy things (as everyone is prone to being), a lot of the moments felt distinctly like the ways that adults view teenagers rather than the ways that teenagers actually are. The conversations felt stilted and fake, the relationship structure felt fake... It just... nothing felt genuine.

If anything, I'd attribute that to this book really needing to be... a novella, at most. Definitely a short story. The character focus felt less like something the author wanted to do and more like a way to build up fluff, the way a person would do for an essay that has a wordcount they can't meet.

This book, which Holiday states in the second part, was apparently written because he supposedly felt guilty about the actions he describes therein when he saw how it hurt him (and some others, but those events only seem to have clicked because they were something he perceived as similar to what hurt him or companies he worked for). This isn't uncommon for many people, but it is worth noting that he considers a lot of his media manipulation to be harmless. Personally, I do not find the weaponising of (predominantly liberal) feminist groups in order to sell something to be 'harmless'. I feel that it has only co-opted and harmed a serious movement, while co-opting and using the most performative and neoliberal element of it, for his own goals and the profit of himself and others connected to him. Ironically, that is an incredible (but still grotesque) use of the patriarchal system he benefits from.

Yet, his confession doesn't even begin to discuss how he regrets doing that. It was harmless, he thinks. It hurt no one, he says. What bullshit, I think.

He seems more than happy to maintain connections to people who are openly harmful (and were once happy to be talked about as such until it was "too much"), and he was willing to do whatever it took to sell... something, though I'm not sure what. One of the prime examples he uses is his friend Tucker Max (who frequently seems to be described, at best, as "offensive") and how proud he is of the questionable techniques he engaged in to bring more publicity to different projects. Along with this, he frequently uses American Apparel as an example, as he was the former marketing director there. He defends their advertisement campaigns and negative press in the strangest of ways, often trying to say that pretty much all of the most well-known news stories we knew about them in 2012 were false.

I have some suspicions that's likely an untrue statement, even if all of their brand was built off of controversial behaviour.

To be fair, there are so many areas where I'm left wondering how he could even think that someone should believe that statement, especially when he's trying to defend practices that are already indefensible as he tries to explain how they were non-stories or blown out of proportion. It's a weird feeling, as I read this. I don't buy a lot of what he says in terms of the emotionality of this book; I don't buy the guilt (especially if someone is securing money from a book as a result of it), and I don't buy the awkward defenses of people and companies he was associated with. This is especially true because there are things where he's trying to defend his action, but he doesn't even name them. (Things along the lines of: "I helped my friend with an unjust lawsuit." Well, I can't even begin to dig into that claim, and that's the purpose of that kind of statement.)

Honestly, I don't really like this book. For a lot of what I've already mentioned, it's really insulting and frustrating, and I think it's ludicrous that he's able to show such pride for the work he's done in such an ecosystem, even as he critiques what he has done and how the system continues to operate (with or without other manipulators). It's... infuriating. It's the kind of business book that, though it's not typical for its genre, is definitely crafted in order to drum up the sort of thing he talks about in the book itself. The book itself feels like media manipulation (something for everyone!), and I have to wonder if that's the point. It's also written in a uniquely hopeless "Well, that's just how it is!" way, as if there's absolutely nothing we can do. These platitudes are useless and are intentionally designed to make people just sigh, contemplate their frustration with the online ecosystem, and move on to do little else.

In the useful moments, I can see the connections between what he claims to have done and how he's supposedly manipulated the media. There were areas that helped guide some of my research, prompting me to look in places I haven't otherwise engaged with (or had overlooked). There were bits that were well-written, somewhat quotable in the wrong ways. There are elements of what analysis there is that feels like they apply rather well to the authoritarian left part of the 'news' cycle (places like Grayzone and RT).

But it's overwhelmingly frustrating. A lot of it is stuff that I've literally heard come from the mouths of YouTubers and others. Some of the very ideas are just "this is how it is, so we have to deal with it." And it feels like no one who makes these claims wants to do anything about it, even as they complain about it. And when they do want to do something about it, it often feels like they're completely recreating the systems that harm them.

One day, some of these people should learn and experiment. (And, while they're at it, learn that the Salem Witch Trials are not a good analogy for their so-called "public trial by news site." There are plenty of analagous events, but for many of the things described? That isn't it.)

Anyway, he's not an awful writer (though this book needs an editor for the number of confusing misspellings that have made it hard to focus). I just don't find much of what he says to be entirely genuine, and some of the calls to authority feel like he's trying to get me to believe his argument a little too much. This is likely because they feel like quotes that have been misused, as if they were found on a selection of quotes without reading the rest of the piece in question.

I just wish he had a mirror.

It packs a lot into one place, with a lot of really well constructed and fast critiques. Definitely good for those who haven't yet recognised the way that restaurants fit into the capitalist system (because the first two sections focus on the food service sector).

Two things I wasn't fond of, though.

First, the zine design with hyper-crammed text, which was frustrating for a dyslexic person. Sometimes I couldn't figure out where I was in a sentence, meaning I had to go backwards. Genuinely had to read it on the computer because I needed to be able to highlight lines to keep reading properly.

Second, a common issue in anarchist agitprop is provocative phrasing that often shows cracks in solidarity. They talk about people as being 'schizophrenic', implying that this is an inherently bad thing (or implying the people doing this are bad). We don't need to do ableism in our agitprop; we can be clear, provocative, and easily understood without it.

I don't think this merits whatever praise it gets, especially for how often it's used among leftist writers when developing their arguments.

This book really... feels devoid of its own thought. The analysis and synthesis of ideas doesn't seem to actually take place, with it relying heavily on the thoughts of others. Considering the amount of times I read some variation of the phrase "as Žižek said," I may as well have gone and read Žižek (or Deleuze and Guattari, for that matter).

There are far too many references to too many pieces of media, which makes everything feel entirely vague or superficial. Even if he could adequately build a point using those pieces of media, it falls short and a lot of that analysis is needless? Like there's some media analysis about how names like McCauley are anonymous and without history, while Corleone is full of history because it's a name that comes from a village! And it's like... What was the point of mentioning this? Or even bringing it up? And it kind of feels like a weird way to say that you think history doesn't come from the Irish or the Scottish, but it does come from the Italians.

And the ableism, I swear. This book is a great example of how the "left" (or people perceived as such) provides entry points for harmful conspiracy theory, especially when it starts making an argument for how mental illness is really only addressed now that pharmaceutical companies can sell everyone SSRIs and make lots of money. He falsely claims that we don't discuss social causation of mental illnesses because we "individualised" it to brain chemistry to blame ourselves (which isn't true now, and definitely wasn't true in 2009). He tries to pin the use of the phrase "economic depression" on mental illness, when there's always been another meaning of the word "depression" (it's a very weird attempt at a gotcha and a strange failure to understand basic language).

He tries to claim that mental illness has increased over time without actually recognising all of the factors (so he'll look at numbers but not at factors contributing to the increase in mental illness, which also includes people feeling more comfortable getting help). He tries to claim that dyslexia has increased because ... people don't read since we have a lot of visual information? And... We don't have evidence for this because, like all learning disabilities, we... don't have full numbers of how many dyslexic people existed in the past and throughout time that writing has existed).

It's just... not good, very vapid, and sloppy. I cannot understand how it constantly gets referenced beyond it having a catchy title, a somewhat well-known author, and a few quotable lines.