Safe area America

"The Fixer" has a narrower scope than your previous books. Why the decision to center a book on your relationship with one primary character?

I think Neven was an interesting character, the sort of person you often meet in a place like Sarajevo -- a run-down, war place. I thought it would be an interesting way of telling some of the behind-the-scenes stuff: how journalists work, what goes on, how journalists rely on people who may or may not be completely credible. I also don't think Neven is a particularly sympathetic character. I like the guy, and there's something about him that's tragic, and you kind of feel for him. But he obviously is out for himself.

What themes did you want him to embody?

Journalists often rely on people like Neven, on fixers who know the local scene. These are people who make a living out of it. The fixer can lead a journalist around, shape what a journalist is looking at. Even as far as translation goes, if a fixer feels like you shouldn't hear something, he'll cut off the conversation.

Someone like Neven is a typical person in a situation like this. He's impoverished, and he has a talent that could make him money. So obviously he's going to exploit that. There's a lot of exploitation that takes place in a situation like this, where he becomes dependent on a certain aspect of his talents to make a living during a war situation. A journalist is at the mercy of all kinds of elements and people. And maybe you get stuff that's not exactly right.

You were very honest in the book as far as portraying how naive you were in dealing with Neven initially, and then slowly coming to learn that the truth might be more complex. Was it difficult for you to expose yourself in that way?

I was just being honest. I'm not worried if people look at me and say, "Wow, that must mean he's a bad journalist." I never even thought of that. To me, there is a truth -- a real, literal truth -- but the perception can get really obscured. It goes through different filters and different lenses. Then it comes out onto the page, and something is lost, something is gained, but it seldom comes out as the actual literal truth.

Talking about truth, the medium you use brings up a lot of those issues, in terms of objectivity vs. subjectivity. You take a very subjective approach -- you're drawing, so we see things through your eyes, and also you include yourself in the stories. Why use that approach instead of the way we're usually told is the "correct" form -- straight third-person narration?

Of course, third-person journalism is still necessary. There's no point in interjecting an author's personality into all kinds of stories. But as a foreigner going into a situation in Europe or the Middle East, I come with my own prejudices and preconceived ideas. If I've got a prejudice, I'd rather it was known, and the reader can judge what I'm portraying knowing that there's a filter there. I want the reader to know that I'm approaching this as an outsider, and every drawing of myself is a reminder of that.

This whole pretext of "a reporter came to a checkpoint and had a discussion" -- I find this ridiculous. Why don't you just say it was you, and tell us what it was like? I'd rather feel like I was sitting across the table from someone who was in an interesting place telling me what he or she felt. Or what they really perceived.

Yet because art is more subjective, comics may have a reputation of being more inaccurate.

You get the essence of a place. You get the essence of the truth. A photograph will show you literally what is happening in front of the lens. (Of course with Photoshop you never really know.) With comics, I'm trying to establish a mood or an atmosphere of what a place is like. Let's say I'm walking down the street. I can draw mud in every single frame, so the mud is following the reader around, just like I'm walking through it.

As far as your own persona goes, what part of you makes it onto the page, and what gets held back?

What really matters is what advances the story, and what gets in the way. If someone told me a story and I was crying while they were telling it to me, would it be a good idea to show myself crying? I'd think probably not. To me that would undercut the story. Let the reader cry.

At the end of the book, Neven has a very tragic feel -- he's gained some weight, he's sick, he doesn't have the same energy. Were you using him as a symbol of the aftermath of the war?

You're right in that Neven very much reflects something I noticed. After the war there's a huge, huge letdown. You realize that the place is smashed, you're still dependent on foreign donors, no one has any work. You realize that the place is a basket case. Recovery takes much longer than the war itself. You can't even dream anymore. When the war's about to end, there's this dream of peace, and then it ends, and suddenly there's another reality to deal with.

It's important to portray what war means. It's not just about cool equipment. A lot of Americans have this impression -- although they're getting some reality with what's going on in Iraq every day -- war seems so distant and clean and video game-ish, and it's not. People are really broken.

What do you think about the American public's level of awareness about foreign conflicts?

I think the American population should be sent to The Hague to be judged. This is a country that has an enormous impact around the world. What is decided in Washington, D.C., when George Bush lifts his little finger -- someone around the world is going to feel it. To me it seems almost criminal that the people who live here, who elect someone like that -- if they really knew how other people's lives are affected by American policies, maybe they would pay more attention. It's appalling the amount of ignorance here about world events.

Are you a U.S. citizen?

No. But I'm going to apply for citizenship. I'm a permanent resident. Right now I'm a citizen of Malta.

Do you see any contradiction in the fact that you want to be a part of America, you sell your books here, and yet you're very critical of the American people?

I have a deep affection for this country, and in many ways living here and deciding to seek citizenship is my little way of taking some personal responsibility for how it acts. So I don't see a contradiction at all. I see a duty.

Do you think putting international news in a more engaging format like comics could help remedy American complacency, by making news more palatable?

Well, perhaps a few thousand people who might not otherwise be interested in a topic like Bosnia or Palestine will pick up my books and begin to take an interest. Or begin to see through some of what they watch on the nightly news. That's some contribution, admittedly a modest one. I expect others are doing the same thing in other formats -- film, prose, poetry, whatever -- and in total one hopes a change can be effected.

• View blog reactions