Despite a growing body of comics criticism, much of the basic grounding for the criticism of comics in formal terms remains to be effectively articulated; the translators of Thierry Groensteen's The System of Comics, for example, described the situation as they saw it in 2007: "Questions of comics form have received relatively little attention in English language scholarship, which has tended to view the medium through historical, sociological, aesthetic (literary), and thematic lenses" (Beaty and Nguyen 2007, vii). Here, I hope to approach one important formal issue raised by comics, the problem of authorship; as I hope will be clear, I simply mean that the specific formal issues raised by comics have implications or consequences for how we identify the "author" of a comics work. Authorship may not initially seem to be a formal feature, but I will suggest that in comics (and thus elsewhere, I suspect) it is clearly implicated in formal structures.In its simplest form, the problem of authorship can be seen in the way that scholars, publishers, and even comics creators habitually privilege the "writer" of a particular comics work over the artist or artists, while (as Groensteen argues) "the necessary, if not sufficient, condition required to speak of comics is that the images will be multiple and correlated in some fashion" (2007, 19). Specifically, Groensteen argues for the primacy of the spatial (images and their relationships) over the linguistic as the definitive formal criterion of comics.1 The privileging of the author over the artist, to the degree that it privileges language over the image, is thus in conflict with the essential nature of the medium.The difficulties surrounding the proper identification of the comics author, as I will argue in more detail below, can be especially clearly approached by a consideration of autobiographical comics. As a genre, autobiography might appear to be only minimally vulnerable to epistemologica! problems centering upon the proper identification of the relationship between author and text. In simplistic terms, autobiography is that subset of biography in which the author is (or is understood to be) identical with the subject of the writing; if such an equation does not hold, we are in the realm of either biography or fiction, rather than autobiography. However, the autobiographical comics of Harvey Pekar's celebrated American Splendor series are especially intriguing, as Pekar never draws his own comics: Pekar is the author if we continue to privilege the linguistic at all costs, but the degree to which he does and does not control the visual aspects of his comics - the images and their relationships - suggests the possibility of slippage or uncertainty in our ability to identify Pekar (as the subject of the comics) with the unique author of the images.The crucial fact that Harvey Pekar writes the American Splendor comics but does not draw them has, in fact, attracted some critical commentary in relation to Amercian Splendou functioning as autobiography. Drawn by a variety of artists, in a wide variety of styles, Pekar's comics fail to be visually coherent, even to the point of seemingly irreconcilable variations of depictions of Pekar himself, a point made in one scene from the cinematic adaptation of American Splendor, when his future wife, Joyce Brabner, wonders which of the variously drawn Harvey Pekars she might be about to meet (Springer, Berman and Pulcini 2003). 2 The scene is a direct echo of a similar moment in the Pekar-Brabner-Mayerik collaboration, "A Marriage Album," but it reflects a difficulty encountered by anyone who reads more than a small handful of Pekar's stories.3 In an early critical response to American Splendor, Joseph Witek addressed the stylistic variety of the depictions of Pekar directly:since Pekar does not draw his own stories, the visual component of his character is continually being interpreted by his artist-collaborators, and these versions of Harvey overlay the fictional personae he adopts for himself. …