Comic Book Reviewers on the Internet?
Windbag1000
for your comics or are they provided to you?
I read reviews of some minimalist comics and I wonder if you'd be so happy to
have only five words per page if you were paying full price for them.
It's also annoying when reviewers complain about superhero stories they've seen
done before. That's not a criticism that means a story is poorly done -- it's
a criticism that means the reviewer has read too many comic books. Anyone else
agree?
wb. out.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> do you pay for your comics or are they provided to you?
Most I pay for. To keep it on topic here, I don't know of Marvel or DC
sending out free comics to reviewers on any sort of regular basis; DC does
sometimes provide review copies, but they're usually B&W photocopies.
> I read reviews of some minimalist comics and I wonder if you'd be so happy to
> have only five words per page if you were paying full price for them.
Even if I do get something for free, I try to keep in mind the question "is
this worth the cover price?"
> It's also annoying when reviewers complain about superhero stories they've
> seen done before. That's not a criticism that means a story is poorly done --
> it's a criticism that means the reviewer has read too many comic books.
It's hard to say one way or another out of context. I don't think anyone
enjoys a story that's too obvious or too much of a copy, but whether or not
something's fresh can depend on one's background, you're right.
I think a reviewer owes it to their audience to be informed about the field
they're discussing, including familiarity with the expected canon.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Bala Menon
news:20010908205814...@mb-fx.aol.com...
> It's also annoying when reviewers complain about
> superhero stories they've seen done before. That's
> not a criticism that means a story is poorly done --
> it's a criticism that means the reviewer has read too
> many comic books. Anyone else agree?
I'd disagree. Why should a reviewer (or anyone, for
that matter) be happy about seeing the same ideas
rehashed again ? I value originality in a writer; an
ability to present new ideas (or even a fresh perspective
on old ideas). If a writer's content to repeat the same
old stories time after time, that's hardly likely to
earn him compliments.
Are you actually complaining about someone having
_too much_ expertise in the area they're supposed
to be critiquing ?
--
Bala Menon (b.m...@att.net)
Windbag1000
>Are you actually complaining about someone having
>_too much_ expertise in the area they're supposed
>to be critiquing ?
>--
No, but I don't think someone's negative opinion of a comic should have to do
with the quality of the writing or crafting of a plot rather than the fact that
they personally have seen it before. The fact is it requires no expertise to
say that you've seen a particular concept done before. Especially if it's a
blanket statement without examples and specific reference issues. If Odin has
died before, cite the issues where it was done and compare those issues to the
new version. There are enough lazy comic writers, why should lazy reviewers
get away with it too.
wb out.
Eric J. Moreels
pay
> for your comics or are they provided to you?
At X-Fan, we pay for all the books we review.
--
Eric J. Moreels
Cinescape X-Fan Editor
e-mail: xf...@ihug.com.au
Web: http://www.cinescape.com/x-men/
AIM/MSN: XFan2K
Eric J. Moreels
> sending out free comics to reviewers on any sort of regular basis; DC does
> sometimes provide review copies, but they're usually B&W photocopies.
Marvel do sometimes send out B&W copies, but only very rarely.
Bala Menon
> >
> >Are you actually complaining about someone having
> >_too much_ expertise in the area they're supposed
> >to be critiquing ?
>
> comic should have to do with the quality of the writing
> or crafting of a plot rather than the fact that they
> personally have seen it before. The fact is it requires
> no expertise to say that you've seen a particular concept
> done before. Especially if it's a blanket statement without
> examples and specific reference issues. If Odin has
> died before, cite the issues where it was done and
> compare those issues to the new version.
Okay, I can appreciate this part of the argument.
It's the difference between "we've seen this before"
and "we've seen this idea before, and this writer brings
nothing new to the execution". And yes, definitely,
execution counts for a great deal. I didn't get that
aspect of your point earlier.
> There are enough lazy comic writers, why should
> lazy reviewers get away with it too.
No argument :-)
--
Bala Menon (b.m...@att.net)
Paul O'Brien
<windb...@aol.com> writes
>I have a question for those of you who write review columns online: do you pay
>for your comics or are they provided to you?
Yes, with a handful of exceptions we pay for them.
In the whole time I've been writing reviews, I have received absolutely
nothing free from Marvel. The previous holders of the novelisation
license sent me nine or ten X-Men novels.
Other than that, it's all my money.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
Brevity is the sister of talent.
Don MacPherson
> I have a question for those of you who write review columns online: do you
pay
> for your comics or are they provided to you?
As Johanna, Eric and Paul have noted, yes, for the most part, we pay for
them. For our First Look Reviews on The Fourth Rail
(www.thefourthrail.com), Randy Lander and I get access to the Marvel First
Look books and DC Sneak Peek titles from our retailers.
We do get B&W photocopied previews from some publishers. DC has scaled
theirs back recently, while Marvel has bumped theirs up a bit. Oni Press
sends out previews to us as well. Some small-press publishers and creators
themselves also send us finished products for review.
> I read reviews of some minimalist comics and I wonder if you'd be so happy
to
> have only five words per page if you were paying full price for them.
I see where you're going with this, but numbers of words per page is hardly
a gauge of the quality of the work. I find some of the most powerful scenes
in books by such creators as Garth Ennis and Warren Ellis, for example, to
be the silent ones.
> It's also annoying when reviewers complain about superhero stories they've
seen
> done before. That's not a criticism that means a story is poorly done --
it's
> a criticism that means the reviewer has read too many comic books. Anyone
else
> agree?
I disagree completely. Take, for example, the recent INCREDIBLE HULK 2001
annual. The main story featured a lengthy Hulk-vs-Thor fight. And nothing
else. It was something we'd seen a hundred times before, and it did nothing
to advance or change the characters in any way. Larsen's script offered up
nothing new, nothing novel.
Now, the four-page backup story by James Kochalka... now there was something
new. It might fit under your definition of minimalist, but it was new, cute
and fun.
Don MacPherson
Windbag1000
Of course you do. You're one of those who criticize something solely based on
what you've read before, not on the quality of the thing you're reviewing.
Hence:
> Take, for example, the recent INCREDIBLE HULK 2001
>annual. The main story featured a lengthy Hulk-vs-Thor fight. And nothing
>else. It was something we'd seen a hundred times before, and it did nothing
>to advance or change the characters in any way. Larsen's script offered up
>nothing new, nothing novel.
How about giving examples of how it's been done before? How about making some
comparisons? Wasn't the art worth note for being good -- or bad? Reviewers
are under no obligations to do this work (it's their hobby, probably - not a
career), but it makes the reviews look quite bland and unresearched.
>
>Now, the four-page backup story by James Kochalka... now there was something
>new. It might fit under your definition of minimalist, but it was new, cute
>and fun.
>
I enjoyed it for what it is, but this is a case where less is more. You add a
couple more pages, and the joke would wear very thin.
The Phoenix
From: windb...@aol.com (Windbag1000)
>I have a question for those of you who write review columns online: do you
>pay
>for your comics or are they provided to you?
While I haven't reviewd in ages, I've always bought my own comics, probably
always will. I'm rather low key, even when I am reviewing. =)
I should really get back into it at some point.
J
IRC: Foenix/Kinetix | Jason Bourgeois | Foe...@subreality.com
Unofficial torch-lighter of the Church of X-Books
Official Keeper of XBooks Future Histories and Rachel Summers Flame
"I'm me. That's all I need to be." ~ Brucha S. Meyers
Don MacPherson
> >I disagree completely.
>
> Of course you do. You're one of those who criticize something solely based
on
> what you've read before, not on the quality of the thing you're reviewing.
Despite what you may think, I didn't take your comments personally. So
please don't dismiss my contribution to the discussion as a personal
defense.
> Hence:
>
> > Take, for example, the recent INCREDIBLE HULK 2001
> >annual. The main story featured a lengthy Hulk-vs-Thor fight. And
nothing
> >else. It was something we'd seen a hundred times before, and it did
nothing
> >to advance or change the characters in any way. Larsen's script offered
up
> >nothing new, nothing novel.
>
> How about giving examples of how it's been done before? How about making
some
> comparisons? Wasn't the art worth note for being good -- or bad?
Reviewers
> are under no obligations to do this work (it's their hobby, probably - not
a
> career),
It was my career for a short while, thanks to the dot-com boom.
> but it makes the reviews look quite bland and unresearched.
Do you doubt we've *not* seen a Hulk-Thor tussle, resulting in no change
whatsoever to the status quo, before? And how is it different from a
Hulk/Thing battle (which has been dozens of times).
You think my reviews are bland. Cool, no problem. But your main contention
is that one shouldn't review a comic book in the context of what has come
before. That makes no sense.
Look at it this way. One of the reasons I loathe THREE'S COMPANY is that
just about every episode stemmed from the same formula. There's some kind
of Big Misunderstanding, and by the end of the episode, everything gets
cleared up and all the characters have a hearty laugh. Ditzy Blonde #1
leaves the show only to be replaced by another Ditzy Blonde. I don't care
for the show based on its overall *context.*
Now, context shouldn't be the sole contributing factor. In my INCREDIBLE
HULK 2001 review, I note the simple tone of Larsen's script just doesn't cut
it for me. Maybe when I was eight years old, 20 or more pages of two big
guys whaling on each other might have done it for me. But Larsen's audience
is not a throng of eight-year-olds. For the most part, it's teens and guys
in their 20s.
Don MacPherson
Windbag1000
>whatsoever to the status quo, before?
It's hard to know what you've seen if you don't provide examples of where other
huge "Thor/Hulk battles" have taken place. I don't remember seeing any that
lasted a whole issue, so if it's so common, why don't you give examples? I'm
not picking on you in particular, but everyone who writes that things are old
hat when new readers like myself don't have that perspective.
And how is it different from a
>Hulk/Thing battle (which has been dozens of times).
If it's worse, it's different. If it's better, it's different. By introducing
past stories, you're pretty much obligated to compare them. I understand if
that's too much work to do,but otherwise your opinion/argument looks fairly
shallow (bland isn't the right word -- sorry for using it before).
> But your main contention
>is that one shouldn't review a comic book in the context of what has come
>before. That makes no sense.
Read above and see if it makes sense yet.
>But Larsen's audience
>is not a throng of eight-year-olds. For the most part, it's teens and guys
>in their 20s.
If you pay money and spend time reading super-hero comics, you aren't doing the
industry a favor by requesting they be incomprehensible to young readers in
order to satisfy their twenty or thirtysomething counterparts. It's escapist
fun. Or that seems to be what Marvel comics used to be. Kids of all ages
should be allowed to escape into fun stories. There are plenty of mature
titles from Vertigo etc. to satisfy any amount of adult interest.
Windbag1000
look programs - how could they possibly be paying for them. They aren't
technically on sale yet. Are the books read for free one week, then actually
paid for the next? Do they promise to pay for them the next week even if they
don't like them? I wouldn't, and my comics budget would shrink quite a bit.
Maybe the first look program should be eliminated (since retailers can't
re-order anymore).
wb
KurtBusiek
whatsoever to the status quo, before? And how is it different from a
Hulk/Thing battle (which has been dozens of times).>>
I haven't seen the annual yet, but now that I've seen the claim that we've seen
the Hulk/Thor fight "a hundred times" downgraded to "dozens of times," I'm just
curious.
Can you list dozens of Hulk/Thor fights, Don? I'm not sure I could list even
one dozen, much less multiple dozens...
Not challenging your review either way, just wondering how often the two
actually have fought, and how long ago.
kdb
Richard B. Becker
Incredible Hulk #440 - April '96 cover date
Given that I've never read an issue of Thor, and I've only read
about 2 dozen issues of Hulk in my life, plus the last 3-4 months
of Avengers and Defenders, the fact that I can name one such fight
would seem to imply that these fights are fairly common. But it
could just be dumb luck that one of the very few issues that I
own happens to contain one of these fights. *shrug*
--Richard
KurtBusiek
That's one.
>> Given that I've never read an issue of Thor, and I've only read about 2
dozen issues of Hulk in my life, plus the last 3-4 months of Avengers and
Defenders, the fact that I can name one such fight
would seem to imply that these fights are fairly common.>>
Not really -- no more than it suggests that the Hulk having an atom bomb
dropped on him (didn't that happen that issue, too?) is fairly common.
>> But it could just be dumb luck that one of the very few issues that I own
happens to contain one of these fights. *shrug*>>
Could be -- it'd be easy to pick up two dozen Hulk issues where it didn't
happen, too.
I'm just interested, because I often wind up researching something that you'd
think had happened fifty times, only to find that it's only happened, say, five
times over the last forty years, and the last time was over a decade ago ... so
it could be something modern fans hadn't seen at all. It's a differrent
perspective, that's all.
For instance, when we picked up Ultron to use in AVENGERS, it had been years
since anyone had presented him as a credible threat. They'd just assumed the
audience knew he was a badass, and proceeded to do a story with him as an
ordinary villain, or worse, as somebody's prisoner or flunky. When we
reestablished him as a major threat, we heard from a lot of readers who'd never
realized he had that kind of stature.
Not the same thing as the Hulk fighting Thor, maybe. But I do think it's worth
remembering that even classic rivalries have to be reestablished from time to
time, or the only ones who'll know about them are the older readers.
kdb
Thomas Galloway
KurtBusiek <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote:
>Can you list dozens of Hulk/Thor fights, Don? I'm not sure I could list even
>one dozen, much less multiple dozens...
Off the top of my head; Avengers v1 #3, their bit in the Avengers-Defenders
War (which ended up as the two of them both gripping the hammer, completely
deadlocked, for an hour or two), an expansion of that last that I'm not
recalling where offhand it appeared, *not* the FFs in the #20 that had
both the FF and Avengers fighting the Hulk as Thor and Hulk never went
one-on-one, and I'm recalling a few other Avengers vs. Hulk during Hulk's
mindless period circa Hulk #300. Offhand, it has been a while since the
two of 'em went one on one...but I'd suspect that over the years Thor v.
Hulk's been second only to Hulk v. Thing for superheroes fighting Jadejaws.
tyg t...@Panix.com
Robert Carnegie
I seem to remember this early Thor story where some kids are arguing
over who'd win, and Thor tells them that heroes don't go around picking
fights just to see who'd win. And tells them about how he fought the
Hulk this one time, and...well, I think Odin saved his life in the end
and then gave him a dressing down. Which used to happen a lot.
I could be mixing several stories together here. But if I didn't dream it,
that was kind of the definitive Thor/Hulk fight. If it wasn't an early
story then the story-within-story read like one...? Either way, if there
are any younger readers left then it was before they were born, but you
know how we all have a Jungian collective "cosmic awareness" of these
things. ;-)
I haven't been to the store yet this weekend, but if Erik Larsen's annual
story has Thor picking a fight with the Hulk just to see who'd win, I think
I'd better read it first to see where he takes it, before deciding to spend
money. I think the charge is that it might be artistically purer if Marvel
just reprinted the "definitive Thor/Hulk fight" from files.
In fact, with all that great comicbook history, do we need _any_ new
comics at all? Does Marvel need all these troublesome creative people
working for it? "Marvel, the House of Reprints" - has a ring :-)
Back to Thor: research is cheating in this game, but
www.chronologyproject.com says that the Hulk was in Thor 233, 385,
488, 489, and Thor appeared in Hulk 153, 255, 277-279, 281-284, 300,
439, 440, 445, 467. Of course they're probably not _all_ just big
fights, and later issues have smart Hulk, but I haven't looked for
yet for Thor in _Defenders_ or Hulk in _Avengers_ - the latter is
less likely to be one-on-one, of course, more likely to be a team event.
But I'd figure that if there is a "definitive" fight story out there
between any two physical heroes, _or_ their previous fist-fights are
even approaching double figures, then we don't need to see it done over.
Hoping to be surprised by _Hulk 2001_ - that's why I buy comics.
Robert Carnegie
Glasgow, Scotland
Johanna Draper Carlson
> if the reviewers get their comics through first
> look programs - how could they possibly be paying for them.
Most likely, they're reading them in the store or borrowing them
temporarily.
> Are the books read for free one week, then actually
> paid for the next? Do they promise to pay for them the next week even if they
> don't like them?
Why does that matter?
I'm glad some reviewers use the first look books, because too many reviewers
talk only about what they'd already decided to buy, so they aren't checking
the entire range of what's published. I know, it's too costly to buy comics
you don't expect to like just to talk about them, but it's still a bias
introduced.
> Maybe the first look program should be eliminated (since retailers can't
> re-order anymore).
Um, that's only Marvel. DC does a similar program, only with reorders.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: Mephisto & the Empty Box, Kane, Xeno's Arrow, Vox,
The Red Star, Reviews including Alias, Electropolis, Out There,
Superman, Top 10, Ult. Spider-Man, Wolverine:Origin, Whitechapel Freak
Alan D. Earhart
<windb...@aol.com> wrote:
I'm pretty sure what happens is that they (reviewers) either borrow the
books for a short period to review them or hang out in the store to
read them. The first look program, as far as I know, is only available
to retailers.
The program also gives the retailers a chance to know what's in the
books before they go on sale to better stock them and to stay better
informed about the product. At least I think that's how it's supposed
to work! :)
Alan D. Earhart
fan...@femtowatt-club.com
Brian Jacks
>The first look program, as far as I know, is only available
>to retailers.
>
Correct.
-Brian
Brian Jacks
>I have a question for those of you who write review columns online: do you
>pay
>for your comics or are they provided to you?
As others have said, perhaps 98% of the DC and Marvel comics reviewed are paid
for. When they do send out preview copies, they are for the most part B&W, and
occasionally incomplete or subject to changes. Most of the other publishers
send out comp comics on a regular basis to some reviewers, such as Slush when
we were running. That said, publishers don't send out comps for every comic
they put out, so I would still purchase titles every week.
>I read reviews of some minimalist comics and I wonder if you'd be so happy to
>have only five words per page if you were paying full price for them.
Whether or not I paid for the comic is inconsequential to me. Either I enjoyed
it or I didn't, and I'll state my reasons for either. I am always acutely
aware that publishers are asking readers to purchase a comic I'm reviewing, so
it's very important to me to give my opinions without bias.
>It's also annoying when reviewers complain about superhero stories they've
>seen
>done before. That's not a criticism that means a story is poorly done --
>it's
>a criticism that means the reviewer has read too many comic books. Anyone
>else
>agree?
Although a reviewer is stating their opinions for an audience, they are, at
day's end, simply another comic book reader. Whatever criticisms they have of
a book, such as redundancy, probably resonates with fellow readers. After all,
a reviewer is simply giving their opinions, and like all opinions, some people
would find themselves more in agreement than others.
-Brian
Windbag1000
>think had happened fifty times, only to find that it's only happened, say,
>five
>times over the last forty years, and the last time was over a decade ago ...
>so
>it could be something modern fans hadn't seen at all. It's a differrent
>perspective, that's all.
This is what I'm talking about. Reviews have a tendency to bring a very narrow
frame of reference which doesn't necessarily reflect an objective pov. I read
a lot of comics too, but that doesn't mean a good Thor-Hulk battle couldn't be
discerned from a bad Thor-Hulk battle by something more concrete than "it's
been done a hundred times before" or "it's too simplistic". Sometimes, Keep It
Simple, Stupid is the best thing to do in a story, other times complexities are
the way to go.
>
>
>Not the same thing as the Hulk fighting Thor, maybe. But I do think it's
>worth
>remembering that even classic rivalries have to be reestablished from time to
>time, or the only ones who'll know about them are the older readers.
>
Amen.
wb
Windbag1000
>> look programs - how could they possibly be paying for them.
>
>Most likely, they're reading them in the store or borrowing them
>temporarily.
Very interesting. And yet these reviewers still contend that they pay for all
of the comics they review. It sounds like a very difficult expense to justify
if they aren't paying to actually read them. I just think most criticism is
done in a context that most regular readers can't relate to. You pay the money
before you read them, so you risk getting ripped off a lot more. Reviews
become very important then, so people will know in advance what they should
buy. Of course, if the reviewers rave over minimalist storytelling and readers
buy them because of that rave -- those readers may end up feeling ripped off
because they expect more for their money. Taking this hypothetical to its
logical extension -- those readers decide "if that's the best comics have to
offer, I'll pass." We all know how great readership has been since the 90s.
Perhaps kids don't like what critics like either.
wb
Windbag1000
>>The first look program, as far as I know, is only available
>>to retailers.
>>
>
>Correct.
Then it must be the retailers who are doing first look reviews because they
come online a week before hand. In which case I'm surprised every comic
doesn't get a great review, then the retailers could guarantee that readers
would pick it up. :)
wb
Windbag1000
>paid
>for.
How is this possible if the first-look books that are reviewed aren't even on
sale yet?
wb
The Long Box Staff
Erik Larsen).
--
L. J'amal Walton
lja...@longbox.com
Enjoy comics?
Check out The Long Box
www.longbox.com
"KurtBusiek" <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote in message
news:20010909203410...@mb-ck.aol.com...
: >>Do you doubt we've *not* seen a Hulk-Thor tussle, resulting in no change
:
:
:
KurtBusiek
[Tom cites three, and is confident of a few more]
>>I'd suspect that over the years Thor v. Hulk's been second only to Hulk v.
Thing for superheroes fighting Jadejaws.>>
I'd guess that Hulk/Doc Samson would be in second place, but haven't researched
it...
kdb
KurtBusiek
who'd win, and Thor tells them that heroes don't go around picking fights just
to see who'd win. And tells them about how he fought the Hulk this one time,
and...well, I think Odin saved his life in the end and then gave him a dressing
down. Which used to happen a lot.>>
That was JOURNEY INTO MYSTERY #112 -- an elaboration on the encounter in
AVENGERS #3.
kdb
Matt Adler
Where would Spider-Man figure on that list? And Wolverine?
--
"Hmm, Mr. Immortal has the makings of an interesting concept, but c'mon,
Flatman is kind of dopey."
"Dopey? Where's your SENSE OF WONDER? Your vacant eyes betray the DEADNESS
OF YOUR VERY SOUL!"
-- As told by Adam Cadre
KurtBusiek
Feel free to check, Matt. I ain't researched it.
kdb
Thomas Galloway
You're probably right, but despite the occasional appearance in Marvel
Team-Up and the like, I don't think Samson's made enough substantial
appearances as a superhero, as opposed to psychiatrist, outside the Hulk's
series to "feel" like a superhero battling Hulk, as opposed to being
a member of the Hulk's supporting cast who battles him. Offhand, I'd guess
that 90+% of Samson's appearances have been in the Hulk.
tyg t...@panix.com
Don MacPherson
> >> if the reviewers get their comics through first
> >> look programs - how could they possibly be paying for them.
> >
> >Most likely, they're reading them in the store or borrowing them
> >temporarily.
>
> Very interesting. And yet these reviewers still contend that they pay for
all
> of the comics they review.
Actually, what I said, and others said, was that we pay for *most* of our
comics. Furthermore, my use of First Look books is something that's between
me and my retailer. I really don't care to get into details, since it's
nobody's business.
Think of it this way... do you really think that most film critics *pay* to
see the movies they review? Does it matter?
>Of course, if the reviewers rave over minimalist storytelling and readers
> buy them because of that rave -- those readers may end up feeling ripped
off
> because they expect more for their money.
I have a few readers who gauge what to buy based on what I didn't like.
They've come to see that my tastes run contrary to theirs. So there's still
value in the review that way.
Don MacPherson
Don MacPherson
Actually, the point I made in the review is that we've seen this sort of
climactic battle many times... not necessarily Hulk/Thor, but the typical
brute-vs-brute fight scene that ultimately means nothing to the characters
at the end of the story. This Hulk/Thor fight was the same sort of thing
I've seen in Hulk/Thing fights, or Sasquatch/Thing, or Colossus/Gladiator.
Don MacPherson
Don MacPherson
You're not paying attention, "WindBag" (his name for himself, not mine). In
most cases, retailers *loan* them to the reviewer. When Randy Lander and I
were in New York doing Psycomic, *two* retailers loaned us First Look/Sneak
Peek books.
When I was working for Fandom, my retailer -- and good friend -- in
Charlottetown, P.E.I. loaned me the books.
They didn't have to do it. They were being nice.
Don MacPherson
Windbag1000
>Think of it this way... do you really think that most film critics *pay* to
>see the movies they review? Does it matter?
But most movie reviews come out the day movies are released. Your reviews
come out four or five days early. People can now develop opinions about
things days in advance just by going by reviews alone.
>First Look books is something that's between
>me and my retailer. I really don't care to get into details, since it's
>nobody's business.
>
Fair enough, it is your business. But you can't compare yourself to a film
critic because movie reviewers are paid by their newspapers - fairly impartial
parties who have no real stake in whether a movie is liked or not. The free
passes don't have to come from theaters because if they have to pay, their
publishers will reimburse them.
>
>>Of course, if the reviewers rave over minimalist storytelling and readers
>> buy them because of that rave -- those readers may end up feeling ripped
>off
>> because they expect more for their money.
>
>I have a few readers who gauge what to buy based on what I didn't like.
>They've come to see that my tastes run contrary to theirs. So there's still
>value in the review that way.
>
That doesn't really address the point that I raise in my point about people
trying a new comic for the first and possibly last time.
wb.
Windbag1000
>I've seen in Hulk/Thing fights, or Sasquatch/Thing, or Colossus/Gladiator.
If you assume we're to assume that based on most of that book's first-look
reviews, I think you're assuming too much. Notice I'm not singling any critic
out. They're all guilty if they are posting in advance of a book's release
without referencing the reasons for their criticisms (through issue #s or
specific examples).
wb
Windbag1000
>most cases, retailers *loan* them to the reviewer. When Randy Lander and I
>were in New York doing Psycomic, *two* retailers loaned us First Look/Sneak
>Peek books.
I am paying attention. My contention is that if they are loaned to you, you
aren't paying in advance of reading them. Your experience is therefore not like
those of most readers who regrettably may take your opinions into consideration
when deciding what to buy when the books go on sale three or four days later.
By not putting down your 2.25 to read a comic, your pov is skewed. That is the
main point which you and other reviewers seem to be avoiding.
I would personally prefer if reviewers posted their reviews after or on the day
they go on sale - even if reviewers still read "loaner" copies a week in
advance.
From what I gather, only Paul O'Brien posts his reviews three or four days
after they go on sale. His reviews, whether agreed with or not, tend to have a
much more useful role because they invite discussion between people who have
already read the comics for themselves. That's not possible with first-look
reviews.
wb
Todd Kogutt: Scavenger
<mad...@ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
> And Wolverine?
Heck, Hulk and Wolverine have only fought a few times.
Lessee...the Hulk 181, 340, later on around Onslaught, 2 issues of
Wolverine (where they never really fight). Maybe one other time or so.
---SCAVENGER
Michael Davis
> www.chronologyproject.com says that the Hulk was in Thor 233, 385,
I recall Thor 385 as one of the well done Hulk/Thor fights. The story took
place during the Hulk/Banner separation, so we have a nice, angry, feral
Hulk. I forget why the two ended up fighting, but I think Hulk was
threatening some southwestern town. (You know, given the population
density in the West, the Hulk sure does run into a lot of towns...) The two
combatants fought through most of the book before Thor realizes how much
damage they've caused by fighting. One of the final scenes is Thor standing
in the middle of square miles of flattened buildings, leveled trees, etc.
Favorite scene: Hulk picks up a freight train (not just the engine, but the
whole *TRAIN*) and dumps it on Thor. You get a friendly note from Stan
saying they didn't add a sound effect because none would do it Justice.
Mike Davis -- I really do like stories with plot and character development,
but occasionally I like to see the big guns open up a can...
******************************************************************************
"The umpire says 'play ball,' not 'work ball.'"
--Willie `Pops' Stargell
davi...@pilot.msu.edu, dav...@pa.msu.edu
http://www.pa.msu.edu/~davism -- Now with my "You Know What To Do" on mp3!
******************************************************************************
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I would personally prefer if reviewers posted their reviews after or on the
> day they go on sale - even if reviewers still read "loaner" copies a week in
> advance.
I don't deal with First Look books, and I post my reviews on the weekend,
because that way I don't have to rush through the books just to get reviews
done. I can approach them in a more enjoyable way, and I have more time to
gather my thoughts and frame them in a way that makes sense to others.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I just think most criticism is
> done in a context that most regular readers can't relate to.
By definition, a reviewer is placing herself into a different context,
simply by writing about the comics she's read.
> Perhaps kids don't like what critics like either.
Critics in all fields have different tastes from the masses.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> most movie reviews come out the day movies are released. Your reviews
> come out four or five days early.
In order for those reviews to be printed in the newspaper that's out the
same day the films are released, the reviewer had to go early. Usually there
are preview screenings. In fact, if a movie doesn't have early screenings,
it gets a bad buzz. The presumption is that the studio who has a worthwhile
movie isn't afraid of the press.
> movie reviewers are paid by their newspapers - fairly impartial
> parties who have no real stake in whether a movie is liked or not.
Are you insinuating that Don has some stake in whether the comics he talks
about are liked or not?
> That doesn't really address the point that I raise in my point about people
> trying a new comic for the first and possibly last time.
If a new comic doesn't appeal, don't blame the reviewer -- blame the
publisher and creator.
John C. Baker
MacPherson" <dma...@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> When I was working for Fandom, my retailer -- and good friend -- in
> Charlottetown, P.E.I. loaned me the books.
Was that the comic shop on Queen or the one on University? I've had
experiances in both, and I prefer one over the other.
Don MacPherson
news:jcb10-10090...@10.0.1.50...
Queen St. Lightning Bolt Comics. Tell Dylan that Don sent you.
Don MacPherson
Richard B. Becker
>
> Critics in all fields have different tastes from the masses.
>
and never understood.
You'd think that the best way for the masses to get something
worthwhile out of reading reviews would be for the reviews to
come from people who generally agree with their tastes.
I used to have an after school job at a movie theater in high
school, and I knew that my taste in movies agreed with the general
audiences more than anything I read in newspaper reviews. People
would occasionally ask me which movies I'd recommend, and I knew
that because I had tastes that went along with the masses for the
most part, and I had the opportunity to see more movies than most
people, I could give them a better answer than most critics
in the newspaper.
My point is: why are the majority of critics people who disagree
with their readers more than half the time? I never did understand
that.
--Richard
Don MacPherson
> >
> >Think of it this way... do you really think that most film critics *pay*
to
> >see the movies they review? Does it matter?
>
> But most movie reviews come out the day movies are released. Your
reviews
> come out four or five days early. People can now develop opinions about
> things days in advance just by going by reviews alone.
As Johanna has pointed out, movie critics often see the films long before
they are released. Furthermore, you contend that comics reviews are meant
to generate discussion, that people read them *after* having bought and read
the comic book in question. But this tends not to be the case with movies.
People check out the reviews *before* seeing the movie, in many cases.
I'm afraid your argument is flawed.
> >First Look books is something that's between
> >me and my retailer. I really don't care to get into details, since it's
> >nobody's business.
> >
>
> Fair enough, it is your business. But you can't compare yourself to a
film
> critic because movie reviewers are paid by their newspapers - fairly
impartial
> parties who have no real stake in whether a movie is liked or not. The
free
> passes don't have to come from theaters because if they have to pay, their
> publishers will reimburse them.
I have been paid for my reviews. Not anymore. Actually, isn't the fact
that *nobody* is paying me make a better argument for impartiality? Just
because someone works for a newspaper, it doesn't automatically make them an
impartial observer. I work for a newspaper. If I were to write comics
reviews for the paper instead of my website, *then* my reviews would be OK?
> >I have a few readers who gauge what to buy based on what I didn't like.
> >They've come to see that my tastes run contrary to theirs. So there's
still
> >value in the review that way.
> >
>
> That doesn't really address the point that I raise in my point about
people
> trying a new comic for the first and possibly last time.
So I should give positive reviews so people will give the next issue a try
even if the first one is crap?
Don MacPherson
Don MacPherson
> > This Hulk/Thor fight was the same sort of thing
> >I've seen in Hulk/Thing fights, or Sasquatch/Thing, or
Colossus/Gladiator.
>
> If you assume we're to assume that based on most of that book's first-look
> reviews, I think you're assuming too much.
If I assume you're to assume... then I'm assuming too much? What? What am
I assuming (twice)? What are you assuming? What?
> Notice I'm not singling any critic
> out. They're all guilty if they are posting in advance of a book's
release
> without referencing the reasons for their criticisms (through issue #s or
> specific examples).
Guilty? Guilty of what?
Don MacPherson
Johanna Draper Carlson
> You'd think that the best way for the masses to get something
> worthwhile out of reading reviews would be for the reviews to
> come from people who generally agree with their tastes.
The problem is, once you start reviewing, you're no longer one of the mass.
You have to be able to explain why you like or dislike something, and what's
good or bad about it, so no more mindlessly reading or watching whatever.
(Trust me, simply saying "I hated this" will never fly.) You also read/watch
a lot more of stuff than the usual reader/viewer, so different things begin
to appeal to you because you've seen more of it. You also feel more deeply
about the medium than the casual participant, or you wouldn't need to write
about it.
> I could give them a better answer than most critics in the newspaper.
If you're talking one-on-one, you can always give a better answer than
someone writing for a disparate group of readers.
> My point is: why are the majority of critics people who disagree
> with their readers more than half the time?
I don't think they start that way.
Plus, reading someone you agree with is boring. It's more fun to read
someone you disagree with.
Don MacPherson
purely for the diversion at this point.
Windbag1000 <windb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010910162346...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> >You're not paying attention, "WindBag" (his name for himself, not mine).
In
> >most cases, retailers *loan* them to the reviewer. When Randy Lander and
I
> >were in New York doing Psycomic, *two* retailers loaned us First
Look/Sneak
> >Peek books.
>
> I am paying attention. My contention is that if they are loaned to you,
you
> aren't paying in advance of reading them. Your experience is therefore not
like
> those of most readers who regrettably may take your opinions into
consideration
> when deciding what to buy when the books go on sale three or four days
later.
> By not putting down your 2.25 to read a comic, your pov is skewed.
OK, let's use another medium as an analogy. If I watch a TV show for review
purposes in my home, where I pay for cable, my POV isn't skewed because I
paid for it. But if I watch it at a friend's house -- where I'm not paying
for the service -- I can't judge it fairly?
I don't think so.
> That is the
> main point which you and other reviewers seem to be avoiding.
I'm not avoiding it. I'm saying it makes not sense. You're wrong.
> I would personally prefer if reviewers posted their reviews after or on
the day
> they go on sale - even if reviewers still read "loaner" copies a week in
> advance.
Randy and I do post reviews the day after new comic day. But what
difference does it make? Not everyone picks up their comics every
Wednesday. Some get their books only once a month. How is that different
from the First Look situation?
> From what I gather, only Paul O'Brien posts his reviews three or four days
> after they go on sale. His reviews, whether agreed with or not, tend to
have a
> much more useful role because they invite discussion between people who
have
> already read the comics for themselves. That's not possible with
first-look
> reviews.
People don't have to read the First Look reviews the moment they're online.
They can't wait a few days. Many do. Others, who have come to know what
Randy and I enjoy and what we don't, trust in what we have to say. Others
still have tastes that run completely opposite to ours.
Don MacPherson
Don MacPherson
news:B7C2E040.4F635%joh...@comicsworthreading.com...
> Plus, reading someone you agree with is boring. It's more fun to read
> someone you disagree with.
No it isn't.
Kidding.
Don MacPherson
Alan D. Earhart
<windb...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> if the reviewers get their comics through first
> >> look programs - how could they possibly be paying for them.
> >
> >Most likely, they're reading them in the store or borrowing them
> >temporarily.
>
> Very interesting. And yet these reviewers still contend that they pay for all
> of the comics they review. It sounds like a very difficult expense to justify
> if they aren't paying to actually read them. I just think most criticism is
> done in a context that most regular readers can't relate to. You pay the
> money
> before you read them, so you risk getting ripped off a lot more. Reviews
> become very important then, so people will know in advance what they should
> buy. Of course, if the reviewers rave over minimalist storytelling and
> readers
> buy them because of that rave -- those readers may end up feeling ripped off
> because they expect more for their money. Taking this hypothetical to its
> logical extension -- those readers decide "if that's the best comics have to
> offer, I'll pass." We all know how great readership has been since the 90s.
> Perhaps kids don't like what critics like either.
There are two separate issues here. I believe any reviewer that states
they buy their books. I know Paul has stated he buys his books. The
only one I remember who clearly states that he's looking at the
first-look books is Dave and he mentions this in his capsules. Not that
there aren't others... I only recall Dave.
As for the reviews themselves, I treat them like those done by movie
critics. If I find my likes and dislikes running similar to one or more
people then I will base some purchasing decisions on what they say
(rare now only because of my limited cash flow). As for those who have
different tastes, I read their reviews to compare and/or discuss my own
ideas on the books.
I've never felt ripped off because of a review. I've gone to movies and
read comics that made me think "what was that critic smoking?". There
are reviews and critics I ignore because I don't respect them or their
reviews.
I doubt kids are basing their purchases on reviews done by critics.
They may be getting info from friends or talking to people in the shop
to get ideas.
Alan D. Earhart
fan...@femtowatt-club.com
Windbag1000
>
>OK, let's use another medium as an analogy. If I watch a TV show for review
>purposes in my home, where I pay for cable, my POV isn't skewed because I
>paid for it. But if I watch it at a friend's house -- where I'm not paying
>for the service -- I can't judge it fairly?
But you can't watch TV shows in advance and then put your opinions on the
internet. TV critics may have watched the fall shows in the spring, but that
doesn't mean their reviews will appear until the show actually premieres. I'm
saying the combination of not paying for the books *combined with* reviewing
them before the casual reader is an inherent problem with first-look reviews.
I'm not picking apart any particular reviewer's tendencies -- I'm just
examining this system by which fans who have website access to voice their
opinions and a friend who provides them with loaner copies are becoming way too
influential. Especially when their reviews are lazily written and don't try to
analyze whether a comic might succeed with its target audience (to which the
critic may not belong).
When I raised this thread, the initial response was -- oh yes, we pay for our
comics. It then became "most" of our comics. And now it seems like the
reviewers aren't paying until after they've read them (and I have to wonder if
they're paying for the ones they didn't like at all -- by the way this is the
point I would really like to see the reviewers respond to). Hmmm? If I
weren't being paid to review, I sure wouldn't. Unless I were independently
wealthy and had lots of time to sit around reading comics that I hated and then
proceeding to spend two-fifty or three bucks for each of those comics.
windbag.
Alan D. Earhart
<kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote:
> >>Off the top of my head;>>
>
> [Tom cites three, and is confident of a few more]
>
> >>I'd suspect that over the years Thor v. Hulk's been second only to Hulk v.
> Thing for superheroes fighting Jadejaws.>>
>
> I'd guess that Hulk/Doc Samson would be in second place, but haven't researched
> it...
I have about 11 of the Hulk/Things fights and I would guess that there
are somewhere around 20+/- of 'em.
Alan D. Earhart
fan...@femtowatt-club.com
Windbag1000
I've placed **** around the new clarifying text.
>If I
>weren't being paid to review, I sure wouldn't ****pay for comics I didn't
like****. Unless I were independently
>wealthy and had lots of time to sit around reading comics that I hated and
>then
>proceeding to spend two-fifty or three bucks for each of those comics.
>
Sorry for the obscurity and to anyone who jumped to the wrong conclusion from
my erroneous post.
>wb
Don MacPherson
Don wrote:
> >OK, let's use another medium as an analogy. If I watch a TV show for
review
> >purposes in my home, where I pay for cable, my POV isn't skewed because I
> >paid for it. But if I watch it at a friend's house -- where I'm not
paying
> >for the service -- I can't judge it fairly?
>
> But you can't watch TV shows in advance and then put your opinions on the
> internet. TV critics may have watched the fall shows in the spring, but
that
> doesn't mean their reviews will appear until the show actually premieres.
They often appear in advance of the TV premiere.
> I'm
> saying the combination of not paying for the books *combined with*
reviewing
> them before the casual reader is an inherent problem with first-look
reviews.
But what's the problem? You keep saying there is one, but you haven't
explained what's inherent wrong with it. Furthermore, you keep ignoring the
fact that reviews of many mediums are published before the movie/book/tv
show is available to the general public.
> I'm not picking apart any particular reviewer's tendencies -- I'm just
> examining this system by which fans who have website access to voice their
> opinions
One need not have a website to voice one's opinion. My reviews started here
on Usenet.
> and a friend who provides them with loaner copies are becoming way too
> influential.
Again, you're not explaining yourself. You just say that a reviewer some
kind of undue influence with advance reviews of comics s/he hasn't paid for.
Why? What's your reasoning?
> Especially when their reviews are lazily written
That's an assumption. And it's subjective.
> and don't try to
> analyze whether a comic might succeed with its target audience (to which
the
> critic may not belong).
As long as the critic realizes and notes that s/he is not a part of the
target audience, what's wrong with that?
> When I raised this thread, the initial response was -- oh yes, we pay for
our
> comics. It then became "most" of our comics. And now it seems like the
> reviewers aren't paying until after they've read them (and I have to
wonder if
> they're paying for the ones they didn't like at all -- by the way this is
the
> point I would really like to see the reviewers respond to).
I preorder my comics. I buy what I've ordered, even if I've learned it's
crap after the fact. When I preorder, I essentially enter into a contract
with my retailer that I will purchase the item as long as it meets the specs
in the solicitation copy.
Regardless, I don't see how I choose to spend my money has to do with my
reviews.
> Hmmm? If I
> weren't being paid to review, I sure wouldn't.
If you'd preordered the book, you'd be screwing over your retailer.
Don MacPherson
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
Don MacPherson <dma...@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Windbag1000 <windb...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20010910223200...@mb-cj.aol.com...
>Don wrote:
>> I'm
>> saying the combination of not paying for the books *combined with*
>reviewing
>> them before the casual reader is an inherent problem with first-look
>reviews.
>
>But what's the problem? You keep saying there is one, but you haven't
>explained what's inherent wrong with it. Furthermore, you keep ignoring the
>fact that reviews of many mediums are published before the movie/book/tv
>show is available to the general public.
Well, one thing I see as a problem is a large number of reviews tend to
be negative. I believed if a reviewer had to actually buy the books
they reviewed, they'd only pick up books they buy and presumably like,
so the reviews would tend to be more positive. I find it funny to watch
reviewers month after month pick apart a book they didn't like last month,
the month before, etc. Why are they bothering to read the book anymore?
We already know they don't like it.
Now, is that a problem? I tend to think an industry struggling to survive
needs more positive material written about it than negative, but that's
just me. I also tend to think a balanced review is best. Someone who
likes a book generally, but sees things that they would like to change
about it. Reading a review by someone who doesn't like the book is
sometimes irritating to me, because the bias comes through loud and clear
most of the time. They complain about things this particular books is
doing, but its okay on a title they like, because presumably the writer
is potentially going to do something sometime later.
RJRJR
Matt Adler
> You'd think that the best way for the masses to get something
> worthwhile out of reading reviews would be for the reviews to
> come from people who generally agree with their tastes.
But the masses don't read. They watch TV.
--
"Hmm, Mr. Immortal has the makings of an interesting concept, but c'mon,
Flatman is kind of dopey."
"Dopey? Where's your SENSE OF WONDER? Your vacant eyes betray the DEADNESS
OF YOUR VERY SOUL!"
-- As told by Adam Cadre
Dale Hicks
says...
>
> Well, one thing I see as a problem is a large number of reviews tend to
> be negative.
USENET in action.
> I believed if a reviewer had to actually buy the books
> they reviewed, they'd only pick up books they buy and presumably like,
> so the reviews would tend to be more positive.
Spoon almost always gives his books at least 3.7 out of 4.0. Routinely.
Although we're talking SUPERGIRL and AVENGERS (at least the ones I read),
so I can't ever call him a liar.
I think it's more of an addiction of sorts than a pure hit every time,
though. You have to trudge through many a dreary comic in order to get
that one good one, while surviving on a title for the little things (like
the way Butch Guice draws gorgeous women, or the way Jurgens and Layton
combine to make the snazziest "superhero art" in quite a while, or
Busiek/Larsen's little Hulk quips). As a result you suffer through
droning writing or weak art, just for the good bits.
It is nice to have that one week where every comic entertains, though.
And it was sad to see Randy and Don leave, they were good for the group.
I always thought them fair, though. In fact, Don's review was the one I
trusted the most simply because a correspondence of tastes.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Paul O'Brien
<richard...@mindspring.com> writes
>
>You'd think that the best way for the masses to get something
>worthwhile out of reading reviews would be for the reviews to
>come from people who generally agree with their tastes.
The problem is that anyone who watches/reads/whatever that volume
of material almost invariably develops different tastes from the
general audience, simply by virtue of having been exposed to so
much material.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
Brevity is the sister of talent.
Robert Carnegie
> >>Off the top of my head;>>
>
> [Tom cites three, and is confident of a few more]
>
> >>I'd suspect that over the years Thor v. Hulk's been second only to Hulk v.
> Thing for superheroes fighting Jadejaws.>>
>
> I'd guess that Hulk/Doc Samson would be in second place, but haven't
> researched it...
>
Since it's, like, Samson's job.
But how many issues of DEFENDERS does Hulk _not_ fight Namor...
Although that's part of the premise of that ongoing title, and
really we're talking "event" fights. That might cut out Samson
too, though, and the Hulkbusters.
Sidebar: (re)searching online to check my impression that PAD revived
the name Hulkbusters from a previous team - still not sure, frankly -
I found a reference to Bill Mantlo's creation of the character
Moonstone, with the real name Karl Soften. Surprising - but
this was in Comic Book Galaxy's "Worst Column Ever!"...despite the
title, not obviously deliberate, but maybe kept in just for fun...
Appears to be Karl's only appearance in http://google.com/ - so far...
Robert Carnegie
Glasgow, Scotland
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I doubt kids are basing their purchases on reviews done by critics.
Alan brings up a good point -- I believe it's possible for a critic to draw
attention to a good book that's been overlooked (although this happens most
often when several critics agree), but it's much less likely that a critic
is going to convince people to not buy a book they were planning on getting.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> TV critics may have watched the fall shows in the spring, but that
> doesn't mean their reviews will appear until the show actually premieres.
Both Entertainment Weekly and TV Guide have done complete rundowns of the
new season, reviewing shows that we aren't yet able to watch. Reviewers fly
out to Hollywood twice a year precisely to get advance PR on what's coming
up so they can write about it.
It might be interesting if comics worked this way, but it would mean new
titles only debuting twice a year. :)
> saying the combination of not paying for the books *combined with* reviewing
> them before the casual reader is an inherent problem with first-look reviews.
Why? Why is that a problem? I don't think anyone's clear on why you think
this. What terrible thing happens because some reviewers (not all) review
First Look books?
> examining this system by which fans who have website access to voice their
> opinions and a friend who provides them with loaner copies are becoming way
> too influential.
Oh, please. It's unlikely that reviews have much if any influence. I've been
doing them for 8 years, and I don't flatter myself that much.
You can look at the sales charts in comparison to the best-reviewed books
and see that.
> Especially when their reviews are lazily written and don't try to
> analyze whether a comic might succeed with its target audience (to which the
> critic may not belong).
Without examples, you're just throwing around accusations randomly. What's
your beef against reviewers? Would you prefer to enter the shop blindly
every week? You can do that, you know -- just don't read reviews.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> one thing I see as a problem is a large number of reviews tend to
> be negative.
80% of anything is crap. Pointing that out isn't the reviewers' fault.
Plus, you can blame the audience. Negative reviews get attention and
response. If people responded to positive instead of negative reviews, there
might be more of them.
> I believed if a reviewer had to actually buy the books
> they reviewed, they'd only pick up books they buy and presumably like,
> so the reviews would tend to be more positive.
Actually, they might be even more negative. It's more disappointing when you
expected to like something and didn't than if you're pleasantly surprised by
something you expected to dislike.
You're ignoring, by the way, that most reviewers do buy most of the books
they review. And if my experience is anything to go by, at least 60% of the
books I get free would be unpublishable if they weren't self-published.
> I find it funny to watch
> reviewers month after month pick apart a book they didn't like last month,
> the month before, etc. Why are they bothering to read the book anymore?
I agree with you that reviewing the same titles month after month is a
problem (which is why I don't do it). It makes me wonder how anyone has new
things to say.
> Now, is that a problem? I tend to think an industry struggling to survive
> needs more positive material written about it than negative, but that's
> just me.
This is the Team Comics approach. "We're all in this together, we must
support the industry, rah rah rah!" No offense, but it's bull. My
responsibility is to be honest about what I read, not to puff up the
industry (which owes me good entertainment instead of me owing it anything).
The industry is not my responsibility. If it dies, then it deserves to die,
because it wasn't entertaining enough people.
> Reading a review by someone who doesn't like the book is
> sometimes irritating to me, because the bias comes through loud and clear
> most of the time.
How is not liking a book equal to bias? Bias is being related to the author,
for example, or working for the company whose work you're reviewing. An
honest opinion isn't bias.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> the masses don't read. They watch TV.
Which explains Gene Shalit. Ugh.
KurtBusiek
that's part of the premise of that ongoing title, and >>
This is part of my point, I think. Anyone want to answer the question rather
than simply assuming an answer?
How many issues of the current DEFENDERS series have the Hulk and Namor traded
blows in?
kdb
John C. Baker
MacPherson" <dma...@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Was that the comic shop on Queen or the one on University? I've had
> > experiances in both, and I prefer one over the other.
>
> Queen St. Lightning Bolt Comics. Tell Dylan that Don sent you.
That's the one I had the better experiance in. It's a hole in the wall,
but I found it less fanboyish than the one on University. Plus the guy at
the counter (does Dylan have a beard?) recommened the new X-Force to me,
for which I give him lots of credit.
Mathew Krull
> >
> >>The first look program, as far as I know, is only available
> >>to retailers.
> >>
> >
> >Correct.
>
> Then it must be the retailers who are doing first look reviews because they
> come online a week before hand. In which case I'm surprised every comic
> doesn't get a great review, then the retailers could guarantee that readers
> would pick it up. :)
>
As a retailer, I do not give glowing reviews of books I dislike. I don't pan
them, necessarily, but I don't tell people a book is great unless I think it
is. If I push bad books on good customers, I will lose customers.
--
Nothing can kill the Grimace.
Onorio Catenacci
joh...@comicsworthreading.com says...
> Windbag1000 at windb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I just think most criticism is
> > done in a context that most regular readers can't relate to.
>
> simply by writing about the comics she's read.
>
> > Perhaps kids don't like what critics like either.
>
>
I've read your reviews and I admire their style and polish even if I
don't completely agree with their content. You are quite articulate in
expressing views with which I don't completely concur. :-)
Anyway, all this discussion of critics and criticism bring to mind one of
my favorite quotes:
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem. They’re there every night, they see
it done every night, they see how it should be done every night, but they
can’t do it themselves."
--Brendan Behan
And just to be fair a quote from the other point of view:
"[In the finest critics] one hears the full cry of the human. They tell
one why it matters to read."
--Harold Bloom
--
Onorio Catenacci
If you wish to reply via email OCatenac at Prodigy dot Net
Don MacPherson
Lightning Bolt Comics is actually in a space that was once the location of a
quite the nightspot in Charlottetown, basically what was considered the
alternative-but-cool bar, the Dip (short for the Dispensary, as it used to
be a turn-of-the-century pharmacy).
Dylan was the guy with the beard behind the counter. And he not only
recommended X-Force because it's good, but because he worships at the altar
of Mike Allred. :-)
Don MacPherson
Don MacPherson
news:MPG.16086b16c...@news-byoa.prodigy.net...
> Anyway, all this discussion of critics and criticism bring to mind one of
> my favorite quotes:
>
> "Critics are like eunuchs in a harem. They're there every night, they see
> it done every night, they see how it should be done every night, but they
> can't do it themselves."
Didn't Mark Waid write comics reviews (as well as news and features) in
AMAZING HEROES?
Don MacPherson
Onorio Catenacci
dma...@nb.sympatico.ca says...
And I'm sure there were other "critics" who have been quite successful
and creative in their chosen field of criticism. I don't believe that
I'm wrong in asserting that such people are the exception and not the
rule.
Anyway, I didn't mean it as a slam against Johanna or any of the other
critics; I was merely trying to share a quote that I found amusing and
that seemed appropriate given the thread of conversation. Notice that I
also took the trouble to find a quote that is quite flattering in regards
to critics.
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
Johanna Draper Carlson <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>Ronald J. Rickard Jr. at rjrjr@yavin wrote:
>
>> one thing I see as a problem is a large number of reviews tend to
>> be negative.
>
>80% of anything is crap. Pointing that out isn't the reviewers' fault.
Crap, in your opinion. Let's remember, all a reviewer is doing is
stating his/her opinion. Alot of times, a reviewer falls down because
they act as if what they are writing is fact, when it is not. Heck,
most usenet posts tend to fail for the same reason.
>Plus, you can blame the audience. Negative reviews get attention and
>response. If people responded to positive instead of negative reviews, there
>might be more of them.
So, are you saying reviewers are purposely writing negative reviews? Or
purposely reviewing books they don't like?
>You're ignoring, by the way, that most reviewers do buy most of the books
>they review. And if my experience is anything to go by, at least 60% of the
>books I get free would be unpublishable if they weren't self-published.
I was just responding to this thread which was stating that reviewers
are not buying the books they review. Assuming they are buying the books
they review would have gotten a different response from me.
>> Now, is that a problem? I tend to think an industry struggling to survive
>> needs more positive material written about it than negative, but that's
>> just me.
>
>This is the Team Comics approach. "We're all in this together, we must
>support the industry, rah rah rah!" No offense, but it's bull. My
>responsibility is to be honest about what I read, not to puff up the
>industry (which owes me good entertainment instead of me owing it anything).
Who are you being responsible too? The reader of your review? I'm
just curious, since while I would think it would be fun to have the time
to review titles, I wouldn't take it as my being responsible for anything
but my own enjoyment. I didn't think reviewers felt they had a
responsibility for anything.
>> Reading a review by someone who doesn't like the book is
>> sometimes irritating to me, because the bias comes through loud and clear
>> most of the time.
>
>How is not liking a book equal to bias? Bias is being related to the author,
>for example, or working for the company whose work you're reviewing. An
>honest opinion isn't bias.
I should explain myself more here. Alot of times I see a review done
of a title that the reviewer already knows they are not going to like.
The reviewer may have a tendency to like independent titles more than
mainstream titles or thought provoking books over slugfests, etc. But
they always seem to review titles that they know they won't like (or that
I know they won't like based on past reviews of theirs that I read.) I
would say the reviewer is biased against those types of titles they don't
like.
If I know what a reviewers tastes are and know they are not going to like
a particular title, then I think that reviewer must know this too and
is already biased against that title going into the review. For example,
if you do like independent titles more, generally dislike your basic
Superhero slugfest titles, then you review a title like the Fantastic
Four or Avengers, I know you are already biased against those titles since
they tend to be your basic Superhero slugfest type and wonder why you
bothered reviewing the title knowing you were going in already not liking
the material of.
I apologize if the above doesn't make sense. I think our opinions are
biased towards genre's and stories we like. And biased against those
genre's and stories we don't like.
RJRJR
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I've read your reviews and I admire their style and polish even if I
> don't completely agree with their content.
Why, thank you.
The problem with your quote is that critics can't win. If they don't also do
what they're analyzing, they're incompetent or jealous; if they do, then
they're biased or damaging their career.
Personally, I view criticism as an art in itself. I'm always working to
improve my writing, and it's as legitimate a field as essayist or fiction
writer or comic book writer. If I was aiming to write comics, I'd be doing
it. Instead, I aim to write good analysis and review. People who assume
anything else are simply missing the point.
Here's a quote for you in return:
"A critical faculty is a terrible thing. When I was eleven there were no bad
films, just films that I didn't want to see, there was no bad food, just
brussels sprouts and cabbage, and there were no bad books - everything I
read was great. Then suddenly, I woke up in the morning and all that had
changed... from that moment on, enjoyment has been a much more elusive
quality."
-- Nick Hornby, Fever Pitch (a wonderful book about being a misunderstood
fan, in the realm of football/soccer)
Grant Enfield
"Johanna Draper Carlson" <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote in message
news:B7C37620.4F6AB%joh...@comicsworthreading.com...
> Matt Adler at mad...@ic.sunysb.edu wrote:
>
> > the masses don't read. They watch TV.
>
> Which explains Gene Shalit. Ugh.
Gene Shalit is a good example of a movie "critic" who seems to try to line
up his reviews with how popular he expects the film to be with the audience
he targets (which is still a much narrower audience than "the masses"), and
there are plenty like him--not all of the tags from reviews the films use in
their marketing campaigns can be made up, right?
Roger Ebert's perspective was always most valuable in contrast to Gene
Siskel's--now Ebert (and Roeper) seem to give "two thumbs up" to every piece
of crap that comes along. I suspect that Siskel & Ebert who began their TV
careers trying to make film criticism accessible to a general audience
eventually found themselves trying to appeal to an audience that didn't
share much of their perspective and Ebert has tried to keep that wider
audience simply by giving positive reviews to more films.
Film critics may be critics, but they still have to find someone to pay
them. Despite that most comics reviewers work for free, I imagine that
there's still a need to find readers that affects the kinds of things
reviewed and the reviews themselves. (And I don't think there's anything
wrong with that.)
grant
Grant Enfield
> This is what I'm talking about. Reviews have a tendency to bring a very
narrow
> frame of reference which doesn't necessarily reflect an objective pov.
Can we all repeat together: "There is no objective point of view"?
The *point* of a review is to bring another point of view. If reviews were
(or could be) "objective," then there'd need to be only one, the right one.
And any reader who didn't see that "objective" point of view when he or she
read the comic would be "wrong" or "mistaken," and reviews would exist only
to correct those poor readers. I think it would be pretty easy to agree that
that isn't the case.
grant
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Let's remember, all a reviewer is doing is stating his/her opinion.
I don't buy that in all cases. Sure, some things are a matter of taste;
other things are a matter of basic competence. There are certain things we
can agree on.
Remember, the end result of "all opinions are valid" is having to agree that
Mr. Liefeld is a talented creator worth reading. :)
>> Plus, you can blame the audience. Negative reviews get attention and
>> response. If people responded to positive instead of negative reviews, there
>> might be more of them.
>
> So, are you saying reviewers are purposely writing negative reviews? Or
> purposely reviewing books they don't like?
No, I'm saying that there is a certain amount of feedback that can have an
effect, consciously or otherwise.
> I was just responding to this thread which was stating that reviewers
> are not buying the books they review.
A viewpoint that's been disproven by all the actual reviewers. :)
>> My responsibility is to be honest about what I read, not to puff up the
>> industry (which owes me good entertainment instead of me owing it anything).
>
> Who are you being responsible too? The reader of your review?
The reader, myself, and the art of reviewing.
I feel responsible to do the best job I can.
> Alot of times I see a review done
> of a title that the reviewer already knows they are not going to like.
How do you know that? Are you talking about reviews where it's stated, or
are you just assuming (and thus introducing *your* bias)?
> If I know what a reviewers tastes are and know they are not going to like
> a particular title, then I think that reviewer must know this too and
> is already biased against that title going into the review.
I don't think this is the case, at least based on my experience.
> I apologize if the above doesn't make sense. I think our opinions are
> biased towards genre's and stories we like. And biased against those
> genre's and stories we don't like.
I think calling matters of taste or opinions "bias" makes the word almost
useless.
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
>> Let's remember, all a reviewer is doing is stating his/her opinion.
>
>I don't buy that in all cases. Sure, some things are a matter of taste;
>other things are a matter of basic competence. There are certain things we
>can agree on.
>
>Remember, the end result of "all opinions are valid" is having to agree that
>Mr. Liefeld is a talented creator worth reading. :)
So, where does this leave people who honestly like Rob Liefeld's work
and do think he has talent? Seriously, you can joke about him, but there
are people who feel that way, otherwise we wouldn't even know who the
man is. Someone must have liked his work and thought it was worth
reading. Are their opinions less valid than yours?
That is why I'll continue to believe all opinions are valid. They are
just opinions, how could they be otherwise.
RJRJR
Ralf Haring
<joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>Remember, the end result of "all opinions are valid" is having to agree that
>Mr. Liefeld is a talented creator worth reading. :)
Not really. The end result is having to agree that some people think
he is a talented creator worth reading. Whether or not you agree with
their opinion has nothing to do with agreeing that they hold a valid
opinion.
-Ralf Haring
"The mind must be the harder, the heart the keener,
the spirit the greater, as our strength grows less."
-Byrhtwold, The Battle of Maldon
Onorio Catenacci
joh...@comicsworthreading.com says...
> Onorio Catenacci at N...@NoSpam.NoSpam wrote:
>
> > I've read your reviews and I admire their style and polish even if I
> > don't completely agree with their content.
>
> Why, thank you.
>
> The problem with your quote is that critics can't win. If they don't also do
> what they're analyzing, they're incompetent or jealous; if they do, then
> they're biased or damaging their career.
>
I hope you realize that I posted that quote because I've always found
that particular quote quite amusing and there are so few conversations
where it's appropriate to the topic. I just had to share it. No
personal reflection on you.
And yes, I believe you're right. A well-written critique of any work of
art is an art in its own right.
James Schee
>
>I have a question for those of you who write review columns online: do you
>pay for your comics or are they provided to you?
Hmm let's see I've done 18 reviews for The Comic Reader website a few months
ago.
Of those three of which were on books that I had been given. Two SHADES OF BLUE
& WJHC were sent to me by the creators for review, while the other was AMELIA
RULES! #1.
I don't see where if I had purchsed them would have been changed much if at
all. The first two were good but definitely not great books, which I said in my
reviews, and AMELIA RULES! is just to my mind one of the best new series of the
year.
>I read reviews of some minimalist comics and I wonder if you'd be so happy to
>have only five words per page if you were paying full price for them.
Since I paid full price for completely wordless books like Jordan Crane's THE
LAST LONELY SATURDAY, and loved it. I would say yes.
James
James Schee
>I know, it's too costly to buy comics
>you don't expect to like just to talk about them, but it's still a bias
>introduced.
I try to combat this when I have the extra money or time by ordering one
ocmpletely new (in creator and/or series) a month form PReviews. Then I will
also try on slow days to on the spur of the moment pickup something that, while
I don't dislike it (as there would be no point then) is somethign I don't have
much of an opinion on.
Like today a the shop I picked up ANGEL #1, though I didn't care much for past
Buffy comics. Plus FURY #1 which is completely spur of the moment, as I know
next to nothing about Fury outside of a few appearances in Captain America a
few years back.
(plus I also got in ATLAS #1 which was that month's one new to me project to
try)
James
James Schee
>I have a few readers who gauge what to buy based on what I didn't like.
>They've come to see that my tastes run contrary to theirs. So there's still
>value in the review that way.
I was one of those Don!:) I havne't made it over to the new site much yet
though, but it was helpful at times on a marginal book (one I didn't feel
anything against, but didn't have a lot for either) to see if you had reviewed
it and see what you thought.
A lot of times the things you like in a book are the things I dislike, and then
vice versa.:)
James
James Schee
> I believe it's possible for a critic to draw
>attention to a good book that's been overlooked (although this happens most
>often when several critics agree), but it's much less likely that a critic
>is going to convince people to not buy a book they were planning on getting.
I don't think I've ever had a review, be it of a movie, book or whatever, ever
make me not do something that I was planning on doing. (heck not even Star Wars
Episode One ones!:) )
I know the ways I use reviews are introducitons to books I never would have
heard of otherwise, like most of the ones on your website.
And also for marginal books that I probably wouldn't have picked up, but maybe
something in the review I read makes it compelling enough to try. (I know your
EXILES capsules have made me a little curious curious about that series)
Or even confirms my preconceived fears about what the creator was striving for,
so leaves me glad I'd saved my money.
James
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I hope you realize that I posted that quote because I've always found
> that particular quote quite amusing and there are so few conversations
> where it's appropriate to the topic. I just had to share it. No
> personal reflection on you.
Yes, I realized that -- you'd already clarified it. No offense taken. It's a
common enough idea, anyway, although I disagree with it.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> where does this leave people who honestly like Rob Liefeld's work
> and do think he has talent?
It depends on what we're talking about: I would agree that he has a talent
for self-promotion, for example, but someone who thinks that Mr. Liefeld is
a talented artist is simply misguided. (Talented artists are able to draw
feet and more than one facial expression.)
Also, there's a big difference between like/dislike and having talent. I
like a number of comics where I know the creators have a long way to go in
fully developing their abilities. I like them for other reasons, like the
heart and dedication they show.
This is one reason that boiling down discussions to "it's just your opinion"
is pointless. This is a discussion group. We're here to talk about why we
think things. "I like it, and that's all I need to say" is just stubbornness
and provides nowhere else to go.
> That is why I'll continue to believe all opinions are valid. They are
> just opinions, how could they be otherwise.
The most valid opinion is an informed opinion.
Do you consider the opinion that the earth is flat just as valid? People
hold it, so it's an opinion. It's also factually wrong. That's the
distinction I'm making.
Whether or not you think Mr. Liefeld not being able to draw a chair that
stays the same from one panel to another is significant in evaluating a
comic may be an opinion; that he draws that way is not.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Whether or not you agree with their opinion has nothing to do with agreeing
> that they hold a valid opinion.
I think an opinion that contradicts the facts is invalid.
Ralf Haring
<joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>Ralf Haring at ra...@duke.edu wrote:
>
>> Whether or not you agree with their opinion has nothing to do with agreeing
>> that they hold a valid opinion.
>
>I think an opinion that contradicts the facts is invalid.
There would be no facts to disprove. "I like Rob Liefeld." How can
that not be a valid opinion?
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
>
>> where does this leave people who honestly like Rob Liefeld's work
>> and do think he has talent?
>
>It depends on what we're talking about: I would agree that he has a talent
>for self-promotion, for example, but someone who thinks that Mr. Liefeld is
>a talented artist is simply misguided. (Talented artists are able to draw
>feet and more than one facial expression.)
See, this is what I'm talking about. You just expressed your opinion about
something as subjective as art as fact. I'd be willing to bet that Rob
Liefeld can draw feet and more than one facial expression and has done so.
You choose to ignore some things he has done in order to promote your
opinion. Fair enough. But I also know that your just arguing an opinion,
nothing else.
Problem is, I know Liefeld is not a very liked guy on these newsgroups,
and it is not my intent to defend him. So, I'll quite and go back to
the original discussion at hand.
>Also, there's a big difference between like/dislike and having talent. I
>like a number of comics where I know the creators have a long way to go in
>fully developing their abilities. I like them for other reasons, like the
>heart and dedication they show.
I wasn't aware of your credentials as an art critic. Seriously. You can
have an opinion on art, everyone does and that is a valid response to
it, but now you are acting like you have had a formal art training and
know what an artist is capable of or not. How do you know when an artist
is fully developed? Will they every be fully developed? What if you
don't like how they develop? Does that mean you'll dismiss their
development as crap.
>This is one reason that boiling down discussions to "it's just your opinion"
>is pointless. This is a discussion group. We're here to talk about why we
>think things. "I like it, and that's all I need to say" is just stubbornness
>and provides nowhere else to go.
I'm not sure I see your point. I was stating that having an opinion
means that others have and do disagree with you about the talent of
others. Our opinions shape our bias. Opinions are what leads us into
these discussions and I've seen opinions different than yours in the
past that have explained their position. No one is arguing what you
are saying above.
>> That is why I'll continue to believe all opinions are valid. They are
>> just opinions, how could they be otherwise.
>
>The most valid opinion is an informed opinion.
Okay.
>Do you consider the opinion that the earth is flat just as valid? People
>hold it, so it's an opinion. It's also factually wrong. That's the
>distinction I'm making.
Okay, here is where I'm coming from. Up until now, you have been talking
about art, a subjective topic at best. Art is not something that everyone
can agree upon and make factual statements about, unless you are talking
about technique, tools, the artist, color, etc. The final product of art,
our interpretation of it, cannot be universally dismissed as bad or good.
You'll never get everyone to agree with you. I know this and can freely
admit that others can and do have opinions about it that differ from my
own. You cannot validate someones opinion about it.
And just to make this clear, yes, I can see how someone's opinion on
something that is fact, such as the shape of the earth, can be wrong.
But, we were discussing something subjective, art, not the shape
of the earth. So, I revise my statement appropriately.
>Whether or not you think Mr. Liefeld not being able to draw a chair that
>stays the same from one panel to another is significant in evaluating a
>comic may be an opinion; that he draws that way is not.
I honestly don't know if Liefeld can do this or not. I guess we could
commission some art from him and ask him to do so.
RJRJR
Grant Enfield
> Ronald J. Rickard Jr. at rjrjr@yavin wrote:
> > Let's remember, all a reviewer is doing is stating his/her opinion.
"Johanna Draper Carlson" <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote in message
news:B7C568A2.4F915%joh...@comicsworthreading.com...
> I don't buy that in all cases. Sure, some things are a matter of taste;
> other things are a matter of basic competence. There are certain things we
> can agree on.
I think it's important here to consider some of the basics here, so with
some agreement on them, this discussion keeps being interesting.
I shy away from using the word "opinion" simply because it's rarely clear
what's meant by it. Saying that an argument represents "opinion" seems to me
quite different from dismissing an argument as "just opinion." Instead, I
use the words "taste" and "judgment" to distinguish different kinds of
"opinion."
As Johanna writes, some things are matters of taste. And about matters of
taste, there can be no argument. No one can convince me that I don't like
strawberries. There's no rhetorical device, no surprising new information,
no clever insight that will change my opinion about strawberries. I like
strawberries. It's a matter of taste.
That doesn't mean that I can't have discussions or create arguments about
strawberries and so form judgments about them. Some strawberries are clearly
better than others. And despite that I like strawberries, I find some
strawberries that I don't enjoy. There are reasons those strawberries are
better than others (they may have a certain firmness, sweetness, color, or
other things), and there are reasons that I judge some strawberries to be
awful (they may be unripe, they may be overripe, they may have bugs).
Things like degrees of color, firmness, ripeness, sweetness can be agreed on
(and so become "facts), but discussions are only interesting when different
judgments compete. If everyone agreed on what kinds of strawberries taste
good (or that strawberries taste good at all), then that would just be a
"fact," and no one would discuss it--we'd just point out the good ones (or
not, and hoard them for ourselves).
Reviewers may be stating their opinions, but if they're simply stating their
tastes ("I like strawberries. These are strawberries. I like them."),
there's no reason to read them. When reviewers state their opinions by
explaining how they arrived at their judgments based on the facts at hand,
then it's interesting: readers can disagree or be persuaded to agree. Those
two sorts of "opinions" are by no means the same.
grant
Paul O'Brien
Draper Carlson <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> writes
>
>It depends on what we're talking about: I would agree that he has a talent
>for self-promotion, for example, but someone who thinks that Mr. Liefeld is
>a talented artist is simply misguided. (Talented artists are able to draw
>feet and more than one facial expression.)
Doesn't Gary Larsen have problems with feet...?
Seriously, "Rob Liefeld can't draw anatomy" is an objective statement
and not an opinion - unless he's been hiding his light under a bushel
all this time. And that he reuses the same camera angles and
poses repeatedly, frequently swiped uncredited panels from other
artists, tends to draw action sequences with no backgrounds, recycles
the same character designs with slight variations, and is unusually
poor at maintaining panel to panel continuity in his stories... these
are objective statements.
What is open to subjective interpretation is whether his work is
still entertaining notwithstanding all of these flaws. If somebody
finds it entertaining, then clearly for them it is.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
Brevity is the sister of talent.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> When reviewers state their opinions by
> explaining how they arrived at their judgments based on the facts at hand,
> then it's interesting: readers can disagree or be persuaded to agree. Those
> two sorts of "opinions" are by no means the same.
Great post, Grant. Wonderful explanation.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> You just expressed your opinion about something as subjective as art as fact.
If art were completely subjective, we wouldn't have art courses or
recognized great masters.
> You choose to ignore some things he has done in order to promote your
> opinion.
No, I'm not choosing to ignore anything. You are assuming facts not in
evidence and saying on that basis I must be wrong because I disagree with
you.
> Problem is, I know Liefeld is not a very liked guy on these newsgroups,
Why do you think few people like Liefeld's work? Because he's not very good.
(Please note that I am distinguishing between the man's work and the man.)
> now you are acting like you have had a formal art training and
> know what an artist is capable of or not.
I had art work selected for shows when I was younger. What does that matter?
You're missing the point: good/bad is not the same as like/dislike.
> Art is not something that everyone
> can agree upon and make factual statements about, unless you are talking
> about technique, tools, the artist, color, etc.
Which is part of evaluating a work, yes. There are facts that one can
establish about art. More to the point, there are facts that one can
establish about whether a work is any good. The most basic one, when it
comes to comics, is: can I tell what I am supposed to be looking at? If I
can't, then it's a bad comic.
> You'll never get everyone to agree with you.
No, I won't, but you'll never get everyone to agree that the world is round,
either. Disagreement doesn't mean anything about validity; neither does
agreement.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> There would be no facts to disprove. "I like Rob Liefeld." How can
> that not be a valid opinion?
That's not the only statement under discussion; the statement "Rob Liefeld
is a talented artist" was another.
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
<richard...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>KurtBusiek wrote:
>>
>> >>Do you doubt we've *not* seen a Hulk-Thor tussle, resulting in no change
>> whatsoever to the status quo, before? And how is it different from a
>> Hulk/Thing battle (which has been dozens of times).>>
>>
>> I haven't seen the annual yet, but now that I've seen the claim that we've
seen
>> the Hulk/Thor fight "a hundred times" downgraded to "dozens of times," I'm
just
>> curious.
>>
>> Can you list dozens of Hulk/Thor fights, Don? I'm not sure I could list even
>> one dozen, much less multiple dozens...
>>
>> Not challenging your review either way, just wondering how often the two
>> actually have fought, and how long ago.
>>
>> kdb
>
>Incredible Hulk #440 - April '96 cover date
>
>Given that I've never read an issue of Thor, and I've only read
>about 2 dozen issues of Hulk in my life, plus the last 3-4 months
>of Avengers and Defenders, the fact that I can name one such fight
>would seem to imply that these fights are fairly common. But it
>could just be dumb luck that one of the very few issues that I
>own happens to contain one of these fights. *shrug*
>
>--Richard
I'd go with dumb luck. The Master shows up in the current Avenger issue.
Going by your argument, the Master must have appeared in the Avengers
before.
I don't think there have been as many Thor/Hulk battles as has been
suggested.
RJRJR
Consul de Designers
> Richard B. Becker at richard...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > My point is: why are the majority of critics people who disagree
> > with their readers more than half the time?
> I don't think they start that way.
> Plus, reading someone you agree with is boring. It's more fun to read
> someone you disagree with.
Another point, the person you disagree with all the time obviously has a
different perspective on things, and can see something that you missed. I've had
conversations like, "Damn the music was too loud/soft and the dialogue was
stiled/fluid, but the way the actor held the heads during that conversation was
perfect!"
--
I have built a 'so far' contact list to those friends of my family,
your prayers and thoughts would be appreciated.
Jameson Stalanthas Yu, 'mutatis mutandis, strive to be humane, not human'
Link at: http://www.dolphins-cove.com
Consul de Designers
> >Think of it this way... do you really think that most film critics *pay* to
> >see the movies they review? Does it matter?
> But most movie reviews come out the day movies are released. Your reviews
> come out four or five days early. People can now develop opinions about
> things days in advance just by going by reviews alone.
Film reviewers seen the films sometimes two weeks before it comes out, and
publish/televise their reviews a few days before or on the date of release,
mainly because folks can't remember who said what about what for much longer.
> Fair enough, it is your business. But you can't compare yourself to a film critic because
> movie reviewers are paid by their newspapers - fairly impartial parties who have no real
> stake in whether a movie is liked or not. The free passes don't have to come from theaters
> because if they have to pay, their publishers will reimburse them.
There is a fair amount of prestige to be invited to actual film premieres and
film reviews. Among reviewers and film producers. I have no idea where you get
that newspapers, especially reviews, have no conflict of interest in them. Media
is one big circle jerk.
> That doesn't really address the point that I raise in my point about people trying a new
> comic for the first and possibly last time.
I think your point is to say that no one should do reviews, because they've
become biased by the medium they review.
Consul de Designers
> From what I gather, only Paul O'Brien posts his reviews three or four days
> after they go on sale. His reviews, whether agreed with or not, tend to have a
> much more useful role because they invite discussion between people who have
> already read the comics for themselves. That's not possible with first-look
> reviews.
Now's who's extrapolating?? I can think of one, maybe three reviewers who post
before the books are out. Nearly all of them post after the weekends, or some of
the fanatics, Wed afternoon.
Consul de Designers
> Well, one thing I see as a problem is a large number of reviews tend to be negative. I
> believed if a reviewer had to actually buy the books they reviewed, they'd only pick up
> books they buy and presumably like, so the reviews would tend to be more positive. I find
> it funny to watch reviewers month after month pick apart a book they didn't like last month,
> the month before, etc. Why are they bothering to read the book anymore? We already know
> they don't like it.
So if a reviewer gets them for free, and he is negative review about it, he's
biased. And if the reviewer buys themselves, and gives a positive review about,
he's not biased? To me, it seems that if one gives good reviews only to things
one buys, that is a huge bias. Many of the reviwers buy a lot of books, what
they know they want and the random new ones, for diversity.