TCJ #188
William Paul Hahn
I (semi) recently ran across TCJ #188 (Their "State of the Art Form"
issue) in a bookstore and decided to pick it up (primarily because
I knew they'd be interviewing Stan Sakai soon and I wanted a feel
for the magazine). I have never read an issue before, and am unsure
of how representative this issue is of their regular content since
it is a "special", so I also picked up #189 recently, but haven't
read it yet.
Anyway, my impressions, preceeded by a few questions about their
interviews:
Questions:
1. What's with all the [laughter]? Are the interviewees and inter-
viewers nervous or amused (I can't always tell)?
2. What are the mechanics of the interviews? Are they all in person,
or over the phone or what? Are they transcribed from recordings?
Are most questions prepared or off-the-cuff? Do the interviewees
know the subject of the interview?
3. The quotes in the margins: Who picks them? Are they supposed to
be hooks to get me to read the article or representative of the
interview? (Most do both, though some seem taken out of context)
That's it for the questions: On with my reaction:
Things that made me want to buy ice cream:
The interviews with Kurt Busiek, Scott McCloud, and Nadine Strossen.
The Critical Roundtable (on the health of the medium), and the Young
Cartoonists interview (with Megan Kelso, Jon Lewis, and Ariel Bordeaux).
Overall, I'd give the issue a solid B+ in entertainment and value
(the issue cost $6.95US for 152 pages, including ads). So much
for the good stuff. Let's nitpick.
Things that made me want to poke myself in the eye with a sharp stick:
1. The Strossen interview on free speech was occasionally over my head -
I don't know all the lingo and it wasn't explained to me.
2. A "neo-luddite" conducting and interview about the digital future of
comics. Why not someone more knowledgable? At the very least, I'd expect
more probing/sceptical questions from a "neo-luddite" than were presented.
How about Andrew D. Arnold who nicely ripped the Spirit CD-ROM?
3. R.C. Harvey panning comic strips authors with poor drawing skills
(twice!) in a magazine trumpeting comic book authors with similarly
poor skills.
4. Ironic interviews with John Davis (part-owner of Cap City) and another
with Gary Reed (Caliber) and Chris Oliveros (Drawn & Quarterly). Not a
fault of the magazine (though Reed didn't say much), but in light of
Cap City going under....
5. The Shit List. Yawn. The best they can come up with to dump on is
on old issue of TCJ, a bad Hepcats web page, Previews, "Narrative
Corpse", and "Father & Son" (The last was the only piece approching
funny.) I do note that it isn't in #189. (I faintly recall a flap
over the piece...)
6. Who's more impressed with Neil Gaiman, Neil himself, or Nick Hasted?
(Not Greg Hyland, who, according to the latest Lethargic Lad issue,
had a similar reaction.)
--
Bill Hahn O-
It's too bad that whole families have to be torn apart by something as
simple as wild dogs. (Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy)
The comics journal
Hi:
>
> Questions:
> 1. What's with all the [laughter]? Are the interviewees and inter-
> viewers nervous or amused (I can't always tell)?
Depends on the interview. I was nervous talking to Dave Sim, and laughed a
lot more than I would have otherwise. I laugh a lot in general, though.
>
> 2. What are the mechanics of the interviews? Are they all in person,
> or over the phone or what? Are they transcribed from recordings?
> Are most questions prepared or off-the-cuff? Do the interviewees
> know the subject of the interview?
We run about 50/50 on in person or over the phone. All of them for #188
were over the phone. They're transcribed from the recordings, and if
they're intended for features (as opposed to news), they're available to
the person who was interviewed to make sure their points are made clearly.
All changes are double-checked against the original to make sure that
there's no ass-protecting or double-speak (we have final cut). Most
questions are prepared, although you never know where you're going to go.
In that interview you have with Kurt Busiek, I prepared a lot of questions
but was surprised by how eloquent Kurt was on the business side, so a lot
of those follow-ups are off-the-cuff. The interviewees usually know the
subject of the interview because it's usually themselves. When it's
different, like a news interview or a comic-only interview, the person
knows about it in advance.
> 3. The quotes in the margins: Who picks them? Are they supposed to
> be hooks to get me to read the article or representative of the
> interview? (Most do both, though some seem taken out of context)
Art Director Pat Moriarity and I pick the quotes. They're supposed to
be hooks _and_ representative, although we fail miserably sometimes at one
or both.
> That's it for the questions: On with my reaction:
> Things that made me want to buy ice cream:
>
> The interviews with Kurt Busiek, Scott McCloud, and Nadine Strossen.
> The Critical Roundtable (on the health of the medium), and the Young
> Cartoonists interview (with Megan Kelso, Jon Lewis, and Ariel Bordeaux).
I'm glad you enjoyed these parts; I did, too. We're going to be doing more
young cartoonist roundtables for the next two years, based on regions.
Next up is Austin, Texas in issue #193.
> Things that made me want to poke myself in the eye with a sharp stick:>
> 1. The Strossen interview on free speech was occasionally over my head -
> I don't know all the lingo and it wasn't explained to me.
>
> 2. A "neo-luddite" conducting and interview about the digital future of
> comics. Why not someone more knowledgable? At the very least, I'd expect
> more probing/sceptical questions from a "neo-luddite" than were presented.
> How about Andrew D. Arnold who nicely ripped the Spirit CD-ROM?
>
> 3. R.C. Harvey panning comic strips authors with poor drawing skills
> (twice!) in a magazine trumpeting comic book authors with similarly
> poor skills.
>
> 4. Ironic interviews with John Davis (part-owner of Cap City) and another
> with Gary Reed (Caliber) and Chris Oliveros (Drawn & Quarterly). Not a
> fault of the magazine (though Reed didn't say much), but in light of
> Cap City going under....
>
> 5. The Shit List. Yawn. The best they can come up with to dump on is
> on old issue of TCJ, a bad Hepcats web page, Previews, "Narrative
> Corpse", and "Father & Son" (The last was the only piece approching
> funny.) I do note that it isn't in #189. (I faintly recall a flap
> over the piece...)
>
> 6. Who's more impressed with Neil Gaiman, Neil himself, or Nick Hasted?
> (Not Greg Hyland, who, according to the latest Lethargic Lad issue,
> had a similar reaction.)
Thanks for the criticism. Those of us who know how to turn a computer on
have kidded Gary about his interview with Scott. Andrew would have been a
good choice, you're right. Bob Harvey's opinions are his own; we're not
really monolithic as we're often accused of being, and some of our more
interesting letters page disputes have been writers going after one
another, like James Kochalka and Chris Brayshaw or Bart Beaty and Greg
Cwiklik. I agree with you that the interview with Davis and Reed/Oliveros
sure became ironic quickly (we _were_ out with them before it happened),
and that shit list (a once-a-year thing which ended this year) _was_
boring. I had fun doing that Narrative Corpse thing where I only wrote one
paragraph, though. And I'm not touching #6.
Thanks, Bill.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
PatDOneill
In article <fgraphic-181...@0.0.0.0>, fgra...@halcyon.com (The
comics journal) writes:
>if
>they're intended for features (as opposed to news), they're available to
>the person who was interviewed to make sure their points are made
clearly.
>All changes are double-checked against the original to make sure that
>there's no ass-protecting or double-speak (we have final cut).
As you know, Tom, I've always been troubled by this policy of the
JOURNAL's. To my mind, the interview subject's inability to make his point
clearly is a part of the interview. Giving him the chance to essentially
do a rewrite on his comments is like the Congressmen who get the
transcripts of their floor speeches and then rewrite them for the
Congressional Record.
It's one thing to check facts--"Was it really 1963 when he did
this?"--it's another to allow an opaque comment to be rewritten to become
crystal clear.
Best, Pat
The Enigmatic C.
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
>As you know, Tom, I've always been troubled by this policy of the
>JOURNAL's. To my mind, the interview subject's inability to make his point
>clearly is a part of the interview. Giving him the chance to essentially
>do a rewrite on his comments is like the Congressmen who get the
>transcripts of their floor speeches and then rewrite them for the
>Congressional Record.
For all those _not_ playing along at home:
Pat and whoever the TCJ guy actually is are off fighting on another thread
about something which boils down to "journalistic and personal integrity".
Pat has just a landed a pretty reasonable question at TCJ, although TCJ
does did say several things for his part that make it fairly easy to answer
Pat, and still keep things friendly. (The line about TCJ having final cut,
and preventing "ass-saving" may help to deflect the pretty decent
"Congressional Record" allegory Pat came up with.)
Now, let's sit back and watch both public and professional reaction to this
question. Although not involved, my bet is on Over-reaction from the RAC*
fan-base, and a polite yet still slightly biting reply from TCJ.
C.
(Live, from the Press Box.)
I can't say that I love Jesus, That would be a hollow claim.
He did make some observations, and I'm quoting them today;
"Judge not lest ye be judged.", What a beautiful refrain.
- rem; new test lepper; new adventures in hi-fi.
The comics journal
Hi, Pat:
> As you know, Tom, I've always been troubled by this policy of the
> JOURNAL's. To my mind, the interview subject's inability to make his point
> clearly is a part of the interview. Giving him the chance to essentially
> do a rewrite on his comments is like the Congressmen who get the
> transcripts of their floor speeches and then rewrite them for the
> Congressional Record.
>
> It's one thing to check facts--"Was it really 1963 when he did
> this?"--it's another to allow an opaque comment to be rewritten to become
> crystal clear.
Objection noted. I think my point regarding our final cut takes care of
most of your concerns, my point regarding that this is a policy concerning
features and not journalistic/news interviews takes care of most of the
rest of them. There's no real rewriting of the kind you're talking about,
I don't think. Letting a Gil Kane add a name or two to his list of studio
mates serves the historical record a lot more than "catching" him on his
omission of Carmine Infantino. Believe me, we're very tough when it comes
to any "rewriting," and I've done this kind of cleaning up for years over
the phone with newspaper interviews, removing the "ahs" and "ums."
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
PatDOneill
In article <fgraphic-211...@blv-pm102-ip2.halcyon.com>,
fgra...@halcyon.com (The comics journal) writes:
>I think my point regarding our final cut takes care of
>most of your concerns, my point regarding that this is a policy
concerning
>features and not journalistic/news interviews takes care of most of the
>rest of them. There's no real rewriting of the kind you're talking about,
>I don't think. Letting a Gil Kane add a name or two to his list of studio
>mates serves the historical record a lot more than "catching" him on his
>omission of Carmine Infantino. Believe me, we're very tough when it comes
>to any "rewriting," and I've done this kind of cleaning up for years over
>the phone with newspaper interviews, removing the "ahs" and "ums."
>
Just about any transcriber will remove that kind of stuff. I'm talking
here about your policy of letting the subject see the completed transcript
and, if I read you right, letting him rewrite a comment or answer that
might not have made his point clearly enough. That's not just cleaning up
grammar and syntax, or throwing in an additional name to a list--that's
"Gee, I really muddled what I wanted to say here; let me take the time to
think about it and make it clearer."
That's false, to me. That's no longer even an attempt to present the
interview as it was recorded, but instead lets the subject make himself
seem much more coherent than he really was. And at what point does "making
myself clearer" become "making a different case entirely"?
And I don't see the distinction between news and features--there are many
cases of feature interviews generating news. Remember Jimmy Carter's "lust
in my heart" comment from the 1976 PLAYBOY interview?
Best, Pat
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Pat O'Neill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:
: I'm talking
: here about your policy of letting the subject see the completed transcript
: and, if I read you right, letting him rewrite a comment or answer that
: might not have made his point clearly enough. That's not just cleaning up
: grammar and syntax, or throwing in an additional name to a list--that's
: "Gee, I really muddled what I wanted to say here; let me take the time to
: think about it and make it clearer."
: That's false, to me.
Are you kidding?
I think that's a *wonderful* policy. I wish more publications were that
courteous.
: That's no longer even an attempt to present the
: interview as it was recorded, but instead lets the subject make himself
: seem much more coherent than he really was.
And the problem with this is...?
- Elayne
--
E-Mail me, the "Firehead Head," for a copy of the final issue of ()~~
the official Firesign Theatre newsletter, Four-Alarm FIRESIGNal; ##
it's free! "Yes, that's right-- fair to all, and no fare to ##
anybody!... Join the expectant crowd, gathering now!" _##_
Kevin J. Maroney
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
>As you know, Tom, I've always been troubled by this policy of the
>JOURNAL's. To my mind, the interview subject's inability to make his point
>clearly is a part of the interview. Giving him the chance to essentially
>do a rewrite on his comments is like the Congressmen who get the
>transcripts of their floor speeches and then rewrite them for the
>Congressional Record.
I disagree. Why should someone be penalized for not always being able
to explain him/herself perfectly clearly on the first pass-through? I
often garble thoughts in conversation, and wouldn't particularly want
people's main impression of me to be an unedited transcript of my
sometimes rambling words.
This is especially true in TCJ's major historical interviews. (Picking
an example from It-Didn't-Happen-Land--I know that Gil Kane is
actually an excellent speaker and conversationally brilliant:) If Gil
Kane, in his long recent interview on his 50 years in the industry,
had said, "Mort Meskin was a complete bastard", and upon reviewing the
transcript realized that he had meant to say, "Mort *Weisinger* was a
complete bastard", would you have TCJ print the original statement?
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | ke...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
The comics journal
Hi:
> Just about any transcriber will remove that kind of stuff.
So Barb Ireland is supposed to do this instead of Gary Groth?
> I'm talking
> here about your policy of letting the subject see the completed transcript
> and, if I read you right, letting him rewrite a comment or answer that
> might not have made his point clearly enough. That's not just cleaning up
> grammar and syntax, or throwing in an additional name to a list--that's
> "Gee, I really muddled what I wanted to say here; let me take the time to
> think about it and make it clearer."
You read me wrong. About the only time anything like this happens is when
we're talking about a specific exploration of an issue, like Kurt Busiek
on superheroes. We're more interested in the actual ideas than the
journalistic question of catching on paper Kurt Busiek's spoken eloquence
or lack thereof regarding superheroes.
> That's false, to me. That's no longer even an attempt to present the
> interview as it was recorded, but instead lets the subject make himself
> seem much more coherent than he really was. And at what point does "making
> myself clearer" become "making a different case entirely"?
It's the point when the person stops making themselves clearer and starts
making a different case entirely.
We know the difference; we don't have to talk in "Suppose" and "What
if's." We have 20 years of conversations both frank and revealing, with
all the attendent controversy, friendships ending, reconciliations,
revelations and flat-out juiciness that result.
> And I don't see the distinction between news and features--there are many
> cases of feature interviews generating news. Remember Jimmy Carter's "lust
> in my heart" comment from the 1976 PLAYBOY interview?
Yes, I do. And the way we do the features that line would have made it
through, no question, even if there had been every attempt on Carter's
part to change it. Unless he had goofed and said, "dust on my hearth."
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ