Wednesday, December 31, 2008

It came in an enormous box

-Sorry about the delay in posting--I haven't been away from home, but I was distracted by various Christmas-related things. Also MMA and football, but I'll spare you any thoughts on those subjects other than officially noting my glee at the Eagles' demolition of Dallas on Sunday afternoon. I never thought I would say it, but I was actually feeling kind of sorry for Tony Romo by the end of all that.

Anyway, I haven't updated my year's best database in about a week. I'll might publish the current list later today, and an updated one tomorrow. I'm guessing there weren't too many new lists added in the last week, though.

-At this point, I'm only awaiting my December shipment from DCBS to finish the acquisition portion of compiling my own best of 2008 list. Kramers Ergot 7 finally shipped from Amazon (anyone else have their shipment delayed?), and it arrived yesterday. I haven't read too much yet, but I have flipped through every page. Really, anyone complaining about the format (and accompanying price) needs to sit down with it. At a table--you don't want to try to read this in an armchair. You could also put it on an ottoman or a low couch and kneel before it, as if you were praying to it.

Anyway, I can't remember flipping through an anthology and saying "whoa" so many times. Upon first glance, the most impressive pages are the ones which really assault your senses. Those huges pages are absolutely stunning, especially as you move from one vista of color to another. I'm a little annoyed with the table of contents--I know that previous volumes of KE and many other anthologies have favored form over function in this regard, but it's very difficult to navigate when you're turning pages as long as your arm.* I'm planning to write out my own table of contents to keep alongside the book. I'll probably post it here when I'm done, in case anyone else is similarly inconvenienced.

This is, of course, a very minor complaint; overall, I'm as impressed with KE7 as I expected. I'm always leery of year's best lists which include titles which the list-maker has only a passing familiarity with, but I can understand the impulse to include this on early lists. Even a short time with KE7 will leave a strong impression.

*Not my arm, which is actually kind of long, but your arm. Assuming you're several inches shorter than me.

-Whenever I take a break from checking my RSS feeds (500+ posts to read!), there are always a few interesting comment threads waiting for me. Sometimes I mean "interesting" in a pejorative sense. In this case I don't: Sean Collins vs. Tom Spurgeon and Tucker Stone and Tim O'Neil (plus some other people) on ways to approach superhero comics in reviews.

I can't speak to who is making a better case, but I know that when I write about comics, I tend to navigate towards Sean's approach: when actually reviewing a Marvel/DC comic, write only about what I get out of a book, not what a hypothetical audience would think. Not that the other approach isn't valid, it's just that I can't fathom what the average superhero reader (or the potential superhero reader) wants from Final Crisis or whatever. Maybe this is a form of critical solipsism, but I just can't put myself in a mindset which acknowledges Geoff Johns' Green Lantern (or the Byrne/Claremont X-Men, for the hypothetical reader argument) as something that one would actually read for pleasure.

I've tried recently to read and review some comics which I knew I probably wouldn't like, but I found it impossible to get beyond my own revulsion at the dour meditations on super heroism I encountered. As I've said before (sort of), I found reading Secret Invasion akin to trying to decipher instructions on how to put together an obscure piece of furniture which were written in an extraterrestrial language. Plus every third page is missing. I don't merely lack understanding of who likes this stuff, or even who pays money for it--I don't understand the mentality which allows one to volunatarily read these comics instead of doing something more productive/entertaining, like cleaning toilets or alphebetizing cookbooks.

That doesn't stop me from writing about these comics from a business perspective; it's just that I don't really feel that it's necessary to read the comics in question. In fact, it's probably more productive if I don't. The popularity of the Sinestro Corps storyline in Green Lantern is undeniable; it was a great success in a year of dismal failures for DC. I didn't, however, read the story. I didn't have to; you can look at sales charts, or read the reactions of fans to whom this kind of thing appeals. I strongly suspect that, if I had bothered to read Sinestro Corps War, it would have warped my perception of it as a sales success and creative success on its own terms. That seems to be the case with Secret Invasion; it was so bad, so impossibly, incomprehensibly bad, that I have a hard time imagining that it didn't poison the waters for Marvel in 2009 and beyond.

Realistically, that's probably not the case (partly because, as I've lamented before, aesthetic quaity seems to have limited bearing on the success of modern DC/Marvel comics). In fact, this confation of personal reaction and general audience reaction is one of the foundational problems with internet comics discourse. There are a lot of people who can't fathom that something they like (say, Blue Beetle) has failed to attract an audience; likewise, they can't understand that Mark Millar is one of the most popular writers in comics, despite their eternal, burning hatred for him and all he stands for. This isn't a problem limited to comics fans, of course, but comics are such a small pond that you have people who can't accept the non-correlation of popularity and quality becoming semi-prominent, semi-respected bloggers or columnists or whatever. Just look at who freaked out over the (relatively) low sales of the first issue of Final Crisis.

Having said all that, I don't think Tucker or Tom or Tim's approaches are inherently bad or anything like that. Just as I can't merge commerce and aesthetics easily, some can't separate the two very easily, or they might find it to be the most valuable approach. I enjoy reading this type of analysis/review, even though I would never try to replicate it. This may be due, in part, to greater cynicism on my part re: the quality of Marvel/DC comics, or it might be that I have a more piecemiel approach to evaluating superhero comics. I tend to prefer an otherwise terrible comic with one great panel or sequence over an unremarkable-yet-competent comic. That tendency towards compartmentalization might lead me towards Sean's approach.

-The other "interesting" comments thread (this time in a pejorative sense) is the controversy over online reactions to Frank Miller's Spirit movie tanking. A few thoughts:

1. Online fans of EVERYTHING overreact and wish ill on people for a variety of poorly conceived reasons all the time. This doesn't seem much different to me; when one of Mark Millar's intellectual properties eventually (inevitably) tanks in the box office, people will say the same things about him. The thing is, Miller and Millar both are successful, relatively wealthy dudes who probably shouldn't care what a bunch of idiots on Newsarama think. I'm not sure Frank Miller needs Peter David to defend him. This doesn't excuse any excessive comments (which I assume there were--I didn't read the Newsarama thread because, well, I'd rather be cleaning toilets), but I don't see how this is an exceptional or distictively tragic case. Frank Miller hasn't received a fraction of the venom that even the most respected professional athletes deal with on a regular basis. It doesn't make it right, but that's just kind of the peril of reading shit the internet. Particularly comments threads where you know idiots abound.

2. If I'm going to agree with anyone hating on Frank Miller, it's Devlin Thompson. Actually, I'll state for the record that I agree with him on every point. Frank Miller is the closest thing comics advocates have to a Long Duk Dong (though if he reaches a comparable level of fame, Mark Millar will be about a million billion times worse).

3. Mostly I just don't want to have to think about Frank Miller anymore, at least not until people freak out over the next issue of All Star Batman or something.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Third roundup of best of 2008 lists

Lots of new stuff this time. A conundrum as well: NPR has now made a separate list for the best superhero comics of 2008. Huh? Is there a reason this wasn't integrated into the best graphic novels of 2008 list? This isn't affirmative action for superhero comics--it's separate-but-equal. Look, I can understand multiple lists in different categories, and I usually included lists like that last year if I could discern some sense of logic in them. For instance: Matthew Brady made different lists based on method of delivery; it's not a distinction I would make, but I can understand the reasoning. A bit closer to the NPR situation was Sean Collins, who made two lists broadly defined as "artsy" and "genre-ish." But the latter wasn't just superhero comics; in fact, it included Daybreak by Brian Ralph, a cartoonist usually lumped in with the "artsy" crowd.

Maybe I'm wrong; maybe there's not such a big difference between Sean's lists and this one. I guess I'm willing to give Sean the benefit of the doubt because I read his blog, and I know that he has his own approach to appreciating genre works and more literary/artistic/whatever works. I don't think I've quite figured out his tastes yet (I don't think I'll ever understand the appeal of Green Lantern), but I respect where he's coming from. This NPR thing, though, it's weird. Is the implication that superhero comics can't compare to the serious stuff, but somehow deserves mention for unclear reasons (maybe the popularity of the Batman and Iron Man movies)? Was there a limit of five titles per list imposed from above, thus tying Laurel Maury's hands and somehow necessitating a second list? Is there another list to come, maybe one that will consider manga or webcomics? If not, do I include the superhero list, ignore it, or do I just disqualify Maury's vote altogether?

I'm not just asking rhetorical questions here; I really would appreciate some feedback. For now, I'm not including the superhero list, and I'm not removing the points for the graphic novels list.

All right, what else do we have? There's a really solid new list from the Village Voice, one of the best one I've read from a general interest source this year (the Daily Vanguard list is also very much to my tastes). Jeff Smith (perhaps you've heard of him?) checks in with the first list from a comics professional which meets the minimum length requirements. The venerable Johnny Bacardi has posted his list. There's also a list from the equally venerable Robert Boyd. Plus lots of other lists worth your time.

Remember, if you know of a list not included below, please email me or leave a comment pointing me in the right direction. And please, don't rush getting your lists in on my account. I wouldn't want anyone to do this in this in the first place, but it's totally unneccesary besides. The Comics Journal won't publish their best of 2008 issue until February (I think), and I won't be doing one anytime soon either. I've got about 8-10 books I want to consider that haven't come in the mail yet. Among them: Kramers Ergot 7. Anyone know what's going on with Amazon's distribution of this book?

Criteria for inclusion in the Meta-List:

-list must contain no fewer than five items and no more than fifty
-list must be a general best-of list, not a series of categorical awards like "best superhero book," "best children's book," etc.
-list must not be limited to superhero comics, manga, major publishers, etc.
-I don't include votes for things like "everything Warren Ellis wrote in 2008"
-when a list includes a vote for a title which came out in a year prior to 2008, I usually tally everything like I normally would; it's rare that there are enough votes for an out-of-date item for it to crack the top 100
-no overt sleaziness (like voting for your own work; will be determined on a case-by-case basis)

New lists are in green.

GENERAL INTEREST LISTS
:


Amazon

Daily Vanguard (Portland State University)

New York Magazine

NPR

Publishers Weekly

Village Voice

Washington Post


COMICS-FOCUSED LISTS:

Bacardi, Johnny

Doane, Alan David

Harbin, Dustin

Hickey, Andrew

Hipster Dad

Lockefeer, Wim

Tomio, Jay


COMICS PROFESSIONALS:

Smith, Jeff


QUESTIONABLE:

Amazon.jp (The Japanese branch of Amazon's best comics and "light novels." Interesting, but I'm not sure what to do with it since much (most?) of this is not available in English yet, and the light novels are definitely not comics. On the other hand, those aren't necessarily good reasons to exclude this list. Any thoughts?)

Associated Content (Written by Russell Burlingame of the new Blogorama crew. Framed as "the best and worst of 2008," I took this to be more of a year in review kind of list. Plus it might be too narrow (Echo is the only not-at-the-front-of-Diamond title listed). We'll see if Burlingame posts a best of 2008 list at Blogorama.)

Boyd, Robert (Boyd admits this is a "best of things I read this year, but which were not necessarily published in 2008." But most of this list does consist of 2008 releases, so I'll almost certainly count it when the time comes.)

Callahan, Timothy (It's a list of the top 20 collected editions of 2008. Callahan has promised a separate list of the top 10 original comics of 2008, and I'll combine and tally the two lists once he publishes that list.)

Drawn!, part one (Matt Forsythe) (This contains one comic which is definitely not 2008 (Tekkon Kinkreet) and one which is either a 2007 entry if you consider it a book or a 2008 entry if you consider it a webcomic (Fart Party). My Brain is Hanging Upside Down and Cul de Sac are definite 2008 comic releases. I'm not sure what you would consider the Nicholas series. The rest are things which not everyone would agree are comics. My inclination is to count this list anyway, since (a) the non-comics stuff won't accumulate enough other votes to place, and (b) I'll disqualify any non-2008 titles when I finalize the meta-list. Do note that I'm not trying to denigrate the list because it doesn't fit into this project; I like seeing unconventional lists, and it's not like Drawn! is a comics-only blog. UPDATE: I have included this list.)

Drawn, part two (John Martz) (See comments above, except that this list a greater number of 2008 titles that most would classify as unambiguously comics. UPDATE: I have included this list.)

The Independent (Seems to have an awful lot of books from before 2008--Sleepwalk? Embroideries?--which might reflect new British editions, but I'm skeptical. Comics and Sequential Art seriously never came out in the UK before 2008? Just seems like a lazy list.)

Nicholson, Brian (I don't have any problem with it, but Brian suggests he doesn't "read enough to be considered a serious critic." I'm inclined to include it, unless Brian asks me not to.)

NPR
(Their all-superhero list. See above.)

Some dude on Amazon (Do I really want to include Amazon lists? I mean, it's not a bad list, aside from being a little long, but really...)

St. Louis Today (Includes one from 2007, which reduces the list down to a total of four, below the minimum threshold. I'll probably include it in the final tally, and ignore the votes for Laika. UPDATE: I've included it.)

Douglas Wolk (I think this is a gift guide, not a best-of list?)

Various message board posters (Most of these fail to meet my minimal criteria (ie, they're all Marvel, DC, Dark Horse, and Image). And I haven't decided whether or not to include a bunch of hastily compiled message board lists. I mean, if this were Abhay Khosla or something, I would reconsider, but these are a bunch of basically anonymous dudes on a Hellblazer forum.)


WILL NOT USE:

Brownfield, Troy and Lucas Siegel
(Delimited to superhero comics)

Caleb Monroe (UPDATED: I had this among the regular comics-focused lists until I realized that its author had voted for a book he co-wrote, thus prompting the newest criterion for inclusion listed above.)

Comics Should Be Good/Danielle Leigh Readers' Choice (too short, categorical, and delimited to manga)

IGN (Categorical awards. If you think Wizard's gotten too snooty, this is the list for you.)

Kethylia (delimited to manga)

Maxwell, Matt (Doesn't include the minimum number of comics, mostly because apparently Maxwell agrees with Steven Grant re: the quality of comics in 2008. Much pontification along those lines, if you're looking for more of that.)

Pop Culture Shock (delimited to manga)

Sequential Tart (Two lists, but neither meets the minimum number of entries for inclusion.)

Smith, Shannon (specifically delimited to mini-comics and web comics; well worth your time, though)

Various cartoonists at Forbidden Planet (Forbidden Planet is conducting a series of interviews with cartoonists, asking for a top three list from each. This is below the minimum threshold for this project, but you should check out this link, which should take you to all of the interviews conducted so far. Bryan Talbot is the most prominent interviewee to date.)

Wizard (Not the official list, at least not yet. This is a categorical awards list, and thus ineligible. What a strange list--a bunch of superhero comics, plus Kramers Ergot 7.)

Friday, December 12, 2008

Second roundup of best of 2008 lists

A few Google search results in this one, plus a few that I've seen linked to around the internet and one which was sent via email. If you're aware of a list (yours or someone else's) which isn't included here, please leave a link or description in the comments field.

Once again, my criteria for inclusion in the Meta-List:

-list must contain no fewer than five items and no more than fifty
-list must be a general best-of list, not a series of categorical awards like "best superhero book," "best children's book," etc.
-list must not be limited to superhero comics, manga, major publishers, etc.
-I don't include votes for things like "everything Warren Ellis wrote in 2008"
-when a list includes a vote for a title which came out in a year prior to 2008, I usually tally everything like I normally would; it's rare that there are enough votes for an out-of-date item for it to crack the top 100

New additions are in green.

GENERAL INTEREST LISTS:


Amazon

Daily Vanguard (Portland State University)

New York Magazine

NPR

Publishers Weekly

Washington Post


COMICS-FOCUSED LISTS:

Caleb (last name unknown) at Jim Hanley's Universe

Doane, Alan David

Harbin, Dustin

Hickey, Andrew

Hipster Dad


QUESTIONABLE:

Amazon.jp (The Japanese branch of Amazon's best comics and "light novels." Interesting, but I'm not sure what to do with it since much (most?) of this is not available in English yet, and the light novels are definitely not comics. On the other hand, those aren't necessarily good reasons to exclude this list. Any thoughts?

Associated Content (Written by Russell Burlingame of the new Blogorama crew. Framed as "the best and worst of 2008," I took this to be more of a year in review kind of list. Plus it might be too narrow (Echo is the only not-at-the-front-of-Diamond title listed). We'll see if Burlingame posts a best of 2008 list at Blogorama.)

Drawn!, part one (Matt Forsythe) (This contains one comic which is definitely not 2008 (Tekkon Kinkreet) and one which is either a 2007 entry if you consider it a book or a 2008 entry if you consider it a webcomic (Fart Party). My Brain is Hanging Upside Down and Cul de Sac are definite 2008 comic releases. I'm not sure what you would consider the Nicholas series. The rest are things which not everyone would agree are comics. My inclination is to count this list anyway, since (a) the non-comics stuff won't accumulate enough other votes to place, and (b) I'll disqualify any non-2008 titles when I finalize the meta-list. Do note that I'm not trying to denigrate the list because it doesn't fit into this project; I like seeing unconventional lists, and it's not like Drawn! is a comics-only blog.)

Drawn, part two (John Martz) (See comments above, except that this list a greater number of 2008 titles that most would classify as unambiguously comics.)

The Independent (Seems to have an awful lot of books from before 2008--Sleepwalk? Embroideries?--which might reflect new British editions, but I'm skeptical. Comics and Sequential Art seriously never came out in the UK before 2008? Just seems like a lazy list.)

Some dude on Amazon
(Do I really want to include Amazon lists? I mean, it's not a bad list, aside from being a little long, but really...)

St. Louis Today (Includes one from 2007, which reduces the list down to a total of four, below the minimum threshold. I'll probably include it in the final tally, and ignore the votes for Laika. UPDATE: I've included it.)

Douglas Wolk (I think this is a gift guide, not a best-of list?)

Various message board posters
(Most of these fail to meet my minimal criteria (ie, they're all Marvel, DC, Dark Horse, and Image). And I haven't decided whether or not to include a bunch of hastily compiled message board lists. I mean, if this were Abhay Khosla or something, I would reconsider, but these are a bunch of basically anonymous dudes on a Hellblazer forum.)


WILL NOT USE:

Comics Should Be Good/Danielle Leigh Readers' Choice (too short, categorical, and delimited to manga)

Smith, Shannon (specifically delimited to mini-comics and web comics; well worth your time, though)

Talbot, Bryan (too short, includes stuff from 2007)

Wizard (Not the official list, at least not yet. This is a categorical awards list, and thus ineligible. What a strange list--a bunch of superhero comics, plus Kramers Ergot 7.)

Thursday, December 11, 2008

What I'm looking for is a list from an omniscient robot

-Found a bunch of links to best of 2008 lists today. I'll post an updated master list tomorrow. The most interesting new ones definitely those from Drawn, but they're really unusual lists. And kind of problematic for my project (more on that tomorrow). But they're still really good lists, especially for people whose interests in comics are broad enough to include things that technically might not be comics. If you know what I mean.

As for the others.... Look, the lists you've all seen by now are, generally speaking, the best lists out there at the moment. With maybe one or two exceptions, these new lists fall into one of two categories: lists from well-known sources which kind of suck, or lists from basically unknown sources that don't suck. Okay, there are also a few unknown/suck combinations as well. The biggest gap between name value and quality of thought comes from the Washington Post (scroll down). Their list from last year sucked as well. I'm willing to bet that their lists are comprised entirely of whatever they're sent, and that 90% of what they're sent comes from Dark Horse and DC. Either that or this list is farted out by someone who doesn't have the time/energy/expertise to put into such things. But based on some of the strange choices in 2007, I'd guess the former.

Plus: the first appearance of Buffy on one of these things! Shit, I thought all that was over by now. I suppose this will pop up on a few other lists, especially if Entertainment Weekly bothers to make one this year.

-A few people have shared some thoughts about the process of making lists in the past couple of days, and I agree with very little of what I've read. Undoubtedly the least valuable of these posts comes from Lucas Siegel of the new Blog@Newsarama. I feel sort of responsible for the shit storm that follows in the comics, given that I mockingly linked to the article yesterday (Heidi MacDonald even repeats my description of Siegel's position as "affirmative action for superhero comics"). Really, I'm not sure it merits this much attention in and of itself (as an expression of a larger sentiment, perhaps it does; more on this later). Tom Spurgeon pretty much captures its spirit perfectly in describing it as something "from a Usenet Group in 1996."

But this isn't the first instance of anti-best of list backlash from the new Blog@Newsarama crew. Getting much less attention is this post from Sarah Jaffe, taking the New York Magazine top 10 (or 12) list to task for not including the collected Local. If that's going to be her standard for excellence in these lists, she's going to be sorely disappointed; in my experience compiling these things, very few books show up in more than a small fraction of lists. And from what I've seen so far, the collected Local isn't going to be one of them this year. Why? For one thing, it's a collection of comics previously published from 2005 to 2008. Bloggers and writers for comics-oriented publications tend to ignore these sorts of collections, making them particularly dependent on lists coming from general interest publications. Of the six lists like this I've compiled so far, only NPR includes the collected Local. No comics-focused sources have ranked it yet.

Still, I take Jaffe's comment to be more boosterism than complaint; I think she's more interested in drumming up her readers' interest in the book than anything. I was more disappointed in the comments her post elicited, especially this one by Ryan Higgins:

It’s depressing sometimes that these lists always consist of books that I can’t sell to save my life. Outside of Fables, I stocked a few of these, and not a single one has sold.

I'm not sure what Higgins' point is. If he's bemoaning his inability to sell quality works to his customers, I would think this would be more of a self-deprecating statement. You know, "what does it say about me as a salesman that I can't sell comics which the critical consensus rates as the best of the year." Or maybe, "Boy, our customers suck." That kind of thing. Instead, this seems more in line with Lucas Siegel's position that there are too many "pretentious" choices on these lists, that critics don't have their finger on the pulse of what the comics industry is really about, etc., etc.

This isn't anything new, of course. We've seen countless examples of superhero fan rage at the alleged snobbery of the art/literary comics contingent. I'm finding the superhero people a little touchier lately, though. It used to take statements of outright derision to set them off, but I'm seeing increasingly volcanic reactions to the omission of superhero comics from discussions of what constitutes the "best" in comics. I first noticed this during the Best American Comics 2007 fiasco from last year; it looks like we're seeing it again now.

I can't attribute this trend (assuming it's actually a trend and not a figment of my imagination) to anything with absolute certainty, but I've got some ideas. We see many superhero partisans (perhaps most notably Paul O'Brien) cite the popularity of superhero movies as evidence that superhero comics better reflect mainstream tastes than something like Acme Novelty Library. Somehow this leads to the conclusion that anything purporting to list the "best" comics is somehow flawed if it fails to include superhero comics.

The problem here how you get from the factual statement that the general public likes superhero movies to the questionable conclusion that best of lists/anthologies must include superhero comics. There are at least three assertions one must accept to get from (a) to (b):

1. There are superhero comics from the period in question which are worthy of inclusion in best of lists/anthologies.

2. The aforementioned superhero comics will appeal to the segment of the general public which enjoys superhero movies.

3. Best of lists/anthologies must reflect popular tastes in order to be considered legitimate.

Clearly there are problems with all three assertions. In clarifying his original post, Siegel suggests that most shonen manga somehow qualify as superhero comics. I think this greatly stretches the definition of "superhero" as a genre, but we'll leave that aside. By including things like, presumably, Naruto or Bleach, you can beef up assertion #2: these comics are popular, and they're popular for the same reason movies like Iron Man and The Dark Knight are popular. Again, I've got my doubts about this, but let's put that aside. Does the popularity of these comics necessitate their inclusion in a best of list or anthology?

I don't see how this follows. There are a number of commenters who distrust the idea of best of lists because they overvalue the concepts of objectivity and expertise. In other words, you can't trust most lists because (a) they reflect the list-maker's subjective tastes and (b) it's extremely unlikely that the list-maker will have read every single comic of any merit in any given year. Thus, once can view the inclusion of a couple of superhero comics as evidence that neither of these problems afflict a given list. If a list full of artsy fartsy comics includes one or two Marvel or DC titles, it can provide the illusion that the list-maker has expertise in/appreciation of all areas of comics, even if the only superhero comics (s)he has read all year long were written by Grant Morrison.*

There are, naturally, going to be some people who include Captain America alongside Alan's War in their lists not out of tokenism, but out of a genuine respect and admiration for each work. But no one should get upset when mainstream publications ignore Marvel and DC, and possibly Dark Horse and Image as well. Ask yourself: do you really think that the average person sitting down to write one of these lists for Time or The Onion or whatever is going to hold Rage of the Red Lanterns and Bottomless Belly Button in equal regard? Can you not see the difference in appeal among the types of people who make these sorts of lists? Sure, Rage of the Red Lanterns will outsell Bottomless Belly Button in the short run**, but does that obligate those of us who actually take the time to make these lists to include something by Geoff Johns on our lists?

Are we even obligated to read Geoff Johns' output when making our lists? I would argue pretty strenuously that we aren't, that most of us who think enough about comics to assemble a best of 2008 list probably know by now whether or not we like Geoff Johns' work. To some, this might diminish our expertise, or reveal our subjectivity. This concern is misguided. Certainly, I would not value a list written by someone with a very narrow range of interests, or a very limited familiarity with comics released in 2008. That's why I have criteria for inclusion on the meta-list; I'm not going to take a top 10 list which includes eight superhero comics, Penny Arcade, and something by Jonathan Hickman very seriously.

But we should be realistic. Does everybody who makes a list share your interests and prejudices? You'd have to be very, very naive to expect every list to cater to your tastes. Does every list reflect the same level of expertise? Of course not. Not everyone making a list will be able to afford to buy every comic of interest to them, and they probably won't be able to find every one of these books in the library or a bookstore which permits reading in the cafe. Most of us won't recieve complimentary copies of Kramers Ergot 7, and lots of those folks might not put it on their best of 2008 list because they can't afford to buy a copy for themselves.

I really don't have a problem with that, though. There are a lot of lists to choose from out there. It's only December 11, and I've already found at least a dozen worthy of consideration. And hey, I'm going to do a lot of the work for you by compiling all these lists into one meta-list reflecting scores of different perspectives. The final top 10 probably won't be entirely to your liking, but what's stopping you from making your own top 10? You could make it nothing but superhero comics if you want. I mean, I won't take it seriously, but other people might. It might bother you that your list won't have the same reach as those from major media sources; if so, I guess you'll just have to get over it. Sorry, but that's life.

*Of course, you'd have some people who would consider the inclusion of a Grant Morrison comic as prima facie evidence of pretentiousness. We can probalby dismiss these people as the types who would rank Essential Power Pack as the number one comic of the year, thus establishing that they're not quite ready to sit at the grown-ups' table yet.

**I'm guessing. In the long run, I expect that people will still be reading Bottomless Belly Button years and years after all but the most ardent fanboys have forgotten what a Red Lantern is.

-BONUS TERRIBLE GROSS OUT COVERAGE: For the vast, vast majority of you, this will be the worst thing you see all day. Do you dare click on the link? Please note: I'm not kidding. This is terrible, and you might regret looking at it.

-EXTRA BONUS LINK UPDATE: Right after posting this, I read Tom Spurgeon's review of some undoubtedly terrible comic by some D-list celebrity. I don't know how Tom's going to feel about me saying this, but that's one of the best reviews I've read in months; insightful and very funny. Just wanted to point out my appreciation for it, since Tom doesn't have comments and probably wouldn't publish correspondence saying nothing more than "That was awesome, dude."

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

First roundup of best of 2008 lists

Great thanks to those who have been sending me links to best of 2008 lists. As we move deeper into December, we'll certainly start to see more and more of these things. I've determined that the most effective way for me to compile these lists is to post periodic updates to my list database. This should serve a few functions. First, it will allow anyone who wonders if I've missed a recent list the opportunity to see what I've compiled so far; plus, you can leave links to missing lists in the comments. Second, it allows me to discuss in a public forum the process of determining which lists will and won't be used in the final meta-list tally. Finally, those looking for a clearinghouse of year in review-type lists can find them here.

I'll be updating this list at least once a week, probably more often as we start seeing a deluge of new lists after Christmas. I'll put new lists in bold as I add them to the database.

And, as a reminder, here are my criteria for being included in this project:

-list must contain no fewer than five items and no more than fifty
-list must be a general best-of list, not a series of categorical awards like "best superhero book," "best children's book," etc.
-list must not be limited to superhero comics, manga, major publishers, etc.
-I don't include votes for things like "everything Warren Ellis wrote in 2008"
-when a list includes a vote for a title which came out in a year prior to 2008, I usually tally everything like I normally would; it's rare that there are enough votes for an out-of-date item for it to crack the top 100

If you dislike these criteria, you may find some comfort in this call for affirmative action for superhero books in best of lists. Does the last issue of Love and Rockets count?

Here are the lists so far:

GENERAL INTEREST LISTS (lists from newspapers, websites, or other media outlets which cover a wide range of subjects beyond comics):
Amazon
Daily Vanguard (Portland State University)
New York Magazine
NPR
Publishers Weekly

COMICS-FOCUSED LISTS (lists from blogs, websites, or publications devoted to comics):
Doane, Alan David (kind of an unclear format for ranking, but Alan and I have talked and he's instructed me in how he wants his vote tallied)

Harbin, Dustin

QUESTIONABLE:
The Independent (Seems to have an awful lot of books from before 2008--Sleepwalk? Embroideries?--which might reflect new British editions, but I'm skeptical. Comics and Sequential Art seriously never came out in the UK before 2008? Just seems like a lazy list.)

St. Louis Today (Includes one from 2007, which reduces the list down to a total of four, below the minimum threshold. I'll probably include it in the final tally, and ignore the votes for Laika.)

Douglas Wolk (I think this is a gift guide, not a best-of list?)

WILL NOT USE:
Talbot, Bryan (too short, includes stuff from 2007)

Monday, December 8, 2008

Final best of 2008 workbook/checklist

Okay, here's an alphabetical list of all the comics I can think of that I will seriously consider when I get around to making my best of 2008 list in a few weeks. It's a pretty big list, but it's been a pretty good year for comics: beautiful archival reprints of important works; reprints celebrating lesser-known cartoonists; incredible anthologies; stunning debuts; great pamphlet series; tremendously diverse manga; more great European comics; and continued excellence from established creators.

Since this is such a long list, I guess it can also serve as sort of a holiday shopping list, if you're in the market for yet another one, and the person you're shopping for has very similar tastes to my own, yet has not managed to acquire any of the major comics works of the last 12 months. Or you can consider it a checklist for 2008 reading, though again it's a checklist from my perspective. For instance, Skyscrapers of the Midwest isn't on here because I bought it in pamphlets, and thus consider it more of a 2005-07 title.

Abandoned Cars by Tim Lane: Haven't read, but my copy should arrive before the end of the year.

Achewood by Chris Onstad: I think the latest storyline with Cornelius' May-November relationship with Polly (rhymes with "Molly"...hmm...) has injected some life into the strip, which I thought was kind of sagging after the exhausting marriage storyline. Also: have not so much as looked at a copy of The Great Outdoor Fight. Haven't seen a copy on any store shelves, even at Powell's a couple of weeks ago. Probably just missed it, but still: you couldn't escape that Perry Bible Fellowship collection last year. Or even today. Could very well just be chance that I'm not encountering it in my trips to bookstores.

Acme Novelty Library #19 by Chris Ware: Another one I'll be getting by the time I make my list. Honestly, I've been very skeptical of the whole Rusty Brown thing from the beginning. I hated the early Rusty Brown strips; I thought they were totally cynical in going after such an easy target, with the added bonus of some queasy self-flagellation from Ware, since he self-identifies as a collector. And I don't even have much sympathy with the obsessive fanboy type or anything. But what I've read of Ware's NYT work (mostly limited to flipping through Acme Novelty Library #18) seemed much more promising. And I'm sure that what Ware has done since then has transcended the weak initial premise of Rusty Brown, as Jog's review suggests.

All that aside: I've read a few comments suggesting that any list failing to include Acme Novelty Library #19 are substantially flawed in some way. Aside from aggravating my deep-seated sense of cultural relativism (I don't think I'd say something like that about anything I've ever read), I think this also misses another point. A lot of these lists are made by non-obsessive types. This particular issue of Acme Novelty Library is a single chapter of a longer, ongoing story. I think it's entirely reasonable that some reviewers would hesitate to include on their list a fragment of a larger work, even if the fragment stands reasonably well on its own. This is not a universal approach to list-making, of course; my own top-rated comic from last year was Sammy the Mouse #1, the first chapter of a longer, still-incomplete work. But I think there is a substantial portion of the list-making public which does think that way.

Alan's War by Emmanuel Guibert: Should be reading it in the next couple of weeks.

Amazing Remarkable Monsieur Leotard by Eddie Campbell and Dan Best: Another one I'll be getting soon. I know it sounds like I'm woefully behind on my reading for 2008, but there's a disproportionate number of books beginning with "A" that I haven't read for some reason.

Aqua Leung by Mark Andrew Smith and Paul Maybury: I think this comic would have worked better after future volumes fleshed out the story, but unfortunately that's not going to happen. Because of its incompleteness, I think this mostly stands as a showcase for Paul Maybury's art.

Aya of Yop City by Marguerite Abouet and Clement Oubrerie: Wow, this is in full-out soap opera mode now, huh? I guess that makes it the most lushly produced soap opera on the stands--like the first Aya volume, this is a beautifully-produced hardcover. And Oubrerie's colors are even better here. Where one would normally expect delicate watercolors for this style of art, Oubrerie works in intensely vibrant opaques. And if you're going to read a soap opera, it might as well be a well-written one that will teach you about an unfamiliar place and time. What would we be saying about the Minx line if DC had managed to acquire the Aya series? We'd probably still be talking about its demise, but undoubtedly with a great deal more regret.

Bat-Manga by Jiro Kuwata: Review here.

Black Jack vol. 1-2 by Osamu Tezuka: I've only read the first volume so far. Good stuff, as one always expects from Tezuka. I think I liked the darker material towards the end the best. I expect the weirdness quotient to be a bit higher in the second volume, if I understand correctly.

Body World by Dash Shaw: I read the first chapter or so, and then started having problems getting the updates on Google Reader. The RSS feed is working for me again, but I haven't managed to catch up yet.

Bottomless Belly Button by Dash Shaw: Short thoughts here. Haven't thought too much about this book since then.

Bourbon Island 1730 by Apollo and Lewis Trondheim: Tom Spurgeon's review was very insightful. Man, there have been a lot of Trondheim comics this year. Anyway, this starts out kind of slow--some of the least inspired-looking Trondheim art I can recall--but picks up steam about 20 or 30 pages in. Definitely turns into something worthwhile by the end, but it doesn't really compare with Trondheim's best work.

Breakdowns
: Long review here.

Core of Caligula #1 by CF: This is a new mini from Picturebox, possibly compiling one-pagers CF did somewhere else? Maybe not? Anyway, I liked it almost as much as Powr Mastrs, which is to say I liked it a whole bunch. And it's really not the same thing as Powr Mastrs at all. Probably not one of the best 10 comics of 2008, but definitely one of the 30 or so best comics.

Cowa! by Akira Toriyama: Review here.

Criminal by Ed Brubaker and Sean Phillips
: I haven't read the last two issues (vol. 2, #6-7). The first three issues of the current volume were probably the best thing Marvel has published this decade, and probably the best thing Brubaker has ever written. Not as crazy about the current arc, but as I said above, I'm only halfway through it.

Crickets #2 by Sammy Harkham: Almost forgot about this! Major improvement over the first issue, which is really saying something. Sammy Harkham doesn't get nearly the attention he deserves--he's probably equal to or not far behind Kevin Huizenga in terms of talent, but gets only a fraction of the press. Maybe people think of him primarily as an editor?

Deitch's Pictorama by Kim Deitch, Simon Deitch, and Seth Kallen Deitch: Haven't read much about this, perhaps because it falls too much outside the realm of "comics" for some people. (BTW, Kim Deitch's introduction includes a broad definition of "graphic novel" that may or may not induce apoplexy in Eddie Campbell.) As I write this, I've read about 80% of it. Kim's first story is about what you'd expect from him, which is to say very good. I also liked the Seth's "Unlikely Hours," which seemed pretty harmonious with Kim's illustrations. In general, the stories I've liked the best are the ones with copious Kim Deitch illustrations, which is about what I expected going into this. Good stuff, but I'm not sure that it really accomplishes the formal breakthrough Kim seems to be angling for in the introduction. The first story probably would have filled up a 150+ page graphic novel if Deitch had completed it in a more conventional comics style; you kind of wonder if he liked this format because he's got so many ideas for stories and only so much time to complete them. If that's the case, then I'd rather have a bunch of stories in the Pictorama form than a few in a more conventional comics form.

Delphine #3 by Richard Sala: Thoughts here.

Disappearance Diary by Hideo Azuma: Review is here. I'm looking forward to reading this again. It's been a really good year for art/literary manga.

Fight Or Run #1 by Kevin Huizenga: My favorite of all Huizenga's work this year, and I quite enjoyed Or Else #5 and (to a lesser extent) Ganges #2. Really, highly recommended. You'll probably see this on a lot of best of 2008 lists.

Ganges #2 by Kevin Huizenga: It's funny how I just mentally skipped past all the Fight or Run material in this issue; now it seems likely that it's the best stuff in this issue of Ganges. I really need to re-read this issue, which I never really felt like I entirely got the first time around.

Goddess of War #1 by Lauren Weinstein: This was a lot of fun, but it felt more like an appetizer than the main course, you know? Like, I'm really looking forward to future issues of this series. Slightly more detailed version of these thoughts here.

Good-Bye by Yoshihiro Tatsumi: More of the inner turmoil and timeless antisocial behavior we've come to expect from Tatsumi, but this volume seemed a bit more linked to specific historical events (most notably the end of WWII, as seen in a couple of stories). Not really any better or worse than the previous volume in D&Q's reprint series (Abandon the Old in Tokyo), but the subject matter has changed enough to make these stories seem fresh, even though they're working in the same thematic and emotional territory as before. It's also a bit racier than I remember the previous volumes being, which again makes it stand out maybe a bit more. Still bleak as hell, though. That all sounds more negative than I mean to be, so let me make it perfectly clear: this is probably one of the most essential books of 2008.

Grotesque #2 by Sergio Ponchionne: Maybe the most underrated of all the Ignatz books. Brief thoughts here.

Gus and His Gang by Christophe Blain: This was on my radar, but not a very high priority until I saw Dustin Harbin's best of 2008 list. I like what I've read by Blain (pretty much limited to Isaac the Pirate, though I do have The Speed Abater checked out from the library right now), but this seemed like an "I'll get it eventually" type of book. Don't know if I'll get to read it by the time I make my list, but hopefully I'll at least get to flip through it.

Haunted by Philippe Dupuy: Short review here. I'm interested in re-reading this, but my memory is that it's a solid step down from the best comics on this list.

Injury #2 by Ted May, Jeff Wilson, and Jason Robards: Probably the biggest gap between amount of buzz and likely popular appeal among all worthwhile comics I've read this year. In other words, you probably want to read this comic if you haven't already. Three major features, all winners: a funny series of gags about Heracles and his clones; a totally awesome series about teenage hessians in the early-mid 80s; and an equally awesome urban SF comedy thing called "Your Bleeding Face." That last one sounds like the sort of strip I'd usually hate, which is really a testament to how good May and Robards are (Wilson collaborates on the 80s metalhead strip). Look: the first pages of "Your Bleeding Face" feature a brother and sister playing a Slade-themed pinball machine that plays "Gudbuy T'Jane" when the player loses a ball. That alone makes this worth your time; fortunately for us, there are many, many other things in this issue also worth your time. Make sure to track down the Injury #1 as well, though, since all three stories are continued from that issue.

Jessica Farm vol. 1 by Josh Simmons: Probably Simmons' most accomplished work to date. I'm really eager to see what he does next (which presumably won't be Jessica Farm vol. 2 in 2016). More thoughts here.

Kaput and Zosky by Lewis Trondheim with Eric Cartier: These two were never my favorite Lewis Trondheim characters, but this is an amusing enough stuff. Essential for a Trondheim completist* like myself; not so sure about everyone else.

*Well, a translated Trondheim completist. And even then, I'm missing some stuff.

Kramers Ergot v. 7 by various; edited by Sammy Harkham: Don't have a copy yet, hopefully getting it for Christmas. I picked up the Gasoline Alley Sunday collection just to get an idea of how this thing is going to feel in my hands. Where am I going to put it when I'm done reading it? Should I screw around with the height of the shelves on my bookcase, or what?

Little Nothings vol. 1 by Lewis Trondheim: Number one on my mid-year list. You folks know there's a second volume out in January, right?

Little Vampire by Johann Sfar: I really liked these stories, which may have been available in English in a different format prior to this First Second edition. Adults might find it especially bittersweet if read in conjunction with Sfar's Vampire Loves, which follows these characters into adulthood. Sort of. On its own, these are excellent cute-scary stories. If you liked Cowa!, you should definitely read this book (and vice versa, of course).

Love and Rockets v. 3 #1 by Gilbert, Jaime, and Mario Hernandez: Well, yes, that Jaime story is totally awesome, and pretty much buries any other superhero comic in recent memory. Jaime Hernandez is such an incredible cartoonist that this is liable to be the case whenever he dips into these waters (as he will again for part two of this story next year, presumably). But there are moments while I was reading this where I sat awestruck and realized: Jaime Hernandez would probably be considered the greatest superhero cartoonist of all time if he had chosen to work in that sub-genre full-time. Like, maybe even if he were forced to bend his style to meet the needs of the vile philistines who run Marvel and DC. There are cartoonists whose work I value more than Jaime Hernandez--not many, but a few--and I don't think I could say that about them. He's just so keyed into the visual language of the superhero comic, yet his work is so much better than practically any superhero comic I've ever laid eyes on.

And that's not even to mention the work by Gilbert (alone and with brother Mario), which compares very favorably to last year's/early this year's excellent output. Obviously a contender for a best of the year list.

Mome by various; edited by Eric Reynolds: Okay, now we're talking. It's not like Mome hasn't been improving steadily since its launch, but the last couple of volumes (we're talking 11 and 12 here) have upped the ante considerably. Part of my enthusiasm stems from my deep love for European comics, which are a cornerstone of the anthology at this point. Maybe the cornerstone. How can you go wrong with vol. 12, which features excellent work by Killoffer, Oliver Schrauwen, and greatest living cartoonist candidate David B? And the North American contributor list, strong enough already (loved the John Vermilyea story in volume 12), will only get better in 2009. This is no longer I'll-get-around-to-it-when-I-have-the-time/money fare; it's must-read-immediately material.

Never Been by Stuart Kolakovic: I genuinely hope people seriously consider this web comic when making their best of 2008 lists. I thought this blew away all other web comics I read this year on a number of levels (bearing in mind that I haven't kept up with Body World).

Nocturnal Conspiracies by David B: Not out yet, I don't think. Hope this makes it to press in the next few weeks!

Or Else #5 by Kevin Huizenga: I liked this issue quite a bit, though not quite as much as Ganges #2 or Fight or Run #1. Huizenga kind of branched out beyond his comfort zone a little this year, didn't he?

Paul Goes Fishing by Michael Rabagliati: Thoughts here. Gotta say, this the book I'm probably feeling the most doubt about with regards to its ranking on my halfway point best-of list.

Rabbi's Cat vol. 2 by Johann Sfar: A few very brief thoughts here. Seems like there was less Sfar out last year after a deluge the last couple of years, but I might be remembering that wrong. What came out this year was very, very, good, though.

Rasl #1-3 by Jeff Smith: Still haven't read the last issue. The one thing that keeps bugging me about this is how weird the protagonist looked--big head and short limbs. I kept expecting him to unzip himself and reveal that he was Fone Bone wearing a human costume. Which isn't to say I didn't like Rasl, but that's the lasting impression from two issues I haven't read in many months.

Real vol. 1-2 by Takehiko Inoue: Still my preferred Inoue basketball manga. Thoughts on volume 1 here. I've since had the chance to read volume 2, which doesn't substantially alter my initial impression of Real. If anything, it deepens my appreciation for what Inoue is doing. I know lots of comics readers break out into a rash whenever they encounter anything related to sports, but give this a try.

Red Colored Elegy by Seiichi Hayashi: Okay, this is the first thing on the list which I own but didn't finish before making this list. I'll try it again soon, but I just didn't have the patience to press onward the other day when I made my first attempt. I'll try to read it again before the list is made. In the meantime, I liked Eddie Campbell's review.

Sammy the Mouse #2 by Zak Sally: Didn't quite blow me away like the first issue, but that's partly because the novelty wasn't there. That sounds shallow, but bear with me: Sammy the Mouse #1 was fascinating in large part because its uniqueness took my breath away. The second issue was also good, but good in many of the same ways that the first issue was. Also, it's the second chapter in a larger work; not every chapter is going to work equally well as stand-alone books. I'm still convinced that this will end up being a really great and important book when viewed as a whole, and as such I recommend this issue as heartily as the first.

Slam Dunk vol. 1 by Takehiko Inoue: Thoughts here. Really looking forward to the second issue. You have to love Viz' shonen line. At that price (a mere $8 retail!), is there any better entertainment bargain in North American comics?

Sublife vol. 1 by John Pham: I really dug this first issue of what I assume is an ongoing series. This is the sort of one-man anthology Tom Spurgeon frequently bemoans losing due to the ascendence of the graphic novel. Of course, this is packaged as a graphic novel, with square binding and a high page count, so maybe that's the way to bridge the gap for future cartoonists.* As for Sublife itself, it's quite good. Pham's work here reminds me quite a bit of Chris Ware's, except it didn't seem as bleak. That's more of a tonal thing, since Pham's characters are every bit as pitiful as Ware's underdeveloped man-children. There's a sort of timelessness to Ware's work (even the period pieces) which makes his characters' suffering seem more oppressive to me.** This is very much a contemporary book, taking place in a vibrantly urban, multicultural, multiracial setting. So while the Ware influence is clear, Pham is very much doing his own thing with Sublife. Ware's characters are burdened by the mundane horror of their daily lives, while Pham's are struggling tooth and nail to survive.

And it's also funny in a completely different way than Acme Novelty Library. I haven't seen a lot of press for this book, which is really a shame because it's very good.

*Though it's kind of hard to picture Injury in the same format as Sublife; maybe this is more of an opportunity for the more literary-oriented young cartoonist?

**Not a criticism, just an observation/interpretation.

Tales Designed to Thrizzle #4 by Michael Kupperman: I'm really not sure that there's ever been a funnier cartoonist than Michael Kupperman. Maybe Chris Onstad or Matt Groening? Possibly Eiji Nonaka? Bill Watterson? At this point in my life, I'd take Kupperman over all of them. And yet I'm not sure if that puts Tales Designed to Thrizzle #4 on my best of 2008 list or not. Am I just (severely) undervaluing comedy?

BONUS PSA: I had no idea, but Snake'n'Bacon's Cartoon Cabaret is apparently available on Amazon! Holy shit, you have no idea how badly you need this book, unless you already have a copy (in which case you don't really need a copy of this book--paradox~!). Brave soldiers died to bring you the Cartoon Cabaret!

Three Shadows by Cyril Pedrosa: Thoughts here.

Travel by Yuichi Yokoyama: A few preliminary thoughts here. I liked it better than New Engineering, which I liked a whole lot.

Typhon vol. 1 by various; edited by Danny Hellman: Haven't read it yet (hopefully I'll get a copy before the end of the year), but I did flip through it a couple of weeks ago. Looked very promising. Typhon appears to inhabit ground not covered by Mome or Kramers Ergot, so hopefully we'll see more volumes in the future.

What It Is by Lynda Barry: Look, guys, I'm sorry, but I still haven't got up the gumption to finish this. My brother and I discussed it, and I think it comes down to this for both of us: we don't like the collages. I know that's a big draw for a lot of people, but for me it's just something I've got to wade through before I get to the comics, the lima beans prelude to a much more appetizing dessert. I'm not sure if this is a general anti-collage sentiment or specific to Barry's work; I've never felt strongly about collage one way or another before now, so it's probably the latter. Again, probably a minority opinion, but that's really the way I feel. I'll finish this book by the time I make my list, collage antipathy be damned.

Where Demented Wented by Rory Hayes: Thoughts here.

Various comic strip reprint projects: Haven't read any this year; the only series I'm caught up on is Popeye, which I strongly suspect is the best of them all in terms of both production values (Jacob Covey is a beast-GET IT?) and the quality of the material being reproduced. Yes, I prefer Popeye to Peanuts, Krazy Kat, and Terry and the Pirates.

Of the major new projects, I haven't done much besides flip through the Little Orphan Annie series from IDW, but it looks as good as their other reprint series (which is to say, very). I've got a copy of the Scorchy Smith reprint coming my way soon, and I'm very much looking forward to that particular visual feast. Am I missing anything? Why do we have to wait so long for the Pogo reprints, anyway? I WANT THEM NOW.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Because Tucker demanded it

-You ever have one of those sinus headaches that's so bad that you almost understand those people who drill into their own head to relieve the pressure? That hurt, but it's not as bad as what my father is going through. The day after Thanksgiving he had emergency surgery to remove part of his colon, which had become perforated due to diverticulitis, or something (I'm on the other side of the country, and haven't quite figured it all out yet). Dad's never read this blog, and I think he's only got a vague sense of what it is that I do here (he seems to think there's money to be made in reviewing comics graphic novels on the internet). But I thought I'd wish him well here anyway.

-And speaking of family, that new logo was drawn by my brother, who was eager to find a project which would allow him to avoid real, paying work for a couple of hours. Thanks, bro.

-The new Blogorama has been up for a few days, and the new crew certainly hasn't been shy about posting frequently. The core of the group, as I understand it, comes from the Shotgun Reviews site/Best Shots review feature from the main Newsarama site. There are a bunch of other people writing for the blog as well, including some people from the main Newsarama site and a few complete unknowns (at least to me). Among the main site contributors is Vaneta Rogers, whose interviews I've criticized before. I don't think she's actually contributed anything to the blog yet, though.

The main contributors so far are J. Caleb Mozzocco, arguably the most well-established blogger of the group; Michael Lorah, the "indie guy;" Sarah Jaffe, the "Verti-girl;" Troy Brownfield, who is, if I understand all this correctly, the editor of the new Blogorama; and David Pepose, who I had never heard of before.

Pepose has turned out to be the main workhorse for the blog, making multiple posts every day. A lot of his posts focus on the Hollywood stuff which I don't have any interest in (I still haven't seen Dark Knight). Brownfield has also written a lot of movie/TV articles, many of which frankly don't seem to have a lot to do with comics. They probably would be of interest to a certain segment of the comics-reading public, admittedly, but I'm not particularly interested in Samuel L. Jackson as a concept at this point in my life. So that's a step in the wrong direction, given my preferences.

Pepose is also covering a lot of superhero news, with maybe a slight focus on blog/message board discourse. Burlingame is covering similar ground, like the recent slate of canceled DC/Marvel comics. He's also prone to editorializing, which I don't mind all that much in theory.

Sarah Jaffe's Vertigo-centric articles aren't going to be of much interest to me. I'll probably skip them unless she's writing about canceled titles (and this being Vertigo we're talking about, she probably will be inside of three months).

Mozzocco is, for my money, providing the most useful content right now. His link roundups and Wednesday shopping lists are the closest thing to continuity with the old Blogorama. The former have been pretty good, covering a nice swath of comics-related news. The latter...well, I'm not much in the market for Wednesday shopping lists anymore, and even if I was, I'm not sure how much overlap there would be between what Caleb advocates and what I would buy. But I would imagine that it's a feature that other Blogorama readers will be happy to see return.

Michael Lorah has a good Previews shopping list feature--not unlike the one Greg Burgas does at Comics Should Be Good, but I think Lorah's tastes might be in greater alignment to my own. Maybe. I'm not sure how much Lorah is writing this for his audience, and how much it reflects his own tastes. The front-of-the-catalogue stuff actually comes last on his list, which is sort of refreshing. On the other hand, there's an awful lot of attention paid to James Robinson and Warren Ellis, and not much about the non-Fantagraphics art/literary publishers. Granted, D&Q, Picturebox, et. al., might simply not have much in the February Previews, or possibly Lorah isn't interested in what they are soliciting for that month. I haven't seen the February Previews yet; I might not have recommended anything from these publishers either. But all personal bias aside, a Previews rundown seems like a good feature, especially since not many other sites are doing something like that.

As for the other contributors, I haven't quite got a handle on what they'll be bringing to the table. Dirk Manning has some Bruce Lee related item--again, not sure what it has to do with comics, though many readers will doubtlessly get a kick out of it. Barbara Hallock has a...well, it's not really a review...let's say an endorsement of Knights of the Dinner Table. Lucas Siegel was the first person I read to post the news that Comic Foundry was shutting down, but he also links to an article about the downturn in the horror industry (BTW, the "horror industry"? Not the "horror movie industry?" Does the horror industry include manufacturers of fake blood?), but doesn't really try to tie in to, you know, comics. Cory Henson gnashes his teeth about the upcoming Watchmen movie (and let me point out once again, Watchmen is absolutely not the greatest graphic novel ever), and also posts a satirical piece about how different comic strips will end.

I have no idea what any of these people will focus on, because their posts seem to be all over the place. In his introductory post, Siegel claims he will be writing about video games, but that doesn't seem to be what he's posting about yet (with the exception of a post criticizing parental watchdog groups). Hallock suggests that her focus might be on "the various roles that women fill in comics." Again, I'm not sure if I'm seeing that yet.

The result, at least for me, is an absolute cacophony of opinions, newsy tidbits, and review-like articles; it's hard to focus on each individual voice when they all seem to be covering the same thing, or they're covering a bunch of different things. I don't necessarily expect everyone to carve out a niche and never venture beyond it, but it might help in the short term if everyone established their areas of expertise/interest, and then branched out from there. Some of the new posters have done so: I more or less know what Lorah, Pepose, Brownfield, Jaffe, Burlingame, Mozzocco and the returning Jeff Trexler are covering. But the other contributors seem to be drowning each other out. It doesn't help that there are about a dozen people posting right now, with apparently more to come. I'm much more open to reading somebody grouse about whatever the hell people are grousing about at the moment if I know who they are and where they're coming from. Right now, most of the new Blogorama crew have the credibility of a bunch of anonymous message board posters.

My other major complaint--and probably the more serious one, in the long run--is how much fucking Hollywood stuff gets covered. The new focus is kind of reminding me of the old Comics Scene magazine of the late 80s/early 90s. Anyone remember it? It was published by Starlog, and the ratio was usually half-comics, half-movies/TV. Lots of articles on Disney animation mixed in with interviews with comics creators. The new Blog@Newsarama is approaching that ratio, with lots of articles on genre movies, or movies related to nerd culture (like this article about The Wrestler, which sounds like an interesting movie, but only has a tenuous link to comic books).

I don't want to read too much into this--the contributors mostly seem to be writing about whatever they want to write about--but one wonders about the ongoing changes to Newsarama since the Imaginova buyout. The focus seems to be widening to include various aspect of nerd culture in general, while retaining a strong comics focus. There's no direct acknowledgment of a change in focus in Troy Brownfield's mission statement, but my rough estimate is that about 1/3 of the articles published since the relaunch have been about TV shows or movies; take away the various welcomes and introductions, and it's more like 2/5 of the posts.*

That's certainly all good and well; blogs and their parent website change, and their readers will just have to deal with it. But really, there's a reason I don't read i09, despite the presence of Graeme McMillan; I don't want to slog through a million billion posts about vampires and Fraggle Rock and whatever the fuck they cover over there to get to one post semi-related to my current comics interests. The new Blogorama is much, much, much, much more focused on comics than i09, so I'm not going to drop the RSS feed or anything.

But it's pretty clear that a lot of Newsarama readers haven't been happy since the Imaginova buyout, and there seems to have been some worry that the new Blogorama would become a general nerd culture blog (for multiple expressions of these fears, see the comments thread to JK Parkin's farewell post). Some similar comments are being made on the new posts, but Matt Brady (Newsarama version) is out there to defend his new crew. So far it's still a comics blog, and there's some worthwhile content. The blog will inevitably look different six months from now; hopefully it will cohere into a useful source for comics news along the same lines as the old Blogorama. But I wouldn't be all that surprised if some readers' fears of a more generalist Newsarama come to pass, either. Those movie and TV posts seem to be generating a respectable number of comments; maybe that's what the people really want.

*And geez, how many of the posts are about Heroes? I thought nobody watched that show anymore or something.