-I've been contemplating the currently popular pastime of searching for potentially offensive images in DC/Marvel solicitations, and it occurs to me that this is now an active type of process for a lot of folks. In the past, we looked at solicitations mostly just to check out all the new covers; if one of them stood out as particularly stupid or offensive, then people would comment. At some point, perhaps after noticing that there were always a few questionable covers in any given month, the possibility of offensive covers became a more prominent concern. Solicitation browsing thus became something done with an air of anticipation, as we dreaded our first look at the inevitable Michael Turner covers. But now I'm starting to get the sense that some folks are primarily searching for offensive cover art when they browse solicitation art; any consideration of impending stories or the actual quality of the compositions are increasingly secondary.
This is kind of an interesting phenomenon in and of itself, but I wonder what the eventual impact will be on future covers. We're at the point where there's an interminable parade of outrages, a new one every week. Surely cover artists and editors have noticed this. How will they react? Will the stakes be raised? Will tentacles become a staple of Marvel/DC covers, to the point where we grow numb to their presence? If so, what will replace them? Giant metal phalli? Erotic gas masks? Erotic cannibalism? (Someone at Marvel/DC needs to rent some Ruggero Deodato.) Or, against all odds, will cover artists and their editors try to take things down a notch? I'm betting on the former. Legal experts--is it possible to trademark the concept of erotic eye trauma? I'm trying to seek out tomorrow's trends today.
-Am I the only blogger on earth who kind of likes Green Arrow? Maybe I just haven't read enough Mike Grell-era stuff or something, but when I think of GA, I think of the version in the Justice League Unlimited cartoon, or in Denny O'Neill's Justice League. Yes, the Green Lantern/Green Arrow version is kind of stupid, but anyone who actually reads the word balloons in those comics is just asking for trouble.
(And now I see that there's a new counter-backlash against the anti-Arrow/Canary wedding backlash. It's hard to keep up these days. I still get the sense, however, that nobody else likes Green Arrow for some reason.)
-"I wonder if anyone will notice we replaced Al Capp with a government surplus robot programmed to hunt Communists."
-Holy fuck, a new Jim Woodring story? Related #1: I bought my first issue of MOME last week, but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet. I finally decided that I couldn't pass up a new Trondheim story. Related #2: Is it worth picking up any of the Woodring DVDs? I'm guessing yes, but I thought I'd pose the question here.
-Semi-reviews of Ignatz comics: Delphine #2 was better than the first issue, partly because the original gray tones have been replaced with more of a sepia. Plus Richard Sala seems to be getting better accustomed to the larger format. I didn't think he had fully made that adjustment with the first issue; it looked like his regular art, only blown up to a larger size. Now there's more detail, and Sala seems to be playing with the extra space a little more. I'm also enjoying the story more than some of his more recent work. For me, Mad Night lacked the interesting set pieces and imagery which made The Chuckling Whatsit such a pleasure. Delphine holds the promise of a return to form: so far we've seen winding narrow streets, strange stores, dark forests, cemeteries, and rustic shacks. The mirror/picture sequence was clever and creepy, while the design of the woodsman (particularly the cape) underlined the theme of medieval imagery intersecting with the modern world (a theme also emphasized by the protagonists' struggle to find a car or phone). This is Sala at his best, which is very good indeed.
And having said all that, I thought Zak Sally's Sammy the Mouse #1 was even better. This is doubly shocking considering the concept sounded absolutely horrible: ugly versions of Disney characters wander aimlessly, drink to excess, vomit, and argue. Sounds as unappealing as another "adult" superhero book filled with analogues for DC and Marvel's intellectual properties. The difference here is execution; as Jog mentioned, the dialogue is completely credible and serves to distinguish Sammy, Feekes, and Puppy Boy as compelling characters, rather than one-note jokes. The scenes where these characters interact, especially in the bar, soar--Sally's sense of timing is just as sharp as his dialogue. It's really wonderful stuff, which makes it even more surprising that the introduction of larger plot devices (involving mysterious off-panel voices and hulking creatures) don't detract from the overall experience. In similar, lesser works, one might long for the author to concentrate on the smaller, more charming moments. Here, they work in absolute harmony. It's similar to Bone in that respect (and in a few others as well.)
As for the art, I'll again echo Jog in saying the blue and gray tones are crucial. Sally draws his characters in a very sketchy, off-the-cuff style; at times they look almost like doodles. This would be overbearing if not for the presence of the tones, which add a lighter, almost whimsical touch to the proceedings. Sally generally limits the tones to the background, leaving the characters unshaded (and thus brighter and more prominent on the page). It's a very effective technique. If Sally's art were more polished, it would emphasize the derivative nature of the characters. Instead, the loose, expressive linework gives the characters their own life apart from the intellectual properties which inspired them.*
This, in turn, begs the question of why Sally chose to use Disney analogues to tell his story. It's probably too early to say, but the most obvious effect is to emphasize the bleakness of Sally's characters. Mickey, Donald, and Goofy (or is that Pluto?) are smiling, friendly characters who have adventures together; Sammy, Feekes, and Puppy Boy are alcoholic wastrels who only assemble for the purposes of alcohol consumption (at least in this volume). There might be something deeper to this, but I can't really say yet. I can say, however, that it's not anarchistic, fuck-the-man bullshit. At the very least, it adds an unease to the proceedings; we'll see if it's intended to do any more than that.
*Unfortunately, I don't think this effect worked on the cover; the rich reds and yellows make Sally's drawing of Sammy look shabby. Plus his pose obscures the fact that he's a Mickey Mouse analogue. It's a cover which would actually deter me from buying the book, if I weren't already inclined to buy it.)
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Monday, June 18, 2007
Rip Van Winkle wakes up
-I am hopelessly behind on my blog reading; if your blog starts with a letter from the second half of the alphabet, chances are I haven't even looked at it in over a week. So please, dear readers, send along anything which might be grist for this mill. I would greatly appreciate it.
-Public service announcement: Delphine #2 is out this week. Assuming you don't live someplace with a really shitty store, you should definitely buy it instead of Flash, Justice League, Hulk, and/or Amazing Spider-Man this week. If you do live someplace with a shitty store, you should consider moving so you can buy comics like Delphine every week (or, failing that, there's always mailorder).
-This weekend, while I wasn't paying attention, DC finally entered the 21st century. Consider the following:
This is all very encouraging stuff, and gives one some hope of DC moving beyond its current "caregiving institution for assorted intellectual properties" status. DC has always been better than Marvel at keeping non-superhero titles alive. Let's hope they embrace the spirit of diversity when they're considering which titles to include in their new digital publishing plans.
-As for Marvel, I'm not sure yet whether the weekly Amazing Spider-Man format is a good or bad idea. It's not a new idea; most of us probably remember when the Superman titles were doing basically the same thing. I have to say, that sort of thing probably discouraged me from ever picking up one of these comics, even though I was kind of fond of Jon Bogdanove's art on Man of Steel. Maybe Marvel has something a bit more like DC's 52 in mind. Still too early to tell, especially with no word on the creative teams (my money's on Dan Slott, Peter David, Matt Fraction, and Terry Moore writing, with JRJr, Mike Wieringo, Mark Bagely, and someone else on art).
Marvel Comics Presents, however, might be an interesting experiment. The old MCP, for those of you who wisely avoided it, could have been called Assistant Editor Showcase, Also Featuring Don McGregor on Occasion. It wasn't always so--the first issue had a pretty impressive lineup of creators, including Claremont/Buscema, Gerber/Sutton, and Moench/Grindberg. And there was the occasional surprise contributor, like Steve Ditko or Bruce Jones. But get a few months in, and suddenly you start seeing Bobbie Chase, Dwight Jon Zimmerman, and Glenn Herdling in the credits. Hopefully this won't happen with the new version--I'd like to see a mix of popular "mainstream" creators with people more along the line of Bendis and Brubaker, c. 10 years ago. Don't know if that's realistic, but it's probably worth keeping an eye on.
-ADD argues (not specifically) against a point I made whenever it was I last posted; Mr. Doane says that Marvel/DC fans, jonesing for a Johns/Millar speedball, would find comics wherever they were shelved in the store. Probably true, but I don't think it's good policy--the superhero fans would be tripping all over each other, fiendishly tearing into anything standing between them and the latest issue of whatever the fuck it is they're buying that week. I think there is a case to be made that retailers could better display comics that would appeal to a truly mainstream audience (Persepolis, Fun Home, etc.), but those superhero comics better be easy to find and navigate, or we'll all suffer in the end.
Another point that bears repeating: voting with your wallet isn't an option when there's only one store in town (as is the case when I visit my parents). That money's either going to the one shop in town or to, I don't know, Barnes & Noble. Or else I wait until I'm back home to buy my comics. But I actually like the store in my parents' town. (It definitely passes the Tom Spurgeon "would I send my mother there?" test; she's been, and has only nice things to say about the staff. Also, I was able to buy volumes of Dragon Head there after getting hooked on that series.)
-Public service announcement: Delphine #2 is out this week. Assuming you don't live someplace with a really shitty store, you should definitely buy it instead of Flash, Justice League, Hulk, and/or Amazing Spider-Man this week. If you do live someplace with a shitty store, you should consider moving so you can buy comics like Delphine every week (or, failing that, there's always mailorder).
-This weekend, while I wasn't paying attention, DC finally entered the 21st century. Consider the following:
- There's a new webcomics initiative in the offing, and it's apparently pretty ambitious in scope.
- DC has invested in a new Japanese publisher, Flex Comics, which will distribute in both traditional and digital formats.
- The above is tied into an effort to establish an office located in Japan.
- Dwayne McDuffie, whose version of JLA is the definitive one for an entire generation of teens and tweens, will be succeeding Brad Meltzer (whose version of JLA was written exclusively for people over the age of 30, and younger folk who have made an effort to be well versed in DC history) on Justice League.
This is all very encouraging stuff, and gives one some hope of DC moving beyond its current "caregiving institution for assorted intellectual properties" status. DC has always been better than Marvel at keeping non-superhero titles alive. Let's hope they embrace the spirit of diversity when they're considering which titles to include in their new digital publishing plans.
-As for Marvel, I'm not sure yet whether the weekly Amazing Spider-Man format is a good or bad idea. It's not a new idea; most of us probably remember when the Superman titles were doing basically the same thing. I have to say, that sort of thing probably discouraged me from ever picking up one of these comics, even though I was kind of fond of Jon Bogdanove's art on Man of Steel. Maybe Marvel has something a bit more like DC's 52 in mind. Still too early to tell, especially with no word on the creative teams (my money's on Dan Slott, Peter David, Matt Fraction, and Terry Moore writing, with JRJr, Mike Wieringo, Mark Bagely, and someone else on art).
Marvel Comics Presents, however, might be an interesting experiment. The old MCP, for those of you who wisely avoided it, could have been called Assistant Editor Showcase, Also Featuring Don McGregor on Occasion. It wasn't always so--the first issue had a pretty impressive lineup of creators, including Claremont/Buscema, Gerber/Sutton, and Moench/Grindberg. And there was the occasional surprise contributor, like Steve Ditko or Bruce Jones. But get a few months in, and suddenly you start seeing Bobbie Chase, Dwight Jon Zimmerman, and Glenn Herdling in the credits. Hopefully this won't happen with the new version--I'd like to see a mix of popular "mainstream" creators with people more along the line of Bendis and Brubaker, c. 10 years ago. Don't know if that's realistic, but it's probably worth keeping an eye on.
-ADD argues (not specifically) against a point I made whenever it was I last posted; Mr. Doane says that Marvel/DC fans, jonesing for a Johns/Millar speedball, would find comics wherever they were shelved in the store. Probably true, but I don't think it's good policy--the superhero fans would be tripping all over each other, fiendishly tearing into anything standing between them and the latest issue of whatever the fuck it is they're buying that week. I think there is a case to be made that retailers could better display comics that would appeal to a truly mainstream audience (Persepolis, Fun Home, etc.), but those superhero comics better be easy to find and navigate, or we'll all suffer in the end.
Another point that bears repeating: voting with your wallet isn't an option when there's only one store in town (as is the case when I visit my parents). That money's either going to the one shop in town or to, I don't know, Barnes & Noble. Or else I wait until I'm back home to buy my comics. But I actually like the store in my parents' town. (It definitely passes the Tom Spurgeon "would I send my mother there?" test; she's been, and has only nice things to say about the staff. Also, I was able to buy volumes of Dragon Head there after getting hooked on that series.)
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Call me Monstah Lobstah (as I whimper in pain while applying aloe to my arms)
-That Newsarama comments section I mentioned yesterday has since turned into a David Brothers showcase. Again, I think he's absolutely correct: company cheerleading has no part in this argument. Lisa Fortuner did clarify her position: it's not an issue of editorial direction so much as fan response. I guess I can get behind that--Marvel certainly has a tradition of trying to convince its readers that they're fellow conspirators or fraternity brothers or something. I think it's a legacy of Marvel's history as a crappy little publisher that struck gold with Lee/Kirby/Ditko, whereas DC was the man in the gray flannel suit. Marvel kept this identity long after it surpassed DC as the industry leader--long after it was in any way justified--and I think this bumptiousness has rubbed off on its fans. Or to use a sports analogy: Marvel zombies are the Cowboys fans of the comics world.* If DC had published a comic featuring a seductively posed zombie Lois Lane, its hardcore partisans would just want to know which Earth it was taking place on.
By the way, anyone want to hazard a guess what percentage of all comics readers are militant DC or Marvel partisans? I would guess well over half of regular Direct Market customers favor one over the other, and maybe 10% will only buy from one of the two. Of that latter group, I'm guessing at least a quarter used to favor the other side, but joined the opposition after a favorite creator/character (probably the latter) was mistreated.
Hey, I think I'll spend this weekend hanging out at the refrigerator case of my local convenience store, telling anyone within earshot that Pepsi induces diabetes at a slower rate than Coke. Coke's just a fundamentally mismanaged company, you see.
*You should have seen all the people trying to spin the Wade Phillips hire as a positive. Most fans of other NFL teams would have greeted this news with pronouncements of the end of days; Eagles fans would have started plotting Phillips' assassination. If fans of other NFL teams are Star Trek geeks, Eagles followers are more like the type who really, really like Jodie Foster. And yes, I'm a longtime Eagles fan.
-Related: You've probably seen Brothers' panegyric to Joe Quesada already, but if not, here it is. I don't really agree with the central theme that Quesada's watch has been a grand experiment in unconventional storytelling--Marvel's been running away from Morrison's X-Men run from the moment he left the company, after all. Even putting that aside, it's hardly been a permanent revolution--in the end, I think he's replaced the old status quo (assuming chaotic shitpiles can have a "status quo") with a new, equally conservative status quo. I mean, I'd take him over Didio any day of the week, but I'd hesitate to call him a unique visionary or anything like that. I'm reminded, though, of a post I made a couple months back suggesting that Didio would be primarily remembered for botched sales initiatives and the terrible portrayal of women in DC's comics.* The latter is true of Quesada as well, but I think he's been successful enough that it won't loom so large in his obituary. Or maybe he'll be remembered as the guy who made Marvel interesting when Bill Jemas was around, and boring when he wasn't.
*In retrospect, I would probably change these categories to (a) a failure to capitalize on successful "event" comics, and (b) an overall darkening of tone, making DC a much more dreary, monotonous company.
-Also related: Ed Brubaker shows up on the post that started it all, and he's not amused. I'm conflicted on this one. I trust Brubaker enough that I give him the benefit of the doubt with both the flaming Falcon thing and whatever is going to happen to Daredevil's wife. But this is kind of like reverse profiling--Brubaker's one of the good mainstream writers, thus he's exempt from criticism (or at least gets criticism deferred until his books actually comes out). On the other hand, I'm no cop, so maybe it's okay to treat Brubaker differently. Tell you what, I'll give Meltzer and Turner the same courtesy once they produce something that doesn't make me feel like an asshole for bothering to read it.
-ADD has another piece on comics stores up. One of the central themes of this essay is that one shouldn't be able to guess the store owner/manager's preferences by the layout of the store. I think this is maybe a bit naive. I'll use my LCS as an example again. Most of his business comes from the DC/Marvel types, so those comics get the most display space. The owner doesn't read most of these books, but it's entirely logical that they would be displayed in such a way to make them accessible to his customers. And again, this is a store where one could buy Prince Valiant, The End, Carl Barks' Donald Duck, and Essential Iron Fist on the same trip.
I also might add that retailers are starting to struggle with the issue of Where Am I Going to Put All This Shit? I mean, Marvel and DC look like they're going to publish these Essential/Showcase volumes until the end of time (or until they go all digital!), and those suckers are big. Hmm--wasn't that their strategy in the 70s? To publish so many titles that there wasn't rack space for any competitors?
-Okay, I've seen it twice now. What is up with that ice cream cone? Do I need to read The Three Paradoxes to understand? (BTW, how late was that book? I swear my brother's been talking about it for the better part of this decade.)
By the way, anyone want to hazard a guess what percentage of all comics readers are militant DC or Marvel partisans? I would guess well over half of regular Direct Market customers favor one over the other, and maybe 10% will only buy from one of the two. Of that latter group, I'm guessing at least a quarter used to favor the other side, but joined the opposition after a favorite creator/character (probably the latter) was mistreated.
Hey, I think I'll spend this weekend hanging out at the refrigerator case of my local convenience store, telling anyone within earshot that Pepsi induces diabetes at a slower rate than Coke. Coke's just a fundamentally mismanaged company, you see.
*You should have seen all the people trying to spin the Wade Phillips hire as a positive. Most fans of other NFL teams would have greeted this news with pronouncements of the end of days; Eagles fans would have started plotting Phillips' assassination. If fans of other NFL teams are Star Trek geeks, Eagles followers are more like the type who really, really like Jodie Foster. And yes, I'm a longtime Eagles fan.
-Related: You've probably seen Brothers' panegyric to Joe Quesada already, but if not, here it is. I don't really agree with the central theme that Quesada's watch has been a grand experiment in unconventional storytelling--Marvel's been running away from Morrison's X-Men run from the moment he left the company, after all. Even putting that aside, it's hardly been a permanent revolution--in the end, I think he's replaced the old status quo (assuming chaotic shitpiles can have a "status quo") with a new, equally conservative status quo. I mean, I'd take him over Didio any day of the week, but I'd hesitate to call him a unique visionary or anything like that. I'm reminded, though, of a post I made a couple months back suggesting that Didio would be primarily remembered for botched sales initiatives and the terrible portrayal of women in DC's comics.* The latter is true of Quesada as well, but I think he's been successful enough that it won't loom so large in his obituary. Or maybe he'll be remembered as the guy who made Marvel interesting when Bill Jemas was around, and boring when he wasn't.
*In retrospect, I would probably change these categories to (a) a failure to capitalize on successful "event" comics, and (b) an overall darkening of tone, making DC a much more dreary, monotonous company.
-Also related: Ed Brubaker shows up on the post that started it all, and he's not amused. I'm conflicted on this one. I trust Brubaker enough that I give him the benefit of the doubt with both the flaming Falcon thing and whatever is going to happen to Daredevil's wife. But this is kind of like reverse profiling--Brubaker's one of the good mainstream writers, thus he's exempt from criticism (or at least gets criticism deferred until his books actually comes out). On the other hand, I'm no cop, so maybe it's okay to treat Brubaker differently. Tell you what, I'll give Meltzer and Turner the same courtesy once they produce something that doesn't make me feel like an asshole for bothering to read it.
-ADD has another piece on comics stores up. One of the central themes of this essay is that one shouldn't be able to guess the store owner/manager's preferences by the layout of the store. I think this is maybe a bit naive. I'll use my LCS as an example again. Most of his business comes from the DC/Marvel types, so those comics get the most display space. The owner doesn't read most of these books, but it's entirely logical that they would be displayed in such a way to make them accessible to his customers. And again, this is a store where one could buy Prince Valiant, The End, Carl Barks' Donald Duck, and Essential Iron Fist on the same trip.
I also might add that retailers are starting to struggle with the issue of Where Am I Going to Put All This Shit? I mean, Marvel and DC look like they're going to publish these Essential/Showcase volumes until the end of time (or until they go all digital!), and those suckers are big. Hmm--wasn't that their strategy in the 70s? To publish so many titles that there wasn't rack space for any competitors?
-Okay, I've seen it twice now. What is up with that ice cream cone? Do I need to read The Three Paradoxes to understand? (BTW, how late was that book? I swear my brother's been talking about it for the better part of this decade.)
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
You maniacs! You blew it up!
-So I managed to avoid spoilers on the final Sopranos episode yesterday Monday, which was no mean feat. My wife managed to get spoilered (spoilerized?) despite precautions. I was more paranoid--I avoided the busy parts of the internet, concentrating instead on browsing sites about old SNES games. (Related: I tried playing the translated ROM for Shin Megami Tensei, and I think there's a bug. Googling for info led me to THIS VERY BLOG, which is when I knew I was basically boned. So if there are any intrepid Googlenauts who have been directed here in hope of finding info on the SMT ROM, sorry and good luck.)
I really liked the final episode, and I'm glad I didn't read anything about it beforehand. Unfortunately, a day of avoiding the internet has left me woefully behind on my blog reading. (And so has installing our air conditioner, which I did yesterday. I hate the summer.) So some of my commentary about certain blogs might be a little tardy this week. Sorry about that.
-Like so many of you (I'm guessing), I decided to order some of those 80% off books from Amazon last week. I ended up with the 1961-2 volume of Peanuts, Terr'ble Thompson, An Anthology of Graphic Fiction, Late Bloomer, Amphigorey Again, and Shenzen, all for about $30. All of these except An Anthology and Amphigorey Again had been on my wish list (and the latter was actually for my wife), so I was pretty happy overall.
Unfortunately, the books all arrived somewhat damaged. The worst was probably Terr'ble Thompson, which had an indentation on every page and a loose cover (which has since fallen off completely). The latter is probably due to glue melting in a hot delivery truck, but it's still irritating. All the others had small tears of some type on the corners. It's not such a big deal, given the steep discount, but I'd be a little put off if I'd been paying the regular Amazon price. The only other time I've had a similar problem was with the Blood and Black Lace DVD I bought for my brother a few Christmases ago--and I think that was Barnes & Noble, actually. Anyone else have similar problems with Amazon lately?
I'll probably lower myself* by posting an actual review of Terr'ble Thompson, and maybe An Anthology of Graphic Fiction. We'll see.
*Criticism is the lowest form of (comics) blogging. The highest form? Taking other bloggers' words out of context and adding snide commentary.
-Alan David Doane emailed me directly to point out the (I think) revised version of his essay on comics retailing. I thought this was the famous "mini-comics and manga" essay, but that's actually here. My thoughts on the new essay:
1. It reminds me that my LCS is really awesome. I'm never at a loss for great stuff to buy when I go in there, and the proprietor is most interested in non-Marvel/DC comics--which is not to say that he doesn't know where his bread is buttered. I might be terribly wrong, but I can't imagine he would be able to stay in business if he had to rely on non-superhero comics exclusively. But still, he's clearly got a great enthusiasm for a wide, wide variety of comics. That's really what makes the store such a great place to shop. He doesn't read comics because they feature superheroes; he reads (a select few) superhero titles because they're good comics.
Related: ADD's brief history of the direct market is interesting, because it seems that this store is exceptional in a number of ways. It's a very, very old business by the standards of the market, but I don't get the sense that it was a superhero fanboy operation in its early days. I need to get around to conducting an interview with my local retailer, partly just because I really want to hear how he would narrate the history of his store and the DM in general.
2. I'm not looking forward to the inevitable boom in 90s nostalgia, but I do think it's time we reevaluate that decade--or at least the first half of it. I actually have a lot more to say about this, now that I think about it, so I'll probably save those thoughts until later in the week (or month, given my current rate of production).
3. I think I fundamentally disagree with ADD's central argument. I don't think that the well-stocked, diverse store will be the model of the future, simply because I don't think people are going to be reading physical copies of their books for that much longer. We're probably less than five years away from a viable digital reader--probably a lot less than five years, actually. The existence of such a device would not necessarily be enough to effect wholesale changes in the way people read, but this is part of a much larger change. We all know it's already here for music; most of us know that it's coming soon for video (which is the best reason to avoid the current high def format war). It's illogical to think books won't be affected. Lots of people say they won't read comics on a monitor, but I'm convinced they'll change their minds with (a) better technology, (b) cheaper prices, (c) immediate gratification, and (d) unlimited selection. I don't think that the bookstores will completely disappear, but they'll be increasingly dependent on two types: collector scum and luddites.
The former are better served by the existing direct market than the one ADD proposes. The latter might prefer better stocked stores, but their numbers will be too small to matter much, in the greater scheme of things. No sane person would launch a new business (or extensively modify an existing business) to appeal this sort of clientèle, especially if their existence is predicated on their refusal to adopt a widespread technology. Actually, this kind of sea change will probably inspire a much more conservative reaction among comics shop owners: a greater emphasis on used stock and special orders. I certainly wouldn't expect them to look to Fantagraphics, Top Shelf, or even Viz for the answer.
Of course, it's easy to say an argument will be rendered moot by changes in technology--it's almost a deus ex machina sort of reasoning. But I'm convinced I'm right. We'll never see a better Direct Market than the one we have right now (except maybe the one we had in the late 80s). Plus the new digital market will be more democratic, more eco-friendly, etc., etc. And it should last about five years before we hit our inevitable Mad Max-style future.
-Can we please quit complaining about grammar? I mean, it's much more important to complain about style. I'm actually quite serious about this--grammar is really just a luxury of the elite. If you don't have a handle on style, you run the risk of confusing (or even misleading) your readers. A document riddled with grammar errors is usually still comprehensible. The same is not true for a document marred by confusing syntax, poor word choice, or excess verbiage. These are words to live by, fellow bloggers. (Please note that I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular here. And I'm ready to be hoisted by this rather conspicuous petard.)
-Related: I'm actually not offended by the comment Church cites. It sounds like the words of some immature kid. If I'm right, it's a good thing. We need more immature kids buying comics. More on this whenever I get around to talking about the 90s. If it isn't an immature kid...well, we are only a few years away from the digital comics renaissance. Then the apes take over, I guess.
EDIT: Okay, I finally got around to looking at the comments, and there are WAY more annoying people than Bedlam66 (or whatever his name is). Like this Brad Morris fellow, who I'm thinking is the type of fan who threatens comics more than some kid who doesn't understand capitalization rules. Also, WHAT THE FUCK WAS WITH THE MARVEL VS. DC SHIT? David Brothers was the only one of you who evinced even a smattering of common sense, re: this non-issue. Seriously, this was embarrassing, people. Come on.
I really liked the final episode, and I'm glad I didn't read anything about it beforehand. Unfortunately, a day of avoiding the internet has left me woefully behind on my blog reading. (And so has installing our air conditioner, which I did yesterday. I hate the summer.) So some of my commentary about certain blogs might be a little tardy this week. Sorry about that.
-Like so many of you (I'm guessing), I decided to order some of those 80% off books from Amazon last week. I ended up with the 1961-2 volume of Peanuts, Terr'ble Thompson, An Anthology of Graphic Fiction, Late Bloomer, Amphigorey Again, and Shenzen, all for about $30. All of these except An Anthology and Amphigorey Again had been on my wish list (and the latter was actually for my wife), so I was pretty happy overall.
Unfortunately, the books all arrived somewhat damaged. The worst was probably Terr'ble Thompson, which had an indentation on every page and a loose cover (which has since fallen off completely). The latter is probably due to glue melting in a hot delivery truck, but it's still irritating. All the others had small tears of some type on the corners. It's not such a big deal, given the steep discount, but I'd be a little put off if I'd been paying the regular Amazon price. The only other time I've had a similar problem was with the Blood and Black Lace DVD I bought for my brother a few Christmases ago--and I think that was Barnes & Noble, actually. Anyone else have similar problems with Amazon lately?
I'll probably lower myself* by posting an actual review of Terr'ble Thompson, and maybe An Anthology of Graphic Fiction. We'll see.
*Criticism is the lowest form of (comics) blogging. The highest form? Taking other bloggers' words out of context and adding snide commentary.
-Alan David Doane emailed me directly to point out the (I think) revised version of his essay on comics retailing. I thought this was the famous "mini-comics and manga" essay, but that's actually here. My thoughts on the new essay:
1. It reminds me that my LCS is really awesome. I'm never at a loss for great stuff to buy when I go in there, and the proprietor is most interested in non-Marvel/DC comics--which is not to say that he doesn't know where his bread is buttered. I might be terribly wrong, but I can't imagine he would be able to stay in business if he had to rely on non-superhero comics exclusively. But still, he's clearly got a great enthusiasm for a wide, wide variety of comics. That's really what makes the store such a great place to shop. He doesn't read comics because they feature superheroes; he reads (a select few) superhero titles because they're good comics.
Related: ADD's brief history of the direct market is interesting, because it seems that this store is exceptional in a number of ways. It's a very, very old business by the standards of the market, but I don't get the sense that it was a superhero fanboy operation in its early days. I need to get around to conducting an interview with my local retailer, partly just because I really want to hear how he would narrate the history of his store and the DM in general.
2. I'm not looking forward to the inevitable boom in 90s nostalgia, but I do think it's time we reevaluate that decade--or at least the first half of it. I actually have a lot more to say about this, now that I think about it, so I'll probably save those thoughts until later in the week (or month, given my current rate of production).
3. I think I fundamentally disagree with ADD's central argument. I don't think that the well-stocked, diverse store will be the model of the future, simply because I don't think people are going to be reading physical copies of their books for that much longer. We're probably less than five years away from a viable digital reader--probably a lot less than five years, actually. The existence of such a device would not necessarily be enough to effect wholesale changes in the way people read, but this is part of a much larger change. We all know it's already here for music; most of us know that it's coming soon for video (which is the best reason to avoid the current high def format war). It's illogical to think books won't be affected. Lots of people say they won't read comics on a monitor, but I'm convinced they'll change their minds with (a) better technology, (b) cheaper prices, (c) immediate gratification, and (d) unlimited selection. I don't think that the bookstores will completely disappear, but they'll be increasingly dependent on two types: collector scum and luddites.
The former are better served by the existing direct market than the one ADD proposes. The latter might prefer better stocked stores, but their numbers will be too small to matter much, in the greater scheme of things. No sane person would launch a new business (or extensively modify an existing business) to appeal this sort of clientèle, especially if their existence is predicated on their refusal to adopt a widespread technology. Actually, this kind of sea change will probably inspire a much more conservative reaction among comics shop owners: a greater emphasis on used stock and special orders. I certainly wouldn't expect them to look to Fantagraphics, Top Shelf, or even Viz for the answer.
Of course, it's easy to say an argument will be rendered moot by changes in technology--it's almost a deus ex machina sort of reasoning. But I'm convinced I'm right. We'll never see a better Direct Market than the one we have right now (except maybe the one we had in the late 80s). Plus the new digital market will be more democratic, more eco-friendly, etc., etc. And it should last about five years before we hit our inevitable Mad Max-style future.
-Can we please quit complaining about grammar? I mean, it's much more important to complain about style. I'm actually quite serious about this--grammar is really just a luxury of the elite. If you don't have a handle on style, you run the risk of confusing (or even misleading) your readers. A document riddled with grammar errors is usually still comprehensible. The same is not true for a document marred by confusing syntax, poor word choice, or excess verbiage. These are words to live by, fellow bloggers. (Please note that I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular here. And I'm ready to be hoisted by this rather conspicuous petard.)
-Related: I'm actually not offended by the comment Church cites. It sounds like the words of some immature kid. If I'm right, it's a good thing. We need more immature kids buying comics. More on this whenever I get around to talking about the 90s. If it isn't an immature kid...well, we are only a few years away from the digital comics renaissance. Then the apes take over, I guess.
EDIT: Okay, I finally got around to looking at the comments, and there are WAY more annoying people than Bedlam66 (or whatever his name is). Like this Brad Morris fellow, who I'm thinking is the type of fan who threatens comics more than some kid who doesn't understand capitalization rules. Also, WHAT THE FUCK WAS WITH THE MARVEL VS. DC SHIT? David Brothers was the only one of you who evinced even a smattering of common sense, re: this non-issue. Seriously, this was embarrassing, people. Come on.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Ballroom of Mars
-Depressing Blogorama Comments Field of the Day: Responses to Graeme McMillan's post about Countdown fill me with sadness. One commenter sums up the appeal of the book very succinctly:
"You just know big things are going to happen in Countdown, whether you’re liking it this minute or not."
This isn't exactly continuity porn, and there's no snappy name for it that I can remember. Maybe I should think of one. NWEBTSism? Geoff Johns' Complaint? Dan Jurgens' Complaint? Hmm. Anyway, this is not a new phenomenon by any means--it certainly explains the disconnect between sales and online reaction* to Civil War. But is this a wise choice for a weekly title, where limited budgets and even more limited attention spans could spell doom? It's obviously too soon to tell, given how contradictory the evidence is so far (Brian Hibbs is already seeing a decline, but my local retailer says it's doing the same business as 52). I guess we'll see soon enough.
Oh, and somebody else said they were a "sucker" for Monitors. I found that a bit strange, but then again I'm always amazed at how well regarded Crisis on Infinite Earths is, even in the 21st cenutry--when will Zero Hour have its moment in the sun? Most depressing of all, at least for DC, is that onlyfive seven people have commented in the five eight hours the entry has been up. Good God, Civil War would have tripled that in the first two hours!
*To be fair, there's always an enormous disconnect between online reaction and actual sales. See also: Manhunter and Jeph Loeb's career over the last four years.
-Related: this. For those annoyed at the outrage over the "new" Mary Marvel, consider DC's track record over the past three or four years. Is this a company you trust? Would you trust DC or Marvel to allow Dini tell his story without excessive editorial interference?
-One last Countdown note: Tom Spurgeon's review is as funny as I would have expected. Best line, in reference to the series' leads:
"They feel more like actors happy to be given a plotline on a long-running TV show than larger than life good guys and bad guys."
Does DC actually send this stuff to Spurgeon? If so, I guess they're more committed to entertaining me than I'd realized.
-Okay, just to be sure, is Simon Jones suggesting that China's crackdown on (pirated copies of) Death Note is more or less tantamount to Seven Seas' decision to pull Nymphet due to reaction to its rather nauseating (IMPO!!*) content? Or is he making some broader geopolitical statement, perhaps in light of the G8 summit? The latter would make more sense.
A lot of people seem to be framing their approval of Seven Seas' decision in terms of "well, it was ill-suited to the American market" or "it might have had a negative impact on other manga sold in America." Personally, I'm glad the title has been pulled simply its very existence makes me question the superiority of humans over, say, certain species of fungus. The fact that Seven Seas has opted not to publish it makes matters a little better, though. And I'm totally unconvinced by the slippery slope argument--that Seven Seas' quick capitulation bodes ill for publishers standing up to anti-gay moralists. I don't buy it. Yes, some fringe-dwellers equate homosexuality with pedophilia, or see them as equally reprehensible. Thankfully, these people don't have as much influence in the United States (and most of the Western world) as those who dare to draw a distinction between consensual gay sex and child molestation. Some people are unfortunate enough to live in areas where this fringe is the mainstream, but I'm sure they'll tell you that the Nymphet case will have little impact on local acceptance of gay-themed comics.
*The "p" is for "puritanical." What can I say? I kind of admire the Puritans, at least the ones who lived in areas other than colonial New England (and a lot of those folks were pretty cool, too).
-Trader Joe's Department: Tried the vegetarian gyoza, which are apparently prepared in a "Thai" style, last night. There are probably about 20 of these little potstickers in a bag, and they're stuffed with carrot, radish, and cabbage. I thought they were okay; they're really reliant on sauce (which YOU provide) as far as flavor. The texture was fine in the ones I managed to cook properly. As for the others, it wasn't my fault, really--you cook them by frying them (causing the gyoza to stick to the pot), then adding water to finish them off via steaming. My pan, however, is pretty uneven. So there was a bit of a puddle in one quadrant, causing a few of them to get a little soggy. The non-soggy ones were nice and crispy though. And they're just as hot as you've seen in the pages of Cromartie High School, so watch out. In any event, your enjoyment of these things will probably be directly proportionate to the quality of your dipping sauce. I'm guessing anyone with a really awesome homemade dipping sauce is probably not buying factory-made gyoza, though.
"You just know big things are going to happen in Countdown, whether you’re liking it this minute or not."
This isn't exactly continuity porn, and there's no snappy name for it that I can remember. Maybe I should think of one. NWEBTSism? Geoff Johns' Complaint? Dan Jurgens' Complaint? Hmm. Anyway, this is not a new phenomenon by any means--it certainly explains the disconnect between sales and online reaction* to Civil War. But is this a wise choice for a weekly title, where limited budgets and even more limited attention spans could spell doom? It's obviously too soon to tell, given how contradictory the evidence is so far (Brian Hibbs is already seeing a decline, but my local retailer says it's doing the same business as 52). I guess we'll see soon enough.
Oh, and somebody else said they were a "sucker" for Monitors. I found that a bit strange, but then again I'm always amazed at how well regarded Crisis on Infinite Earths is, even in the 21st cenutry--when will Zero Hour have its moment in the sun? Most depressing of all, at least for DC, is that only
*To be fair, there's always an enormous disconnect between online reaction and actual sales. See also: Manhunter and Jeph Loeb's career over the last four years.
-Related: this. For those annoyed at the outrage over the "new" Mary Marvel, consider DC's track record over the past three or four years. Is this a company you trust? Would you trust DC or Marvel to allow Dini tell his story without excessive editorial interference?
-One last Countdown note: Tom Spurgeon's review is as funny as I would have expected. Best line, in reference to the series' leads:
"They feel more like actors happy to be given a plotline on a long-running TV show than larger than life good guys and bad guys."
Does DC actually send this stuff to Spurgeon? If so, I guess they're more committed to entertaining me than I'd realized.
-Okay, just to be sure, is Simon Jones suggesting that China's crackdown on (pirated copies of) Death Note is more or less tantamount to Seven Seas' decision to pull Nymphet due to reaction to its rather nauseating (IMPO!!*) content? Or is he making some broader geopolitical statement, perhaps in light of the G8 summit? The latter would make more sense.
A lot of people seem to be framing their approval of Seven Seas' decision in terms of "well, it was ill-suited to the American market" or "it might have had a negative impact on other manga sold in America." Personally, I'm glad the title has been pulled simply its very existence makes me question the superiority of humans over, say, certain species of fungus. The fact that Seven Seas has opted not to publish it makes matters a little better, though. And I'm totally unconvinced by the slippery slope argument--that Seven Seas' quick capitulation bodes ill for publishers standing up to anti-gay moralists. I don't buy it. Yes, some fringe-dwellers equate homosexuality with pedophilia, or see them as equally reprehensible. Thankfully, these people don't have as much influence in the United States (and most of the Western world) as those who dare to draw a distinction between consensual gay sex and child molestation. Some people are unfortunate enough to live in areas where this fringe is the mainstream, but I'm sure they'll tell you that the Nymphet case will have little impact on local acceptance of gay-themed comics.
*The "p" is for "puritanical." What can I say? I kind of admire the Puritans, at least the ones who lived in areas other than colonial New England (and a lot of those folks were pretty cool, too).
-Trader Joe's Department: Tried the vegetarian gyoza, which are apparently prepared in a "Thai" style, last night. There are probably about 20 of these little potstickers in a bag, and they're stuffed with carrot, radish, and cabbage. I thought they were okay; they're really reliant on sauce (which YOU provide) as far as flavor. The texture was fine in the ones I managed to cook properly. As for the others, it wasn't my fault, really--you cook them by frying them (causing the gyoza to stick to the pot), then adding water to finish them off via steaming. My pan, however, is pretty uneven. So there was a bit of a puddle in one quadrant, causing a few of them to get a little soggy. The non-soggy ones were nice and crispy though. And they're just as hot as you've seen in the pages of Cromartie High School, so watch out. In any event, your enjoyment of these things will probably be directly proportionate to the quality of your dipping sauce. I'm guessing anyone with a really awesome homemade dipping sauce is probably not buying factory-made gyoza, though.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
I can't quite bring myself to abbreviate All-Star Superman
-Via Comics Comics: A possible photo of Jack Chick! Man, that is not how I pictured Mr. Chick. I don't know if I expected someone wearing, I don't know, chain mail and a shirt emblazoned with a giant red cross, but I really didn't expect Chick to look so much like, well, a cartoonist. And a wacky cartoonist at that!
-This month's DC sales analysis at the Beat yields a couple of point of interest. First, in his analysis of the surprisingly low sales on All-Star Superman, Marc-Oliver Frisch takes criticism of the All-Star line to a new level:
"...All Star titles garner respectable sales and trigger the occasional rave review or outrage whenever they happen to come out. But they seem to be forgotten immediately after, carrying no impact whatsoever on the rest of DC’s line-up. In retrospect, the publisher seems to have abandoned the All Star line before it was even launched."
I think this is about as negative as I've seen anyone go: Frisch is arguing the line was stillborn, rather than simply mismanaged. I think it's a meaningful distinction, in that indicates that there was no hope of success from the get-go. I'm not sure I entirely agree--the Wildstorm re-launch (which Frisch is even more critical of), was undeniably an abortion. You could look at the schedule and see (a) the entire line was dependent on the buzz which Grant Morrison's two titles would generate, and (b) there was no way these books would ship on time. All-Star, however, had some hope of succeeding; in fact, I would go so far as to say that the incredibly stupid decision to schedule Jim Lee on WildCats, and the ensuing havoc wrought on All-Star Batman's schedule, is really what crippled the All-Star line.
But what if there were no All-Star Batman and we were only talking about All-Star Superman? How different would the conversation be? I suspect that we would still be viewing the line as a failure, in that the relatively light delays on All-Star Superman would have been immensely magnified if it were the only title for the entire line. In retrospect, it really makes DC's decision not to slap the All-Star label on Alex Ross' Justice all the more baffling. That book has shipped pretty much on time (right?), sold well, and generally reflects the spirit of the line. I wonder if Alex Ross was unwilling to adopt the All-Star branding, or if DC thought three titles would be too many for an imprint dedicated to prestige products.
What about future All-Star books? Titles for Batgirl (Geoff Johns and JG Jones) and Wonder Woman (Adam Hughes) have already been announced, but (as Firsch notes), have all but fallen off the radar. I thought I remembered hearing that Neal Adams would be drawing the next round of All-Star Batman, with Frank Miller writing again, but that was a loooong time ago so I might be wrong. Assuming the lack of news reflects a lack of progress on these projects, DC really needs another All-Star series in the interim, or else it runs the risk of fans forgetting about the line altogether. One wonders which appropriately prestigious talents could be relied upon to churn out a mini within the next 9 months. Remember when DC was trying to steal John Romita, Jr. away from Marvel? Boy, I bet Dan DiDio wishes he would have landed that fish. Or maybe kept some of those Seven Soldiers artists who Marvel signed to exclusives--Simone Bianchi and Pasqual Ferry both seem to be able to hit their deadlines, and have distinctive enough styles that DC could probably convince fans of their prestigiousness (if they were paired with the right writers and characters).
In any event, I'll be disappointed if the All-Star line fails. I think it's DC's best chance to insure themselves against event fatigue, and it gives them a chance to reach bookstore readers with attractive, distinctive, and accessible products featuring their most valuable intellectual properties. Hopefully the next wave of titles will launch more smoothly--unfortunately, in order to get a sufficient backlog of issues, DC might have to wait until late next year before resurrecting the line.
-Also worth noting from Frisch's analysis: There aren't a whole lot of books selling in the 75,000-90,000 range. I assume that this partly reflects a talent/money drain, as both Marvel and DC are funneling more resources (talent and marketing) toward the big event comics. This seems like a poor decision in the long run. Event comics bring in the big dough in the short term, but are they big backlist sellers in TPB form? Which do you think sells better right now--Bendis' Secret War or his Daredevil? Furthermore, investing in a (relatively) creator-driven run is essentially an investment in the intellectual property. It strengthens the character as an independent entity, expands its mythos/backstory, and provides material that might later be recycled in other media.* I'm not in any position to make these decisions, but I would certainly take two consistent 80K sellers over a five issue mini averaging 200K.
*I think this will be increasingly important in the realm of video games. We're already seeing some crossover--I was kind of amazed at how much Ultimate Marvel Alliance referenced recent plot developments like the Winter Soldier. I mean, it did so in an incredibly clumsy way, but I expect this sort of thing to get more sophisticated in the very near future.
-This month's DC sales analysis at the Beat yields a couple of point of interest. First, in his analysis of the surprisingly low sales on All-Star Superman, Marc-Oliver Frisch takes criticism of the All-Star line to a new level:
"...All Star titles garner respectable sales and trigger the occasional rave review or outrage whenever they happen to come out. But they seem to be forgotten immediately after, carrying no impact whatsoever on the rest of DC’s line-up. In retrospect, the publisher seems to have abandoned the All Star line before it was even launched."
I think this is about as negative as I've seen anyone go: Frisch is arguing the line was stillborn, rather than simply mismanaged. I think it's a meaningful distinction, in that indicates that there was no hope of success from the get-go. I'm not sure I entirely agree--the Wildstorm re-launch (which Frisch is even more critical of), was undeniably an abortion. You could look at the schedule and see (a) the entire line was dependent on the buzz which Grant Morrison's two titles would generate, and (b) there was no way these books would ship on time. All-Star, however, had some hope of succeeding; in fact, I would go so far as to say that the incredibly stupid decision to schedule Jim Lee on WildCats, and the ensuing havoc wrought on All-Star Batman's schedule, is really what crippled the All-Star line.
But what if there were no All-Star Batman and we were only talking about All-Star Superman? How different would the conversation be? I suspect that we would still be viewing the line as a failure, in that the relatively light delays on All-Star Superman would have been immensely magnified if it were the only title for the entire line. In retrospect, it really makes DC's decision not to slap the All-Star label on Alex Ross' Justice all the more baffling. That book has shipped pretty much on time (right?), sold well, and generally reflects the spirit of the line. I wonder if Alex Ross was unwilling to adopt the All-Star branding, or if DC thought three titles would be too many for an imprint dedicated to prestige products.
What about future All-Star books? Titles for Batgirl (Geoff Johns and JG Jones) and Wonder Woman (Adam Hughes) have already been announced, but (as Firsch notes), have all but fallen off the radar. I thought I remembered hearing that Neal Adams would be drawing the next round of All-Star Batman, with Frank Miller writing again, but that was a loooong time ago so I might be wrong. Assuming the lack of news reflects a lack of progress on these projects, DC really needs another All-Star series in the interim, or else it runs the risk of fans forgetting about the line altogether. One wonders which appropriately prestigious talents could be relied upon to churn out a mini within the next 9 months. Remember when DC was trying to steal John Romita, Jr. away from Marvel? Boy, I bet Dan DiDio wishes he would have landed that fish. Or maybe kept some of those Seven Soldiers artists who Marvel signed to exclusives--Simone Bianchi and Pasqual Ferry both seem to be able to hit their deadlines, and have distinctive enough styles that DC could probably convince fans of their prestigiousness (if they were paired with the right writers and characters).
In any event, I'll be disappointed if the All-Star line fails. I think it's DC's best chance to insure themselves against event fatigue, and it gives them a chance to reach bookstore readers with attractive, distinctive, and accessible products featuring their most valuable intellectual properties. Hopefully the next wave of titles will launch more smoothly--unfortunately, in order to get a sufficient backlog of issues, DC might have to wait until late next year before resurrecting the line.
-Also worth noting from Frisch's analysis: There aren't a whole lot of books selling in the 75,000-90,000 range. I assume that this partly reflects a talent/money drain, as both Marvel and DC are funneling more resources (talent and marketing) toward the big event comics. This seems like a poor decision in the long run. Event comics bring in the big dough in the short term, but are they big backlist sellers in TPB form? Which do you think sells better right now--Bendis' Secret War or his Daredevil? Furthermore, investing in a (relatively) creator-driven run is essentially an investment in the intellectual property. It strengthens the character as an independent entity, expands its mythos/backstory, and provides material that might later be recycled in other media.* I'm not in any position to make these decisions, but I would certainly take two consistent 80K sellers over a five issue mini averaging 200K.
*I think this will be increasingly important in the realm of video games. We're already seeing some crossover--I was kind of amazed at how much Ultimate Marvel Alliance referenced recent plot developments like the Winter Soldier. I mean, it did so in an incredibly clumsy way, but I expect this sort of thing to get more sophisticated in the very near future.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Mostly Newsarama-related
-Oh, awesome, Matt Brady (Newsarama version) has again expressed his disdain for critics of tentacle-enhanced covers.* How long before Brady starts addressing Quesada as "my liege" or "your worship?" (Similar thoughts, only more diplomatic, here.)
Not-so-quick question: Do you think the ever-growing comics blogosphere countervails Newsarama, or is there just too much noise for the average reader? Or are Newsarama readers just not interested in blogs? I do think Newsarama is an improvement over Wizard, but I fully mean that as faint praise. When Matt Brady (NV) asks "tough" questions, they usually reflect fanboy concerns above all else--ie, how does this fit into established continuity? There's not nearly enough concern with aesthetics, let alone the ugly intrusion of the "real world," where it doesn't take a hardcore otaku to recognize a tentacle as a phallic object. ** (Quick, what's the most persistent, seemingly non-solipsistic controversy to rage on Joe Fridays? My guess would be Quesada's ban on smoking in Marvel comics, which is controversial only to the extent to which fanboys consider the cigar a mandatory accessory for Nick Fury, the Thing, and Wolverine.) On the other hand, many blogs either wallow in nostalgia (in both ironic and non-ironic flavors) or share the same fanboyish concerns as Brady's readers. Others (including this one) are openly antagonistic to superhero fans, thus discouraging these prospective readers.
What I'm asking, basically, is (a) if we need an alternative to Newsarama, and (b) if such a thing would have any hope of succeeding without the stream of exclusive news and interviews that have made Newsarama (and to a lesser extent CBR) such a juggernaut in the comics-related internet. Not that I'm looking to start such a thing--you should all know that I'm too modest (read: lazy) to even consider it--but I'd definitely support an undertaking of this sort. But when I imagine this hypothetical news site, it basically looks like a consolidated, less schizophrenic version of the blogosphere. So would there be a point to such a site?
*That would be a good gimmick cover--die-cut tentacles that pop out. Or take it a step further and produce a pop-up book, one that allows the reader to control the boob-caressing motions of the tentacles. I will have to ask for a percentage of any profits from this deal, Mr. Quesada.
**I mean, holy fuck people, just because the average American is (thankfully) not familiar with this sub-sub-genre doesn't excuse the cover. Let's not substitute willful obtuseness for cleverness, please. Also, is the specter of Team Comics returning to the online comics discourse? I wasn't reading too many comics and even fewer comics-related websites when this was a prominent issue--I think I bought the first issue of Atlas and maybe a Magic Whistle during the period from 2001 to 2003--but it always seemed like a really fucking annoying concept.
-Couldn't figure out how to fit it into the above, so I'll do it as a separate item: I don't want to overstate the notion that Newsarama is a complete corporate shill. The Blogoramists seem to have a good deal of autonomy, and some of them (most notably Lisa Fortuner) are quite critical of Marvel/DC. And Brian Hibbs' columns are always a welcome sight. The diversity of opinion at Newsarama is comforting, but the recent trend towards naked toadying is rather worrying.
-Chris Mautner (who, BTW, is probably the best reason to read Blogarama right now) rips at some length on the "where are the comics for children?" crowd. It's a must-read piece, and one that hopefully will change the current discourse on this issue. I especially like the entry because Mautner addresses the issue going through my mind the entire time: how will this affect Marvel and DC, whose attempts to draw in a young readership are half-assed at best? One of the comments left at Blogorama suggests that maybe DC should try to get some "big guns" drawing these books. This would probably help from a sales perspective, but I wonder if the same effect might not be reached by incorporating art by lesser names drawing in the same style as the "big guns." This would help eliminate the "kiddie" image apparently haunting these books. On the other hand, I can't imagine parents being comfortable with buying their kids comics featuring Michael Turner-esque women.
-The first post I think I've made re: Nymphet: I think I agree with this, basically.
Not-so-quick question: Do you think the ever-growing comics blogosphere countervails Newsarama, or is there just too much noise for the average reader? Or are Newsarama readers just not interested in blogs? I do think Newsarama is an improvement over Wizard, but I fully mean that as faint praise. When Matt Brady (NV) asks "tough" questions, they usually reflect fanboy concerns above all else--ie, how does this fit into established continuity? There's not nearly enough concern with aesthetics, let alone the ugly intrusion of the "real world," where it doesn't take a hardcore otaku to recognize a tentacle as a phallic object. ** (Quick, what's the most persistent, seemingly non-solipsistic controversy to rage on Joe Fridays? My guess would be Quesada's ban on smoking in Marvel comics, which is controversial only to the extent to which fanboys consider the cigar a mandatory accessory for Nick Fury, the Thing, and Wolverine.) On the other hand, many blogs either wallow in nostalgia (in both ironic and non-ironic flavors) or share the same fanboyish concerns as Brady's readers. Others (including this one) are openly antagonistic to superhero fans, thus discouraging these prospective readers.
What I'm asking, basically, is (a) if we need an alternative to Newsarama, and (b) if such a thing would have any hope of succeeding without the stream of exclusive news and interviews that have made Newsarama (and to a lesser extent CBR) such a juggernaut in the comics-related internet. Not that I'm looking to start such a thing--you should all know that I'm too modest (read: lazy) to even consider it--but I'd definitely support an undertaking of this sort. But when I imagine this hypothetical news site, it basically looks like a consolidated, less schizophrenic version of the blogosphere. So would there be a point to such a site?
*That would be a good gimmick cover--die-cut tentacles that pop out. Or take it a step further and produce a pop-up book, one that allows the reader to control the boob-caressing motions of the tentacles. I will have to ask for a percentage of any profits from this deal, Mr. Quesada.
**I mean, holy fuck people, just because the average American is (thankfully) not familiar with this sub-sub-genre doesn't excuse the cover. Let's not substitute willful obtuseness for cleverness, please. Also, is the specter of Team Comics returning to the online comics discourse? I wasn't reading too many comics and even fewer comics-related websites when this was a prominent issue--I think I bought the first issue of Atlas and maybe a Magic Whistle during the period from 2001 to 2003--but it always seemed like a really fucking annoying concept.
-Couldn't figure out how to fit it into the above, so I'll do it as a separate item: I don't want to overstate the notion that Newsarama is a complete corporate shill. The Blogoramists seem to have a good deal of autonomy, and some of them (most notably Lisa Fortuner) are quite critical of Marvel/DC. And Brian Hibbs' columns are always a welcome sight. The diversity of opinion at Newsarama is comforting, but the recent trend towards naked toadying is rather worrying.
-Chris Mautner (who, BTW, is probably the best reason to read Blogarama right now) rips at some length on the "where are the comics for children?" crowd. It's a must-read piece, and one that hopefully will change the current discourse on this issue. I especially like the entry because Mautner addresses the issue going through my mind the entire time: how will this affect Marvel and DC, whose attempts to draw in a young readership are half-assed at best? One of the comments left at Blogorama suggests that maybe DC should try to get some "big guns" drawing these books. This would probably help from a sales perspective, but I wonder if the same effect might not be reached by incorporating art by lesser names drawing in the same style as the "big guns." This would help eliminate the "kiddie" image apparently haunting these books. On the other hand, I can't imagine parents being comfortable with buying their kids comics featuring Michael Turner-esque women.
-The first post I think I've made re: Nymphet: I think I agree with this, basically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
