-Dirk vs. Heidi now looks something like tenured professors debating the similarities between Dutch and American Quaker abolitionists. (History quiz: anyone know what I'm referring to right there?). There's something important buried underneath all this, but I'm not really eager to dig it out. I need more personal invective or denunciations of each other's approach to journalism. Implications of ethical shortcomings would also be welcome.
But wait! McDonald's response broadens the scope of the argument to manga vs. non-manga (she's calling them "Occidental" comics; I'm going to stay away from that terminology cause it seems problematic in a way that I can't quite put my finger on at this time). But then the scope of the argument narrows again at the end to something along the lines of "Dirk Deppey is prejudiced against non-manga comics, to the point of denying their apparent success." I do take issue with this, however:
"I’m all for a return in Occidental comics to accessible, populist work that is driven by a single creator’s vision."
I don't know. This seems to be setting up a golden age* that didn't actually exist. My understanding is that DC's editors always had a pretty heavy hand in plotting, while at Marvel Stan Lee was both editing AND plotting. Plus all these comics were collaborative. I guess McDonald could be referring to newspaper comics or Underground Comix, but I have the sneaking suspicion she's actually referring to Jim Starlin or something.
*By which I don't mean THE Golden Age.
-Do we really have to call non-comics readers "civilians?" I think I've heard Brian Hibbs use this term as well. It's just so haughty-geeky. Can't we call them "normal people" or "squarejohns" or something?
-Something about linking to comments I made on other blogs strikes me as unhealthy, but here we go. Greg Burgas wanted a bit more detail on my complaints about Andy Kubert's art. My poorly-worded thoughts are in comments 14 and 16.
-Great tragedy we can do nothing about of the day which has nothing to do with comics: I've been listening to a lot of Dils lately, wishing that they'd managed to record better versions of their best songs in the studio. Their best studio work was probably the "I Hate the Rich"/"You're Not Blank" single, but this was recorded before they had matured into a really great band (their later re-working of "You're Not Blank" is far superior to the original, for instance). I love the existing live material, and after listening to it for 10 years I can almost imagine what they would have sounded like if they were playing in a venue with better sound and actual monitors. There are a few existing studio tracks from their later period, but they lack the energy of the live material ("Red Rockers" is probably the best of the bunch, maybe their best studio recording aside from "You're Not Blank"). And there's no studio versions of "Give Me a Break" or "Tell Me What I Want to Hear," at least as far as I know. It just doesn't seem fair, especially when I remember that there are enough terrible UK Subs studio albums to fill a small record store.
-I try to stay a little updated on manga, but the title to this post (NSFW) looks like it was written by someone doing the 22nd century equivalent of text messaging.
Showing posts with label what passes for gossip. Show all posts
Showing posts with label what passes for gossip. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2007
The hardest part of maintaining this blog is trying to come up with non-descriptive titles for my posts
-Oh man, stuff like this makes writing a blog of this nature so much easier. Dirk Deppey has this to say about Heidi McDonald:
"It’s rare to see Heavily Networked Heidi taking a bold stance on anything, even if it’s only on the extent to which I suck. It’s a nice start, and I’d hate to discourage such behavior. Who knows? Perhaps one day, she’ll voice an opinion that might make one of her friends, industry colleagues or possible gossip sources frown a bit! One can only guess at the sort of interesting things she’d write after that happy day has dawned…"
Well, she referred to something I wrote as "clueless" recently, but I don't know if that counts as "a bold stance." (UPDATE: McDonald responds, but it's mostly stuff about how well 300 is selling. Bo-ring.)
-Also via Mr. Deppey, this Seattle Weekly article on the Ellison v. Fantagraphics suit, beginning thusly:
"Here’s a line you’re unlikely to hear the next time Dan Clowes does a signing at the Fantagraphics store in Georgetown: 'Hey, dude, didn’t you pitch your tent next to mine outside the Cinerama before Revenge of the Sith?' There’s a reason their books aren’t shelved together, often aren’t even stocked in the same stores and newsstands: You see, comic dorks and sci-fi geeks just don’t get along; they’re two different breeds. It’s like cats and dogs, Vulcans and Klingons, DC versus Marvel, Chris Ware against Stan Lee. Some people doodle in their unlined black journals; others play massive multiuser games online. I collect vintage issues of Plastic Man; you religiously TiVo every episode of the new Battlestar Galactica. There’s ComiCon (this weekend at Paul Allen’s QwestField) and the Star Trek 40th Anniversary Gala Celebration & Conference (last September at Paul Allen's Science Fiction Museum), and the laminated pass from one won't get you into the other."
That is some lazy-assed writing. So it's just my imagination that seemingly half of all comics bloggers talk about Battlestar Galactica and/or video games? (Instead of relevant stuff like Takanori Gomi's chances at 155 lb., or the best combination of herbs, cheese and nuts for a tasty-yet-affordable pesto.) What's equally stupid is the implication that all comics fans are Fantagraphics supporters, which is demonstrably untrue (and it's not a subtle nuance or anything--30 seconds at Newsarama would make it clear). Worst of all, I frequently see graphic novels housed in the same vicinity as science fiction! Anyway, there are a few other howlers (most notably a truly wretched passage about the brief confluence of sci-fi and underground culture), but the author manages to make a pretty good case that Groth seems to have a history of actively seeking trouble with Ellison. And there's no ill-informed speculation on Fantagraphics' insurance policy either, which is certainly a plus.
-Stuff I've read so far this week dept:
Batman still isn't great, and I wonder how much of it is Andy Kubert's art. It's just so vacant. This is not a problem of lacking detail--it's just that the details are utterly unconvincing. Kubert draws the least majestic Alpine vista imaginable. His depiction of a restaurant interior makes me wonder if he's ever gone out to eat in his life. The lower half of characters' bodies disappear during a fight scene. And his composition is just plain weird, almost like they were distorted with Photoshop or something. I mean, just look at that opening splash page! What the fuck is going on there? Morrison's story isn't really doing much for me either, but I might be distracted by the art. I feel like there must be some link between the two halves of the story which I'm missing or something. Maybe it will become clearer next issue, which I'll probably buy like a sucker.
52: I'm having a hard time remembering what happened this issue. The art was better than usual, making me wonder how closely Camuncoli followed Giffen's breakdowns. The art in the backup feature was very nice indeed, making me wonder why DC is letting a talent like Kerschl go to waste. I've always liked his stuff, but this was light years beyond what I've seen in the past. All in all, an issue full of wonder.
Fables: Kind of a waste. I think I chuckled a couple of times.
Everything else: Haven't cracked open yet, too busy reading Shadowland (which I bought last week but haven't had the time to finish).
-Mike Sterling's dissection of the stuff in Previews is one of the few blog-related things that I find genuinely funny. Wow, I think that last sentence actually might read as an anti-endorsement: "Rarely do I laugh, but if it's unavoidable I suppose Mike Sterling is as painless as any other method of inducing mirth." Really, even if more bloggers miraculously became funny, I would still find Sterling's musings on She-Dragon statutes pretty uproarious.
"It’s rare to see Heavily Networked Heidi taking a bold stance on anything, even if it’s only on the extent to which I suck. It’s a nice start, and I’d hate to discourage such behavior. Who knows? Perhaps one day, she’ll voice an opinion that might make one of her friends, industry colleagues or possible gossip sources frown a bit! One can only guess at the sort of interesting things she’d write after that happy day has dawned…"
Well, she referred to something I wrote as "clueless" recently, but I don't know if that counts as "a bold stance." (UPDATE: McDonald responds, but it's mostly stuff about how well 300 is selling. Bo-ring.)
-Also via Mr. Deppey, this Seattle Weekly article on the Ellison v. Fantagraphics suit, beginning thusly:
"Here’s a line you’re unlikely to hear the next time Dan Clowes does a signing at the Fantagraphics store in Georgetown: 'Hey, dude, didn’t you pitch your tent next to mine outside the Cinerama before Revenge of the Sith?' There’s a reason their books aren’t shelved together, often aren’t even stocked in the same stores and newsstands: You see, comic dorks and sci-fi geeks just don’t get along; they’re two different breeds. It’s like cats and dogs, Vulcans and Klingons, DC versus Marvel, Chris Ware against Stan Lee. Some people doodle in their unlined black journals; others play massive multiuser games online. I collect vintage issues of Plastic Man; you religiously TiVo every episode of the new Battlestar Galactica. There’s ComiCon (this weekend at Paul Allen’s QwestField) and the Star Trek 40th Anniversary Gala Celebration & Conference (last September at Paul Allen's Science Fiction Museum), and the laminated pass from one won't get you into the other."
That is some lazy-assed writing. So it's just my imagination that seemingly half of all comics bloggers talk about Battlestar Galactica and/or video games? (Instead of relevant stuff like Takanori Gomi's chances at 155 lb., or the best combination of herbs, cheese and nuts for a tasty-yet-affordable pesto.) What's equally stupid is the implication that all comics fans are Fantagraphics supporters, which is demonstrably untrue (and it's not a subtle nuance or anything--30 seconds at Newsarama would make it clear). Worst of all, I frequently see graphic novels housed in the same vicinity as science fiction! Anyway, there are a few other howlers (most notably a truly wretched passage about the brief confluence of sci-fi and underground culture), but the author manages to make a pretty good case that Groth seems to have a history of actively seeking trouble with Ellison. And there's no ill-informed speculation on Fantagraphics' insurance policy either, which is certainly a plus.
-Stuff I've read so far this week dept:
Batman still isn't great, and I wonder how much of it is Andy Kubert's art. It's just so vacant. This is not a problem of lacking detail--it's just that the details are utterly unconvincing. Kubert draws the least majestic Alpine vista imaginable. His depiction of a restaurant interior makes me wonder if he's ever gone out to eat in his life. The lower half of characters' bodies disappear during a fight scene. And his composition is just plain weird, almost like they were distorted with Photoshop or something. I mean, just look at that opening splash page! What the fuck is going on there? Morrison's story isn't really doing much for me either, but I might be distracted by the art. I feel like there must be some link between the two halves of the story which I'm missing or something. Maybe it will become clearer next issue, which I'll probably buy like a sucker.
52: I'm having a hard time remembering what happened this issue. The art was better than usual, making me wonder how closely Camuncoli followed Giffen's breakdowns. The art in the backup feature was very nice indeed, making me wonder why DC is letting a talent like Kerschl go to waste. I've always liked his stuff, but this was light years beyond what I've seen in the past. All in all, an issue full of wonder.
Fables: Kind of a waste. I think I chuckled a couple of times.
Everything else: Haven't cracked open yet, too busy reading Shadowland (which I bought last week but haven't had the time to finish).
-Mike Sterling's dissection of the stuff in Previews is one of the few blog-related things that I find genuinely funny. Wow, I think that last sentence actually might read as an anti-endorsement: "Rarely do I laugh, but if it's unavoidable I suppose Mike Sterling is as painless as any other method of inducing mirth." Really, even if more bloggers miraculously became funny, I would still find Sterling's musings on She-Dragon statutes pretty uproarious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
