-This is clearly Harlan Ellison's fault. (Link via the Beat.) UPDATE: Paul O'Brien beats me to the joke. Foiled again.
-Hey, since there's so much discussion of what we want to see in a comics shop here lately, let me share my thoughts with you: I just want to see comics I don't own and want to purchase. Preferably comics I've wanted to buy for a long while but haven't been able to due to a variety of circumstances. Other things are less important to me--the music being played, the cleanliness of the store, the odor emanating from behind the counter--I just want a place where I can buy desirable comics. Of course, I don't want the store's myriad odors to transfer to the pages of the books I've bought, but I haven't had that happen yet.
But now that I think about it....
When I lived in Columbia, SC, one of the better record stores in town was a tiny, tiny store about three or four blocks from campus called Papa Jazz. It was owned and operated by two old hippies who were really into free jazz. So the store was constantly filled with the overwhelming scent of patchouli and the overwhelming sounds of Ornette Coleman or Albert Ayler or whoever.* Meanwhile, browsing the store's stock required a great deal of maneuvering between bodies, which almost always entailed some unpleasant flesh-to-flesh contact. To shop in this store was to subject oneself to complete sensory overload. That's probably why I only went to it once a month, for a marathon perusal of their stock. (Later, when I got into old surf and garage, I went there much more frequently. But those were quick, in-and-out trips.)
The other big record store in town (Manifest), the one situated next to the big comic store in town (Heroes and Dragons), was more like my every week store. Manifest actually had greater breadth and depth of stock than Papa Jazz, plus it was spacious, well-lit, and generally odor-neutral. The music was frequently bad, but that's just kind of the way it goes in a record store. And, unlike Papa Jazz' loud, incessant free jazz, the bad music which played in Manifest didn't cause parts of my brain to glitch out. Papa Jazz had an extensive used section, so that alone would have encouraged us to go there occasionally; it also had a much larger selection of shady-looking bootlegs, reisssues, and compilations. But Manifest was much more pleasant, even though it was much less convenient to my dorm (and later my apartment).
So yes, when faced with a choice between a smelly, cramped, loud store and an odor-free, spacious, loud store, I chose the latter. That all would have changed, however, had Manifest's stock been less impressive than Papa Jazz'. In fact, now that I'm an old man no longer interested in the latest offerings from Lookout! (or their 2007 equivalent), I'm much more likely to go into Papa Jazz when visiting Columbia; Manifest seems to cater to a different kind of consumer than the 30-year-old version of Dick Hyacinth. But if I were still living there, facing the reality of Papa Jazz being the best record store in town, I'd probably buy more of my records by mail order.**
*I actually kind of like free jazz now, but I didn't at the time. Plus, it's a genre of music I want to control when I listen to it; it's not so fun to have it thumping your medulla oblongata while you're trying to decide if you really want to buy that OOP Milkshakes album that's going for $15 used.
**Hypothetically speaking. Do they still make compact discs?
-Thanks to everyone who suggested places to buy mini-comics and small press comics online, both here and at the Beat (special thanks to Heidi for circulating my request). The good news is that I've found several sites with tons of comics I want to buy. The bad news is that I can't possibly afford them all. At least I know where to go should I discover a bag of money on the side of the road.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Review: Niger #1
I've got quite a backlog of comics sitting on my coffee table right now. I thought I'd review a few independent-type single issue comics (by which I mean "not graphic novels"), some of which are not especially recent. "Not recent" as in "I might review Crickets #1." I haven't ruled out including some scans for later reviews, but it's too late to do that tonight. Sorry. I'll start with the most recently purchased of the lot: Niger #1 by Leila Marzocchi, the latest addition to Fantagraphic/Coconino's Ignatz series. I think.
I can't say I was previously familiar with Marzocchi, but Lambiek says she's been working in comics for 20 years, including a stint with Kodansha! There's hardly a trace of manga influence in Niger, however. Fantagraphics' copy refers to her "dense woodcut style," but that's actually a little misleading. "Woodcut style" usually brings to mind enormous pools of black broken by bold, jagged white lines; Marzocchi's lines are much finer, much more subtle than those in the archetypical woodcut print. They almost appear to be made with etching tools, though the overall appearance does resemble a reduction print. Niger features three tones of red, ranging from a medium burgundy to a very pale pink. (If you've seen pictures of the cover online, please note that the actual printed version only features a single shade of red. At least my copy does.) Marzocchi's characters are frequently set against a solid black background; as a result, the art occasionally looks as if it were drawn on a chalkboard with impossibly fine-tipped pieces of chalk.
The story is quite reminiscent of Larry Marder's Beanworld. The Assembly, a loose confederacy of birds (plus one tree and one unidentified creature wearing false wings) discover some sort of larva in a treehouse. Apparently (mis?) identifying it as a type of bird, they call upon The Hand of Fatima (a disembodied hand covered in Arabic) to issue a fatwa, warning all the predators in the forest not to prey on the larva (subsequently named "Dolly.") The birds then take turns guarding Dolly, who occasionally fills us in on her brief backstory via flashbacks. The tone is very similar to Beanworld (the narrator's reaction to the introduction of the Hand of Fatima: "Does ANYONE still give a crap about The Hand?"), but the initial concept is even more similar. A foreign element is introduced into a preexisting system; beings living within this system try to integrate the new element into it. The story ends before we can gauge their success, but their confusion at Dolly's lack of a beak suggests some struggling ahead.
Unlike Marder, Marzocchi does not lay out the rules which govern her system in the first issue. Prior to the arrival of the Mossy Mammoth, Marder's Beans were part of a cyclical system in which there was no waste, but no creativity either. Niger's ecosystem is still unrevealed at the end of the first issue. It's unclear what Marzocchi is getting at in the first issue; unlike Marder, she doesn't seem to consider symbols and systems as sufficient material for the entire series. (Her gossamer linework doesn't really suit that kind of approach, anyway.) Marzocchi is much more interested in showing how the new element (Dolly) reacts to the system, whereas Marder concentrates on the opposite. But this isn't exactly like Chester Brown's Underwater, either. Marzocchi focuses more on Dolly's avian protectors than Dolly herself. We can understand their dialogue, whereas the language of adults was gibberish in Underwater.
It's a very strange first issue. The opening pages, in which an owl watches Dolly struggle to move into an overturned flower vase, bring to mind Brown's "A Late Night Snack." Marzocchi's owl doesn't see Dolly as prey, however. Once this is revealed, the tone shifts considerably. Marzocchi draws the owl and other forest animals very realistically, while Dolly is a very simple cartoon larva. Dolly thus seems like an innocent in a mysterious, dangerous environment. After the birds' benevolence is made clear, however, she introduces the comical Wingman, drawn in a jarringly cartoony style. Dolly is no longer alone; she almost looks like the larval form of Wingman. Marzocchi also begins introducing more whites lines into the backgrounds.
Unfortunately, once the birds appoint themselves as guardians, Niger loses much of the tension which made its first few pages so intriguing. Marzocchi tries to rectify this towards the end of the book. In the last three pages, Marzocchi introduces a new character who may end up being an antagonist for Dolly. Furthermore, the last text in the book suggests that Dolly is eager to remove herself from the birds' protection. That would be a shame, actually; the large proportion of owls among the Assembly ensure that most of Niger takes place at night, which best suits Marzocchi's artwork. The birds also have a few funny moments as they try to make sense of Dolly's presence. As it is, the main pleasures in Niger come from Marzocchi's cobwebs of lines, congealing into spots of bright white bursting out against the black backgrounds. Beyond that, it's too hard for this reviewer to disentangle Niger from the better-known Beanworld. Marzocchi's art is occasionally stunning, but there's not a whole lot of other reasons to read Niger yet; she doesn't successfully replace the tension of the early pages with an effective thematic hook in the second half of the book. Hopefully the second issue will make Marzocchi's intentions a bit clearer.
I can't say I was previously familiar with Marzocchi, but Lambiek says she's been working in comics for 20 years, including a stint with Kodansha! There's hardly a trace of manga influence in Niger, however. Fantagraphics' copy refers to her "dense woodcut style," but that's actually a little misleading. "Woodcut style" usually brings to mind enormous pools of black broken by bold, jagged white lines; Marzocchi's lines are much finer, much more subtle than those in the archetypical woodcut print. They almost appear to be made with etching tools, though the overall appearance does resemble a reduction print. Niger features three tones of red, ranging from a medium burgundy to a very pale pink. (If you've seen pictures of the cover online, please note that the actual printed version only features a single shade of red. At least my copy does.) Marzocchi's characters are frequently set against a solid black background; as a result, the art occasionally looks as if it were drawn on a chalkboard with impossibly fine-tipped pieces of chalk.
The story is quite reminiscent of Larry Marder's Beanworld. The Assembly, a loose confederacy of birds (plus one tree and one unidentified creature wearing false wings) discover some sort of larva in a treehouse. Apparently (mis?) identifying it as a type of bird, they call upon The Hand of Fatima (a disembodied hand covered in Arabic) to issue a fatwa, warning all the predators in the forest not to prey on the larva (subsequently named "Dolly.") The birds then take turns guarding Dolly, who occasionally fills us in on her brief backstory via flashbacks. The tone is very similar to Beanworld (the narrator's reaction to the introduction of the Hand of Fatima: "Does ANYONE still give a crap about The Hand?"), but the initial concept is even more similar. A foreign element is introduced into a preexisting system; beings living within this system try to integrate the new element into it. The story ends before we can gauge their success, but their confusion at Dolly's lack of a beak suggests some struggling ahead.
Unlike Marder, Marzocchi does not lay out the rules which govern her system in the first issue. Prior to the arrival of the Mossy Mammoth, Marder's Beans were part of a cyclical system in which there was no waste, but no creativity either. Niger's ecosystem is still unrevealed at the end of the first issue. It's unclear what Marzocchi is getting at in the first issue; unlike Marder, she doesn't seem to consider symbols and systems as sufficient material for the entire series. (Her gossamer linework doesn't really suit that kind of approach, anyway.) Marzocchi is much more interested in showing how the new element (Dolly) reacts to the system, whereas Marder concentrates on the opposite. But this isn't exactly like Chester Brown's Underwater, either. Marzocchi focuses more on Dolly's avian protectors than Dolly herself. We can understand their dialogue, whereas the language of adults was gibberish in Underwater.
It's a very strange first issue. The opening pages, in which an owl watches Dolly struggle to move into an overturned flower vase, bring to mind Brown's "A Late Night Snack." Marzocchi's owl doesn't see Dolly as prey, however. Once this is revealed, the tone shifts considerably. Marzocchi draws the owl and other forest animals very realistically, while Dolly is a very simple cartoon larva. Dolly thus seems like an innocent in a mysterious, dangerous environment. After the birds' benevolence is made clear, however, she introduces the comical Wingman, drawn in a jarringly cartoony style. Dolly is no longer alone; she almost looks like the larval form of Wingman. Marzocchi also begins introducing more whites lines into the backgrounds.
Unfortunately, once the birds appoint themselves as guardians, Niger loses much of the tension which made its first few pages so intriguing. Marzocchi tries to rectify this towards the end of the book. In the last three pages, Marzocchi introduces a new character who may end up being an antagonist for Dolly. Furthermore, the last text in the book suggests that Dolly is eager to remove herself from the birds' protection. That would be a shame, actually; the large proportion of owls among the Assembly ensure that most of Niger takes place at night, which best suits Marzocchi's artwork. The birds also have a few funny moments as they try to make sense of Dolly's presence. As it is, the main pleasures in Niger come from Marzocchi's cobwebs of lines, congealing into spots of bright white bursting out against the black backgrounds. Beyond that, it's too hard for this reviewer to disentangle Niger from the better-known Beanworld. Marzocchi's art is occasionally stunning, but there's not a whole lot of other reasons to read Niger yet; she doesn't successfully replace the tension of the early pages with an effective thematic hook in the second half of the book. Hopefully the second issue will make Marzocchi's intentions a bit clearer.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Help a cheap man save on shipping
I was looking over the Ignatz nominees, and was struck by how many were books which I'd wanted to read but haven't been able to find. Does anyone know of a good site for ordering stuff from a bunch of different small press publishers (by which I mean non-Fantagraphics, D&Q, or NBM--I can get that stuff at my LCS), or am I just going to have to break down and order direct? I'm looking for stuff by the smaller publishers listed--I checked out khepri.com, but that seems to be mostly on the Brian Wood-Warren Ellis axis, which is really not what I'm looking for (that stuff is also available at my LCS).
Any help would be appreciated.
Any help would be appreciated.
Games, nihilism
-New idea: since the Marvel/DC binary seems to be like a particularly foul odor cutting through all layers of resistance, why not apply that model to other things for which it makes little sense? First up: Fantagraphics vs. Drawn & Quarterly. For years, fans of art/literary comics have cherished each company as the two outstanding publishers of worthwhile comics in North America. Creators have moved between the two fairly freely, and good will has generally prevailed. NO MORE. Here are a few talking points to get us started:
Seems like I was going to add another one or two in there, but I can't remember what they were. Ahhh, that's probably enough to get you started. Go to it!
-The discussion about Paul O'Brien's possible anti-FBI/TCJ agenda brought up the age-old question about love of genre vs. love of medium (or art form, but that's a debate probably best left aside for the time being). On the face of it, I'm tempted to label all the genre camp as mental midgets, but maybe that's unfair. I mean, yes, anyone who only watches horror movies, to the absolute (and possibly angry) exclusion of all other genres, wouldn't be someone I consider an expert on cinema. Someone who only watched horror movies produced by Lion's Gate or Screen Gems, to the exclusion of all other studios/production companies, would be even weirder; I don't know if I'd consider them an expert on horror movies, even. Someone who likes only torture movies...well, you get my point.
BUT, to love a medium so much that the love encompasses all genres, no matter how stupid--that's a level of dedication which I just don't have. Many of us know music fans who express enthusiasm for nearly every imaginable genre out there--you know, the types who claim to like At the Gates and Justin Timberlake equally. These folks bug the shit out of me because I don't know how seriously I should take their opinions. There's no way I'm ever going to like early 21st century bubblegum pop. Should I trust the critic who likes Christina Aguilera as much as Neil Young? Should this equal enthusiasm make me question my own love of Neil Young? Does my massive (and rarely played) collection of 60s punk make me a mental midget?
I suppose one way to guard against this is to take sort of a transcendentalist* approach to art: there are certain genre works that are so good, they transcend the stupid hackwork usually associated with the genre. Hey, that sounds familiar...didn't someone say something like that re: a certain comic about growing up in post-revolutionary Iran?
It's a frustrating topic. I have an anti-humanist streak when it comes to humans' ability to understand ourselves, which is really sort of a haunting, revolting irony given what I've done with my life. But on the other hand, it's incredibly annoying to see superhero fans treatsuperhero comics Marvel and DC comics as the sum total of the industry. I mean, it's fine insofar as their personal reading habits go, but they have to expect the rest of us (you know, the 10% of the Direct Market reading any non-superhero material at all) laugh at them. If someone told you he or she only watched reality television, you would probably look at said person as someone who probably has nothing useful to say about the general state of television in 2007. Fortunately for us, most exclusively Marvel/DC readers are more concerned with the finer points of continuity than with pontificating on the industry as a whole. But they sure are touchy.
*I'm making a joke; no need to tell me about Henry David Thoreau or anything. I've read Ghosts, dude.
- Chris Ware left Fantagraphics because Gary Groth is a crazy tyrant who wanted Ware to draw more like Peter Bagge.
- Fantagraphics saw that Chris Ware had become nothing more than a hack, and kicked his ass to the curb. Shows what a second rate operation D&Q is to pick up on Gary Groth's sloppy seconds.
- Fantagraphics was built on the back of Peter Bagge, Dan Clowes, Los Bros Hernandez, and Chris Ware. The only ones left are Jaime and Gilberto, and the latter is doing a lot of work for other companies now; you almost couldn't consider him a Fantagraphics artist anymore. That just leaves Jaime Hernandez, and everyone knows he's just a glorified Archie artist.
- D&Q should stand for "Dull" and "Québécois," cause all they have is boring, autobiographical Canadians. And wannabe Canadians like Joe Matt.
- Fantagraphics sounds like the name of a porn company. Oh wait....
- Draw & Quarterly doesn't care about Black people. Where are all the Black D&Q characters? There's not a single Black character in Clyde Fans.
- Why is Kim Thompson using a girl's name? Is he trying to fool people into thinking he's a woman? FACT: Chris Oliveros is not ashamed to admit he's a man. FACT: Oliveros is willing to let the comics he publishes do his talking for him; he doesn't need to hide behind misleading first names.
Seems like I was going to add another one or two in there, but I can't remember what they were. Ahhh, that's probably enough to get you started. Go to it!
-The discussion about Paul O'Brien's possible anti-FBI/TCJ agenda brought up the age-old question about love of genre vs. love of medium (or art form, but that's a debate probably best left aside for the time being). On the face of it, I'm tempted to label all the genre camp as mental midgets, but maybe that's unfair. I mean, yes, anyone who only watches horror movies, to the absolute (and possibly angry) exclusion of all other genres, wouldn't be someone I consider an expert on cinema. Someone who only watched horror movies produced by Lion's Gate or Screen Gems, to the exclusion of all other studios/production companies, would be even weirder; I don't know if I'd consider them an expert on horror movies, even. Someone who likes only torture movies...well, you get my point.
BUT, to love a medium so much that the love encompasses all genres, no matter how stupid--that's a level of dedication which I just don't have. Many of us know music fans who express enthusiasm for nearly every imaginable genre out there--you know, the types who claim to like At the Gates and Justin Timberlake equally. These folks bug the shit out of me because I don't know how seriously I should take their opinions. There's no way I'm ever going to like early 21st century bubblegum pop. Should I trust the critic who likes Christina Aguilera as much as Neil Young? Should this equal enthusiasm make me question my own love of Neil Young? Does my massive (and rarely played) collection of 60s punk make me a mental midget?
I suppose one way to guard against this is to take sort of a transcendentalist* approach to art: there are certain genre works that are so good, they transcend the stupid hackwork usually associated with the genre. Hey, that sounds familiar...didn't someone say something like that re: a certain comic about growing up in post-revolutionary Iran?
It's a frustrating topic. I have an anti-humanist streak when it comes to humans' ability to understand ourselves, which is really sort of a haunting, revolting irony given what I've done with my life. But on the other hand, it's incredibly annoying to see superhero fans treat
*I'm making a joke; no need to tell me about Henry David Thoreau or anything. I've read Ghosts, dude.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Back to being a jerk
A couple of things I probably would have commented on if I had been around the last couple of weeks. WARNING: Some of this stuff is very, very old now.
-Why does Paul O'Brien have a grudge against Fantagraphics/TCJ? First consider some of his statements in the comments field to Tim O'Neil's recent post about the lack of online reaction to his negative review of Scott Pilgrim in a recent issue of the Comics Journal. Particularly this one:
The Comics Journal has been way out on the fringes of comic book discussion for as long as I can remember, in large part because it spent years only covering material that was way out on the fringes of comics. I regard it as, loosely, the comic industry's equivalent of WIRE - the music magazine that reviews such things as entire CDs of mixing desk feedback and hour-long bassoon improvisations.
This leads ADD to fire back with one of the best comics-related rejoinders I've read all year:
I think the Comics Journal has a great new pull quote for its subscription page:
"The Comics Journal has been way out on the fringes of comic book discussion for as long as I can remember."
-- Guy Who Bought Every Issue of Howard Mackie's Mutant X
On a more recent (but not that recent) front, O'Brien also showed up in the comments to a Beat post about Harlan Ellison's foot-dragging re: the settlement to his lawsuit with Fantagraphics. (Which, for the seven or eight of you out there who are more out of touch than I am, requires Ellison to publish a statement by Gary Groth on his website for 30 days.) O'Brien suggests that Groth's statement contains ad hominem attacks against Ellison, which the settlement expressly prohibits. He and Eric Reynolds do a little back-and-forth on the issue, with Reynolds taking the position that Groth's words are more "color" than ad hominem. (If you want to read Groth's statement, check the link above.)
There's certainly something to O'Brien's argument--the bit about "physical assaults" might be pushing it. But one can't help but see it in the light of his earlier comments on O'Neil's blog. (The bit about "hour-long bassoon improvisations" is especially dense.) I'm reminded of the last great O'Brien-ADD controversy, when O'Brien announced he was "bored with comics" and received heaps of well-deserved scorn. The most revealing part of the whole ordeal was O'Brien's follow-up column, which suggested a deep-seated resentment for non-superhero comics and the people who read them. I still think that might be the most annoying comic-related thing I've ever read on the internet. (Interestingly enough, O'Brien didn't show up for the recent "why do comics shops suck" debate, or its sequel, although his argument is certainly there in spirit. Even stranger, ADD has little to say on the matter.)
Anyway, I guess my point is this: it's a little weird that a seemingly bright buy like O'Brien (who does good work on the Marvel sales analysis thing for the Beat) seems so bitter about America's leading publisher of art/literary comics. No reasonable person expects O'Brien to give up all his mutant comics in favor of the Ignatz line; personally, I don't care what he likes/buys/reads. But I don't think I'm out of line in saying he's carrying a sizable grudge against Fantagraphics (and maybe art/literary comics in general, though I'm not prepared to make that statement definitively). Maybe it's the same old "how dare they insult my favorite intellectual property custodian" thing (which I'm pretty sure is the cause of about 80% of all the anti-TCJ sentiment among online fans), or maybe it's something deeper. Since O'Brien is a fairly well-respected pundit, I think it's worth casting light on this bias.
-On a similar note: where are all the die-hard Marvel defenders? Tim O'Neil and David Brothers probably come the closest to the DC drum and bugle corps, but I don't see them rushing out to defend Marvel against vociferous fan reaction. I'm not sure exactly why that is--maybe Marvel's recent success, largely at the expense of DC (it's a zero sum game, like it or not), has made such defenses superfluous. I definitely perceive a "circle the wagons" mentality when I check in on decidedly pro-DC communities. It's also possible that Marvel's most vocal defenders (and I'm talking the folks who leave comments on Blog/Newsarama articles) come off as exceptionally clueless.
But here's the thing: many of the most prominent voices advocating diversity and sensitivity in superhero comics are dyed-in-the wool DC fanatics. I really should point out that this is not so true for those bloggers who focus on race; Brothers is clearly a Marvel dude, while I can't really detect what, if any, allegiance Cheryl Lynn or Rich Watson hold. I know Guy LeCharles Gonzalez was very critical of Dan DiDio back when he was still an active online presence. His and Loren Janvier's absence, however, seems to be tipping the balance towards DC partisans.
I wonder to what extent this influences Lisa Fortuner, Melissa Krause, and Dorian Wright to defend DC against (apparently) irrational fan behavior. 2007 has not been a great year for DC, sensitivity- and diversity-wise (it hasn't been great for Marvel either, but there was a two or three month period where DC just seemed to have one controversy after another). I haven't read the comic alluded to in the posts above, and I sure haven't read any online reaction to it. Maybe these responses are justified; maybe I'm just not invested enough in DC's crossover wrangling to care about these overreactions; maybe there's a shared fear that these particular overreactions are vastly overblown, and exactly the kind of thing which will undermine the cause of feminist superhero fans. But I found it a bit odd that all three would devote so much time to overheated fan rhetoric. Fortuner in particular dwelt on the subject for a number of posts.
Again, this is all well and good when seen in the context of the larger struggle for greater sensitivity and diversity in superhero comics. More problematic is Fortuner's defense of the overall editorial direction at DC; even more problematic is Krause's response to Valerie D'Orazio's "why DiDio is on his way out" piece. Fortuner reveals that, while she wants to see sexism and misogyny eliminated at DC, she would prefer that this be done without the elimination of DiDio as executive editor. Krause's response, on the other hand, is total wishful thinking (exactly what she accuses D'Orazio of!) combined with willful neglect of certain realities of corporate culture. Take this for example, re: Mother Jones' recent criticism of DC's handling of female characters:
As for "Mother Jones", I'm not saying it's not an influential publication. It is. It may even have a greater readership than the entire comics industry.
But by the same token, most of those readers do not read superhero comics. (The ones who do already know this stuff.) And as much as Levitz and company are trying to court female readers, I don't necessarily think the readership of Mother Jones is the target audience. Do you really think that Time Warner is going to care that Didio managed to get a bad reputation among people who aren't reading superhero comics anyway?
This completely ignores the reality of Time Warner's position as a publicly traded company. Public relations are a crucial part of corporate culture; the issue isn't keeping DC's minuscule fanbase happy, but keeping Time Warner's army of shareholders happy. (One might also consider that Time Warner is in the entertainment industry, which is dominated by liberal types who might not be crazy about working for a company which produces stuff like Infinite Crisis or Supergirl. But that's a lesser argument.) Negative publicity is more important than a few dozen titles selling 20,000-100,000 copies per month. Even if DiDio, Levitz, et al, never hear a word from Time Warner's suits, the threat of corporate interference (or massive firings) would surely have some effect on DC's day-to-day operations. Putting external pressure on the corporate parent is one of the easiest paths towards achieving the goal of more woman-friendly DC comics, but Krause almost seems to be keeping her fingers crossed that the mainstream media won't pick up on this story.
I'm kind of shocked at how intransigent both Fortuner and Krause are in their defense of DiDio. Firing DiDio would be the clearest way for Time Warner to send the message that the content of DC's comics must be more sensitive to women. I can understand the potential concern that replacing DiDio would be a cosmetic measure which would do nothing to eliminate a culture of misogyny/sexism at DC (though I don't think either Krause or Fortuner are arguing this; in fact, I don't recall either spending much time discussing the editorial culture at DC). But here's the thing--DiDio's most likely successor is Jann Jones--a woman. This doesn't necessarily mean that all DC's misogyny and sexism would disappear with Jones' ascension; one only need look at the career of the late Carol Kalish to dispel the notion that shared sisterhood will win out over cold, hard economics. But still, who do you trust more--Jones (probably best known for this at the present stage of her career) or Dan "we need a rape" DiDio?*
Again, people are free to like whatever they like, and write about how much they enjoy it. But I think there's a fundamental disconnect between the desire to see DC's portrayal of women improve and the desire to see Dan DiDio remain in power at DC. DiDio's removal wouldn't solve all, or even most, of DC's problems. But until DiDio seriously addresses these concerns (and I'm talking policy, not lip service), it's the most logical step toward effecting meaningful change at DC. Krause and Fortuner have a lot to be proud of; I genuinely think they've done as much to change the discourse about women in superhero comics as anyone else writing on the internet. As they become more successful in effecting change at Marvel and DC, I strongly suspect that they'll eventually be in situations where they have to decide between their fandom and their politics. That's not going to be an easy choice for two people so passionate about both.
*This isn't entirely fair to DiDio, whose involvement in the great rape decision isn't entirely clear to me. But, at the very least, he oversaw the shop where this mentality raged, and should be held responsible for allowing it to persist.
-Why does Paul O'Brien have a grudge against Fantagraphics/TCJ? First consider some of his statements in the comments field to Tim O'Neil's recent post about the lack of online reaction to his negative review of Scott Pilgrim in a recent issue of the Comics Journal. Particularly this one:
The Comics Journal has been way out on the fringes of comic book discussion for as long as I can remember, in large part because it spent years only covering material that was way out on the fringes of comics. I regard it as, loosely, the comic industry's equivalent of WIRE - the music magazine that reviews such things as entire CDs of mixing desk feedback and hour-long bassoon improvisations.
This leads ADD to fire back with one of the best comics-related rejoinders I've read all year:
I think the Comics Journal has a great new pull quote for its subscription page:
"The Comics Journal has been way out on the fringes of comic book discussion for as long as I can remember."
-- Guy Who Bought Every Issue of Howard Mackie's Mutant X
On a more recent (but not that recent) front, O'Brien also showed up in the comments to a Beat post about Harlan Ellison's foot-dragging re: the settlement to his lawsuit with Fantagraphics. (Which, for the seven or eight of you out there who are more out of touch than I am, requires Ellison to publish a statement by Gary Groth on his website for 30 days.) O'Brien suggests that Groth's statement contains ad hominem attacks against Ellison, which the settlement expressly prohibits. He and Eric Reynolds do a little back-and-forth on the issue, with Reynolds taking the position that Groth's words are more "color" than ad hominem. (If you want to read Groth's statement, check the link above.)
There's certainly something to O'Brien's argument--the bit about "physical assaults" might be pushing it. But one can't help but see it in the light of his earlier comments on O'Neil's blog. (The bit about "hour-long bassoon improvisations" is especially dense.) I'm reminded of the last great O'Brien-ADD controversy, when O'Brien announced he was "bored with comics" and received heaps of well-deserved scorn. The most revealing part of the whole ordeal was O'Brien's follow-up column, which suggested a deep-seated resentment for non-superhero comics and the people who read them. I still think that might be the most annoying comic-related thing I've ever read on the internet. (Interestingly enough, O'Brien didn't show up for the recent "why do comics shops suck" debate, or its sequel, although his argument is certainly there in spirit. Even stranger, ADD has little to say on the matter.)
Anyway, I guess my point is this: it's a little weird that a seemingly bright buy like O'Brien (who does good work on the Marvel sales analysis thing for the Beat) seems so bitter about America's leading publisher of art/literary comics. No reasonable person expects O'Brien to give up all his mutant comics in favor of the Ignatz line; personally, I don't care what he likes/buys/reads. But I don't think I'm out of line in saying he's carrying a sizable grudge against Fantagraphics (and maybe art/literary comics in general, though I'm not prepared to make that statement definitively). Maybe it's the same old "how dare they insult my favorite intellectual property custodian" thing (which I'm pretty sure is the cause of about 80% of all the anti-TCJ sentiment among online fans), or maybe it's something deeper. Since O'Brien is a fairly well-respected pundit, I think it's worth casting light on this bias.
-On a similar note: where are all the die-hard Marvel defenders? Tim O'Neil and David Brothers probably come the closest to the DC drum and bugle corps, but I don't see them rushing out to defend Marvel against vociferous fan reaction. I'm not sure exactly why that is--maybe Marvel's recent success, largely at the expense of DC (it's a zero sum game, like it or not), has made such defenses superfluous. I definitely perceive a "circle the wagons" mentality when I check in on decidedly pro-DC communities. It's also possible that Marvel's most vocal defenders (and I'm talking the folks who leave comments on Blog/Newsarama articles) come off as exceptionally clueless.
But here's the thing: many of the most prominent voices advocating diversity and sensitivity in superhero comics are dyed-in-the wool DC fanatics. I really should point out that this is not so true for those bloggers who focus on race; Brothers is clearly a Marvel dude, while I can't really detect what, if any, allegiance Cheryl Lynn or Rich Watson hold. I know Guy LeCharles Gonzalez was very critical of Dan DiDio back when he was still an active online presence. His and Loren Janvier's absence, however, seems to be tipping the balance towards DC partisans.
I wonder to what extent this influences Lisa Fortuner, Melissa Krause, and Dorian Wright to defend DC against (apparently) irrational fan behavior. 2007 has not been a great year for DC, sensitivity- and diversity-wise (it hasn't been great for Marvel either, but there was a two or three month period where DC just seemed to have one controversy after another). I haven't read the comic alluded to in the posts above, and I sure haven't read any online reaction to it. Maybe these responses are justified; maybe I'm just not invested enough in DC's crossover wrangling to care about these overreactions; maybe there's a shared fear that these particular overreactions are vastly overblown, and exactly the kind of thing which will undermine the cause of feminist superhero fans. But I found it a bit odd that all three would devote so much time to overheated fan rhetoric. Fortuner in particular dwelt on the subject for a number of posts.
Again, this is all well and good when seen in the context of the larger struggle for greater sensitivity and diversity in superhero comics. More problematic is Fortuner's defense of the overall editorial direction at DC; even more problematic is Krause's response to Valerie D'Orazio's "why DiDio is on his way out" piece. Fortuner reveals that, while she wants to see sexism and misogyny eliminated at DC, she would prefer that this be done without the elimination of DiDio as executive editor. Krause's response, on the other hand, is total wishful thinking (exactly what she accuses D'Orazio of!) combined with willful neglect of certain realities of corporate culture. Take this for example, re: Mother Jones' recent criticism of DC's handling of female characters:
As for "Mother Jones", I'm not saying it's not an influential publication. It is. It may even have a greater readership than the entire comics industry.
But by the same token, most of those readers do not read superhero comics. (The ones who do already know this stuff.) And as much as Levitz and company are trying to court female readers, I don't necessarily think the readership of Mother Jones is the target audience. Do you really think that Time Warner is going to care that Didio managed to get a bad reputation among people who aren't reading superhero comics anyway?
This completely ignores the reality of Time Warner's position as a publicly traded company. Public relations are a crucial part of corporate culture; the issue isn't keeping DC's minuscule fanbase happy, but keeping Time Warner's army of shareholders happy. (One might also consider that Time Warner is in the entertainment industry, which is dominated by liberal types who might not be crazy about working for a company which produces stuff like Infinite Crisis or Supergirl. But that's a lesser argument.) Negative publicity is more important than a few dozen titles selling 20,000-100,000 copies per month. Even if DiDio, Levitz, et al, never hear a word from Time Warner's suits, the threat of corporate interference (or massive firings) would surely have some effect on DC's day-to-day operations. Putting external pressure on the corporate parent is one of the easiest paths towards achieving the goal of more woman-friendly DC comics, but Krause almost seems to be keeping her fingers crossed that the mainstream media won't pick up on this story.
I'm kind of shocked at how intransigent both Fortuner and Krause are in their defense of DiDio. Firing DiDio would be the clearest way for Time Warner to send the message that the content of DC's comics must be more sensitive to women. I can understand the potential concern that replacing DiDio would be a cosmetic measure which would do nothing to eliminate a culture of misogyny/sexism at DC (though I don't think either Krause or Fortuner are arguing this; in fact, I don't recall either spending much time discussing the editorial culture at DC). But here's the thing--DiDio's most likely successor is Jann Jones--a woman. This doesn't necessarily mean that all DC's misogyny and sexism would disappear with Jones' ascension; one only need look at the career of the late Carol Kalish to dispel the notion that shared sisterhood will win out over cold, hard economics. But still, who do you trust more--Jones (probably best known for this at the present stage of her career) or Dan "we need a rape" DiDio?*
Again, people are free to like whatever they like, and write about how much they enjoy it. But I think there's a fundamental disconnect between the desire to see DC's portrayal of women improve and the desire to see Dan DiDio remain in power at DC. DiDio's removal wouldn't solve all, or even most, of DC's problems. But until DiDio seriously addresses these concerns (and I'm talking policy, not lip service), it's the most logical step toward effecting meaningful change at DC. Krause and Fortuner have a lot to be proud of; I genuinely think they've done as much to change the discourse about women in superhero comics as anyone else writing on the internet. As they become more successful in effecting change at Marvel and DC, I strongly suspect that they'll eventually be in situations where they have to decide between their fandom and their politics. That's not going to be an easy choice for two people so passionate about both.
*This isn't entirely fair to DiDio, whose involvement in the great rape decision isn't entirely clear to me. But, at the very least, he oversaw the shop where this mentality raged, and should be held responsible for allowing it to persist.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Okay
The illness seems mostly gone, aside from a few lingering symptoms. Unfortunately, there seems to be a zero sum game in our household re: colds, because my wife is sick now. I'm afraid that this means that I'll get sick again as her condition improves. Maybe we'll play ping pong with this cold until we can lure some poor sucker into the apartment, then kick him out as soon as he's received the Hyacinth Domestic Virus. Or perhaps we can give it to the cats.
Anyway, I've done almost no comics-related internet reading lately. I've been on the internet fleetingly, but I've spent most of that time looking at stuff related to MMA and the NFL, since sporting events are time sensitive in a way that comics generally are not. I've also been reading Douglas Wolk's book, which seems like it might finally be generating some conversations on the internet. This would be an improvement over the shit I was reading immediately before I got sick, but somehow I don't think the people arguing Marvel vs. DC are the same ones considering Grant Morrison's ability to write for his artists, even though they're precisely the ones who could most stand to consider such questions.
Also I should point out that my schedule's just gone through another massive change, and I'm not sure how it's going to affect this blog yet. Well, I can say that posts probably will retain or increase their current frequency. And yes, I'm still planning to do more on Liefeld. I was just afraid of the potential bio-feedback that would result from mixing New Mutants with cold medication. Maybe it would have made for a better reading experience, but it would have violated the scientific principles that govern my writing at this blog. If anyone else wants to borrow the idea, though, I'm happy to let it go.
More later today or tomorrow.
Anyway, I've done almost no comics-related internet reading lately. I've been on the internet fleetingly, but I've spent most of that time looking at stuff related to MMA and the NFL, since sporting events are time sensitive in a way that comics generally are not. I've also been reading Douglas Wolk's book, which seems like it might finally be generating some conversations on the internet. This would be an improvement over the shit I was reading immediately before I got sick, but somehow I don't think the people arguing Marvel vs. DC are the same ones considering Grant Morrison's ability to write for his artists, even though they're precisely the ones who could most stand to consider such questions.
Also I should point out that my schedule's just gone through another massive change, and I'm not sure how it's going to affect this blog yet. Well, I can say that posts probably will retain or increase their current frequency. And yes, I'm still planning to do more on Liefeld. I was just afraid of the potential bio-feedback that would result from mixing New Mutants with cold medication. Maybe it would have made for a better reading experience, but it would have violated the scientific principles that govern my writing at this blog. If anyone else wants to borrow the idea, though, I'm happy to let it go.
More later today or tomorrow.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Bleagh
Sorry. Been sick. Will post when I'm feeling better. No music video non-content content--want to go lie down again....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
