BClayMoore

Thanks again for all the stimulating discussion, everyone.

Just wanted to drop back by and thank Josh once more. I've received a lot of direct feedback from readers and creators, so people are definitely tuned into iFanboy.

I'll be in Chicago this coming weekend, lurking in the back of Artist's Alley, so drop by and say hi, if anyone's going. Or slap me silly.

Your choice!

-BCM

Mr Beebs, I love to see conversations related to the "art" of comics.

I guess I just hate to see those conversations dominated by books created with one goal in mind: sell! sell! sell!, when there are a lot of books falling underneath the radar that are more pure expressions of creativity (for lack of a better term before my morning coffee). In other words, some people are aiming for "art," first and foremost. Sure, most of them might fail, but the goal of Dan Clowes (to use an example) isn't to top the Diamond sales charts, so he doesn't have to make compromises that hamstring his creativity.

I can't really wrap my head around comparisons between comics and other media, so suggesting Gone With the Wind is analagous to the latest issue of Amazing Spider-Man doesn't connect. I think the only thing close to an apt comparison is television. So a really good episode of "CSI: Miami" (or, looking at recent ratings, "According to Jim") would be a more logical comparison to mainstream comics.

Then again, I'd call the Stan Lee/Steve Ditko DR. STRANGE "art," or the Miller/Mazzuchelli DAREDEVIL. As stated, it's all subjective, but, sure, mainstream entertainment can enter into the discussion of "art." I don't think it happens as much these days as it once did, due to the stronger than ever corporate control over media (how often do consensus works of "art," or even attempted works of "art" top sales charts these days in any medium?), but it's still possible.  I mentioned television earlier, and the shift in focus away from strictly commercial/advertising driven content has resulted in a leap in quality, spurred by HBO and cable channels, and bleeding over into the true "mainstream."

Mr. Beebs:

"None of us would have ever heard of someone like Bukowski or Kafka if a.) a handful full of reviewers weren't championing them and, I would argue more importantly, b.) and handful of other guys didn't disagree strongly about the value of the work. The moment that abstract conversation occurs, the work is given cultural value and it's given a piece of the spotlight.  And yes, that might result in sales, but for anyone other than creators and publishers, that should be an afterthought."

Out of curiousity, how does a review of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #1,983,234 relate to that observation? Surely you're not suggesting that reviewing corporate-produced comics is akin to "creating a cultural conversation about art"?

I mean, I hear what you're saying (since it's ultimately similar to what I'm saying), but mainstream comic books are commerce, first and foremost, and their existence as "art" is a distant afterthought (if it's even a thought at all). Kafka wasn't writing twelve stories a year on a deadline, at the direction of a staff of editors, using springboards created by guys he never even met, in collaboration with whomever his editors could find to get the story drawn in time, with the sole intention of generating the highest possible return on investment.

I'm not sure what you think I'm "wrong" about, for what it's worth. You might notice that I even mention the fact that sales isn't my goal with creator-owned work. My goal is to provoke a positive reaction in a segment of the readership. I am absolutely concerned with the aesthetic merits of the work, but anonymous, open forums don't tend to generate the most articulate analysis of art.

Also, once a reviewer has identified what he considers to be "art," I do think it's his responsibility to lead others to the work in question. Surely part of being a patron of the arts is introducing said art to a wider audience.

If sales were my primary concern, I wouldn't be killing myself week in and week out to bring creator-owned books to the public.  

-BCM

It's fine to write that a book is "abysmal" online. I wouldn't do it personally (what's the point on just pissing on some poor bastard's hard work with intentionally insulting language), but it's your right to say whatever you want.

On the other hand,  unless you explain why you personally find it abysmal, and allow for the fact that others may not feel that way, then I'm not sure what the point is, except to let everyone know you hated it.

I made it pretty clear during the podcast that I have no right to come down on anyone for reviewing anything. But I think it's fair to review the reviewers, so to speak.

One thing I wished we'd touched upon more is the idea that readers are better served by recommendations (with accompanying reasoning) than negative reviews.

And, yeah, that "I don't think reviews make one bit of difference" line was too strong, I agree. I don't think reviews make a dent in sales of Millar's FF, but for books that slip beneath the radar, they can certainly help build a slow momentum.

HumphreyLee - I think you'd do well to listen to the podcast, and you'll see I don't label anything "uncritiquable." Essentially, you sum up one of my points with, "And any good reviewer out there is going to be able to at the least inflect a reasonable amount of either creative criticism, or just an understanding that whatever it is they're talking about may just not be a material suited for them despite whatever quality it has and on and on."

If you get something out of your reviews, then that's the important thing, right? A lot of creators refuse to read reviews or venture onto message boards, and at least one major company has a virtual "ignore the internet" policy, so any feedback you do get from creators should be valued.

Slimbilly - Why would I "bait" Josh? This wasn't a debate or a streetfight. It was a discussion, and a reasonable one, at that. If you listened, you might have noticed we didn't really disagree on that much. You say, "i find people who have similar tastes to mine and i listen to them about books that i would otherwise not buy." That's exactly what I agreed people should do in the podcast. 

As for "nerds who like their snark," that's great, but I think it's bad for the industry. The Romans liked to watch lions eat Christians, but I'm not sure it was a good thing.

I'll never understand how such a large contingent of comics fandom devolved into a gang of bloodthirsty spectators looking for a fistfight.

Anyway, thanks for the time, Josh. I think it underscored the value of a good podcast. The chance to discuss things reasonabty with good back and forth, and to explain a little more clearly where I'm coming from (and upon which experiences I base my opinions) was valuable. It was fun.

-BCM

Yes, interaction is good on topics like this.

As an aside, if anyone returns to this thread, I'm thoroughly impressed by the level of discourse here, prior to my post.

Aside from the "Spawn sucks" comments, I find myself surprised by the lack of knee-jerk reactionary criticism, and by the thoughtful consideration of the issue at hand.

I'll try to spend more time here in the future. 

 -BCM

Josh-

I'd be glad to discuss this on the show sometime. The discussion has been spun in so many directions in so many places that it's pointless to drag it out here.

A few points, though:

Uninformed criticism is completely useless.

Criticism should have a purpose.

Criticism is strictly opinion-based, and should be presented as such, particularly in comics, which has never been able to establish anything resembling consensus on what constitutes "quality."

Name-calling? If a reviewer is going to dismiss the blood, sweat and tears of creators with snarky, smart-assed comments, then he's fair game. Critics shouldn't operate in a protective bubble. The fact is that a HUGE majority of people who call themselves online critics do their job poorly, since there's no one holding them to standards of accountability. It's only fair to pull back the curtain on some of these folks.

My little rant had nothing to do with reviews of HAWAIIAN DICK, which is usually well received. I was using that as an example, because if the creators of a creator-owned book accomplish what they set out to do, qualitative assessments by readers don't serve much purpose. "I didn't care for this book because...." is fine, of course. But, no...the new DICK has been better received than I expected, considering the shift in art style might have been jarring to some readers.

The rant was spurred by a snarky, useless review of a Steve Niles book that I haven't even read, although one of Hannibal Tatu's inane little summations pused me along.

If you know me, you know I don't sugarcoat things or bullshit. Anything I say in public is a massively watered down version of what you'd hear from countless creators on a daily basis if they knew what they were telling you stopped with you.

My biggest problem with so many reviews is that they just add to the sometimes overwhelming cynicism that seems to pervade online "media." I would LOVE to see Newsarama disable their talkback forums, and see what impact that had on the general mood...

 -BCM