I hope all of your are busy working on your selections for Obscure Comics Month. Remember to send me links if you do decide to take me up on the challenge (cmautneratcomcastdotnet) so that I can post them here for all to read.

On to this week’s interview.

If you can’t stand my writing and wonder what in god’s name made me think that I could ever write halfway decently about comics, blame Tom Spurgeon. It was thanks to him that I got a freelance gig writing reviews for The Comics Journal, and his friendship, advice and honesty about my writing (good and bad) over the years has always been a source of encouragement to me.

So, yeah, I owe the guy. Doing a lengthy interview with him doesn’t really offer much karmic payback, but I’ve always considered him one of the smartest folks in the room where comics are concerned, so it’s always worthwhile to hear what he has to say on the given subject. Plus, he’s pretty funny.

Q: This is for the critic column, so we’re going to be talking about comics criticism today.

A: Oh great.

Q: Don’t sound so enthused.

A: I’m fired up man. C’mon!

Q: In preparing for this, I realized I don’t know much about your background before you started working at the Journal. So tell me a little bit about your biographical details and how you got into this crazy gig.

A: It’s exactly like Batman, except that it’s food and fantasy geek activities instead of exercise and criminology. And my parents weren’t shot to death. But other than that it’s exactly the same.

You want my background up until when?
(more…)

I interviewed Tom Spurgeon earlier this week for the column, but I’m way behind on transcribing our talk, so you’ll just have to put up with more of my meandering ditherings for another Sunday. The interview will be up next week for sure though.

One of the things Tom and I talked about was how a lot of the online comics critics/bloggers currently in production come from the same background or entry point. In other words, most of us got introduced to comics through Marvel or DC via our local newsstand, drifted over to our local comic book shop and, as we got older, branched out into other genres and styles (or didn’t as the case may be).

As a result, I think we tend to do the sort of Monday-morning quarterbacking that Jeff Lester talked about recently. That is to say, we all end up discussing and reviewing about the same “hot” comics the day after they come out, offering endless contemplations on whether they worked or not. That’s not inherently a bad thing. In fact, it can be a healthy discussion, as well as a useful tool to gage trends and mores within the comics community. But there’s a lot of other material that gets pushed to the side as a result, and I’m not necessarily talking about the latest graphic novel from Fantagraphics or D&Q.

One of the things that Tom does that I like a lot is he’ll frequently post reviews of older comics, either from his collection or that he’s picked up at your local book sale. He’s not the only one of course. Jog’s been going gangbusters with his Choked With Comics column, Shaenon Garrity’s got her Overlooked Manga Festival, and Dick Hyacinth has been offering a great critical re appreciation of Rob Liefeld of all people. And then there’s the great Dave’s Long Box.

Still, it seems as though many comics critics/bloggers (croggers?) are stuck in the now, and not providing enough of a critical reasessment of past artists and books. I’d like to see more of the latter. I want someone to make me jump out of my chair, into my car and go pouring through the back bins of my local shop. I want an excuse to go vainly searching through Alibris.

With that in mind, I have a proposal. Sometime within the month of October, I want you, assuming you blog about comics regularly, or hell, even if you don’t, to write about a long-lost comic book, series, graphic novel, artist, writer or whatever that you feel is criminally underrated or ignored (preferably the latter). The more obscure the better. Genre doesn’t matter, nor does if the book comes from your collection or not, though I would like to see folks pick something a little out of their comfort zones for this.

No prizes will be awarded, though I will link to any and all who decide to rise to the challenge. No, you just have the satisfaction that comes with providing the Internet with some intelligent critical discourse. Oh, all right, I’ll see if I can dig up a prize of some sort. Don’t get your hopes up too high though.

I’ve spent part of the past week reading the book Blink by Malcom Gladwell. The book is about the snap judgements we make constantly throughout life and why they can often be more correct than those decisions made consciously, over a lengthy period of time.

The book talks not only about how distrustful we can be about our immediate, subconcious reactions, but also how difficult it can be for many of us to articulate the thinking process behind them. A renowned tennis expert, for example, can predict when a player will double-fault before he hits the ball almost every single time, but he can’t tell you why he knows he’s going to do so. He can’t explain why he’s always right.

Bear with me, I’m actually going somewhere with this (I think). (more…)

Time for another roundtable! For this edition, I thought we’d examine an issue somewhat related to the last discussion: Why don’t comics critics talk about the art?

That seems to be one of the consistent complaints regarding comics critics these days. That, whether due to lack of the proper vocabulary or art background, laziness, or just plain ignorance, most comic reviews seem to focus exclusively on a book’s dialogue, plot or general written elements, and avoid mentioning the art work as much as possible.

I’m not 100 percent sure that’s true. I can think of a number of critics, online and off, that intelligently and effectively discuss the art work when reviewing a particular comic or artist’s ouevre.

On the other hand, if I’m being be honest, it’s not like I myself am some paragon of reviewing virtue. I have easily and on more than occasion struggled to come up with words in an attempt to articulate a particular artist’s style or method. And certainly, when space is tight (as it frequently can be when you’re writing for print), I will more often focus on what the book is about rather than how it goes about its business.

If this notion is true, as a great number of people seem to think it is, then it’s a serious problem for serious, thoughtful comics criticism, since the visual element of a comic is its most important aspect. I decided to put the question to a number of well-known online bloggers and critics. Here’s what they had to say:

(more…)

I like to think we do a pretty good job here at Blog@ of linkblogging to most of the important or interesting items that pop up around the Interwebs. The one thing we don’t cover with any sort of regularity, however, is reviews, which of course a lot of folks online do, even if it only amounts to someone saying “this sucks.”

With that in mind, I’d like to take a look at some of the more recent online reviews I’ve come across that tickled my fancy, starting with a number of posts that have focused on the works of Grant Morrison. (more…)

It’ll have to be a short column this week. It’s late, I’m tired and there are wolves.

As I said in my very first post, one of the inspirations for doing this column was the brouhaha surrounding the arrival of Comic Foundry magazine. Specifically, their decision (nay, declaration) to run no reviews at all in their magazine. Not even a thumbs up.

Now, as far as I can figger it, they’re doing this for one of two reasons. Either A) they feel that comics criticism is a useless, elitist tool and and nobody pays attention to it anyway; or B) they figure the Internet already has that aspect of comics culture well covered, so why bother? Perhaps a little bit of both.

If the answer is A, well, I’m not sure what I can do to change their mind other than say in a rather shrill voice “Is Not!” That or repeat what Douglas Wolk said two weeks ago. (more…)

Picking up where last week’s column left off, here’s part two of my interview with Douglas Wolk, author of “Reading Comics: How Graphic Novels Work and What They Mean“:

Q: Let’s talk about superheroes for a moment.

A: Awesome! I love superheroes.

Q: Why did you do a chapter on superheroes? What made you want to address it, especially considering you don’t really focus on a lot of writers and artists who have worked in that idiom.

A: Actually, there’s the Warlock thing, there’s the Tomb of Dracula thing. It’s weird. A lot of the reactions I’ve gotten from the book have either saying I spend way too much time on superheroes or nowhere near enough time. (laughs) There’s that trap. Again, I thought it would be something interesting to talk about. There’s a hell of a lot of superhero comics being published and I read a bunch of them. It’s not all I’m interested in, but it’s something I’m interested in. And I’m interested in the way that this incredibly weird little genre has gotten to have such gigantic play in this much bigger medium.

There’s a backlash against their hegemonies that I see a lot, which is people hating superhero comics because there are so many of them and so many of them are crappy and they’re what people generally think of when they think of comics. But I think that’s still not dealing with them on their own territory. And, you know, there’s really good stuff in the genre. It’s worth talking about what it is and why it’s good. The purpose of being a critic is to try to make the world more like you. I would much rather see 40 superhero comics that I really like being published every month. (more…)

If you visit this blog regularly, or any comics news blog really, you’ve probably seen Douglas Wolk’s name crop up once or twice. That’s not terribly surprising, as in the past few years he’s become one of the most prominent comic critics around, having written for Salon, Publisher’s Weekly and, let us not forget, his now deceased blog about all things “52.”

A large part of that attention is due to the fact that he’s a clear, personable writer, able to talk about a graphic novel or a particular artist’s style in a friendly, easy-to-understand manner that nevertheless penetrates into the core of what makes their work matter (or not as the case may be).

Now he’s written a book, “Reading Comics: How Graphic Novels Work and What They Mean.” With a title like that, how could I not pounce on the opportunity to interview Wolk for this column? As he made his way through the subways of Chicago, I talked with him over the phone about his book and comics criticism in general. Having to stop talking every couple of minutes because of passing trains isn’t exactly the ideal situation for conducting an interview, but in this case I think it led down some interesting avenues.
Q: You are frequently cited as being the leading critic in the field of comics. How do you get a swell gig like that and how can I horn in on it?

A: (laughs) I’m not sure that I have that gig. I don’t necessarily think that’s a job that somebody has right now.
(more…)

One of the problems many critics — especially online critics — face in writing comics lies in attempting to describe or discuss the artwork. In fact, one of the constant complaints from a variety of factions that we don’t talk about the art enough, focusing instead on a book’s plot or dialogue.

That’s not what this week’s column is about though (sorry, I’m saving that topic for a future discussion). What I’d like to talk about today instead is a related matter and, for some, a method of bypassing the issue entirely: the question of whether or not to include art of the comic we’re reviewing in our critique.

The question may seem like a obvious or even minor issue depending upon where you stand. But it nevertheless seems to be an issue that divides a lot of people. A number of online pundits regard the inclusion of sample panels as an absolute necessity.

The implication, I suppose, is that a critic, no matter how good, is ultimately incapable of translating an artist’s unique visual style into prose. That’s a little insulting, and yet to an extent it’s also true. It can be exceedingly difficult to talk about someone’s skill with a pencil and brush, especially if you don’t have a familiarity with the sort of terms and language that, say, an art or film critic might. What’s more, including artwork from the comic in question can aid your review, giving a valuable reference point for your audience.

Yet there are a number of online critics and bloggers who offer little if any art in their reviews, myself included. Is this a lapse of judgement on our part? Or do we just lack the funds to purchase a decent scanner?

Interested in hearing what other people had to say on the subject, I emailed a group of notable online critics and posed the question to them. Here’s a sampling of what they had to say: (more…)

Hello and welcome to my own little corner of Blog@. Mind the boxes, I haven’t completely unpacked yet.

As JK said the other day, Everyone’s A Critic will be a weekly column devoted exclusively to the subject of comic book criticism. Wait; don’t hit that back button just yet. There’s good stuff down below, I promise.

I’ve been stewing over the idea for this column in the rusty kettle I call my brain for quite some time now, though it took the announced release of Comic Foundry magazine and its declared “no review” policy to push me into action.

What does it mean when a magazine devoted to comics culture decides not to run any reviews? Are we so chock full of people spouting off their opinions on the Internet that such a service is rendered negligible in print? What do we expect out of comics criticism anyway? Just “liked it/hated it” reviews or something else? What separates a well-written review from a poor one and how do we talk about comics that’s different from how we talk about film or music? Most importantly, how should we be talking about comics, if at all?

(more…)