Do reviews matter, Melrose asks...

And I answer (even though his comments thread cuts to the quick faster than I will):

Maybe.

In the article Kevin links to, some quotes can easily be taken out of context and applied to the comics realm, like this one:

Commercial and critical sensibilities often run counter. Critics tend to savor high-minded drama and artistic production, while the average male viewer might rate a movie for its explosion and babe factor.

Like others have said, it's almost necessary for a reviewer (in some cases) to look at books that will let readers share a common reference point. For example, I know Augie De Blieck's taste in comics and mine are almost completely antithetical, to the point where if he pans something, I may look around to see what others who seem to share my tastes are saying about it . Or, conversely, if Greg McElhatton piques my interest in something, I've got an 80% chance or so of digging it.

At this point, however, I'm so indoctrined in the whole comics "thing" that reviews, on the whole, have no effect on what I buy. Right now, I read reviews of books that I like, or reviews by people who I just like reading, for whatever reason. And therein, I think, is where the problem is born - my patterns can be so rigidly set that a review, positive or negative, has little effect on my buying habits.

As to reviewing books that generate a common reference between the reviewer and the reader... I'm of two minds on it. My more optimistic side rationalizes it with the hope that someone swinging through a site looking for something more popular may end up checking out some relatively undiscovered gem. Then again, I'm not a optimist as a rule, so that leads me to my gut reaction - in some cases, reviewers are in it for one thing. It's not about discussing the work, putting it in a frame of reference, or anything remotely related to engaging comics on a critical level. There are times it's not even the joy of fangasm, just spreading the love of comics from ISP to ISP.

No, I'm thinking it's sometimes about the hits.

Look at us - we've all got our little hit count tracker things on our blogs (or, at least, many of us do). And there are some among us who, I'm guessing, are doing it simply for the attention - I'm thinking back to the delinking of a political blog thing from a while back.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. It's not a judgment call - let he who is without sitemeter cast the first ping, or something. But sometimes, I just want something fucking more. So, thank you, Kevin, for your too sporadic reviews. Thank you, Greg and Johanna, that showing that taste can be both catholic and critical. Thank you, Steve and Rose, for pointing out things one doesn't often find in comics discussion. Thank you, Dave Fiore, because even though you don't exactly review individual comics, and even though I rarely agree with your stand on the issues, I simply adore your zeal, your passion, and your analytical eye. Thank you, Alan, not only for showing me the way back to good comics after I had been away, but for introducing "arctic shit-knife" into the lexicon, and for being willing to stand firm to your positions (even though I don't always agree with them). Thank you, Chris Butcher for looking not only to the comics out, but the comics yet to come, and for turning me on to new and exciting things.

Hell, thanks to anyone who can passionately write about comics without regressing to some kind of obsessive, aggressive, this-is-how-it-has-always-been-and-how-it-should-always-be in regards to certain golden calf characters. Thanks to those willing to leave their baggage at the door, or at least spruce it up before checking it with the flight crew. Thanks to reviewers who know better than to write, "well, if they'd just LET ME WRITE THE COMICS, I COULD MAKE THEM SOOOO MUCH BETTER YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE." Your passion is contagious, and I'm hoping to be infected again soon.