Quick link to something not comics related

I just read something that irritated me. Maybe it will irritate you, too.

CBS: Alabama Bill Targets Gay Authors

Republican Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen says homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under his bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.

Or, for a snarkier look:

"We have to protect people."

For the record, this could bar authors like Truman Capote, Walt Whitman, Arthur Rimbaud, Allen Ginsberg, Oscar Wilde and Tennessee Williams from public school libraries, to name just a few.

Review: A STRANGE DAY

The review pile gets whittled down slowly...

A Strange Day
Written by Damon Hurd
Illustrated by Tatiana Gill
$3.95, Alternative Comics/Origin Comics

A Strange Day focuses on Miles and Anna, two teenagers who meet when they play hooky from their respective schools to buy the latest Cure album. They trade stories from their lives, make observations on the world around them, and connect in the way only adolescents seem to do. Boy meets girl, simple as that.

Where Hurd's My Uncle Jeff succeeded through autobiography, A Strange Day works because it feels universal, the way the most memorable stories about high school do--there's a reason why kids today can rent The Breakfast Club and empathize with the archetypal characters. Hurd concentrates on the awkwardness and unease of adolescence, and uses miscommunication in a way that doesn't seem forced. The only dialogue that felt particularly clunky was when Anna explains mall-walking to Miles.

In a way, this story works better because it was illustrated by an artist with a loose, less formal style. Here, Gill takes Hurd's grounded story and adds something that reminds you that this is a comic book--as much as I enjoyed My Uncle Jeff and A Sort of Homecoming, there was something in Camello's art that would have been out of place here. Instead of just drawing Hurd's story, Gill is drawing "adolescence" as a visual. This isn't to say that there's no sense of realism in the art. I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, but the depictions of both Miles and Anna oscillate between attractive and unattractive the way real people often do. Gill also handles the character's body language well, drawing evocative gestures without making them "cartoony."

I normally avoid discussing lettering, but the lettering of A Strange Day is worth noting. Throughout most of the book, the lettering is scratchy and unpolished, but that doesn't take away from the story. There are a few points where a different lettering style is used to good effect--the cover and title pages capture the look of hidden teenage notebooks, for example. The most striking use of lettering, though, is demonstrated in the copious quoting of songs from the Cure. The lyrics are thicker, bolder and often larger than the speech balloons, and fill up panels the way music fills the space in which one listens to it.

A Strange Day isn't a heavy work--it's not dealing with the things Hurd often writes about. In the forward, Hurd asks the reader to "open this book as the sixteen year old that fell in love at first sight and took themselves all too seriously. You won't regret it." I didn't go into A Strange Day in that frame of mind, but the book put me there--it's a slight but charming comic that would probably appeal to readers of Tom Beland's True Story, Swear To God.

Last convention stuff (at least, until MoCCA)

As I planned earlier and forgot, here's the list of things purchased at Pittsburgh:

Minicomics:

• Gateway, Just Us Grrls, Gello Apocalypse (two unnumbered minicomics of the same title), Bitten - Shawn Atkins
• Isolation Chamber (issues 1 and 2), Deviant Funnies (issues 1 and 2) - Ed Piskor
• bottoms up - Danielle Corsetto
• Compass (ashcan preview) - Traci C. Spencer
• Hideous: A Monster Romance, Obsessive Crush - Pat Lewis

Comics:

• Fractured Kisses (romance anthology) - Moonation Comics
• Twenty First Century Romances (another romance anthology) - Well-Defined Productions
• Lackluster World - Eric Adams
• Yets! - Mike Bocianowski

Books:

• The Smithsonian Collection of Newspaper Comics - Edited by Bill Blackbeard and Martin Williams

It seemed like I bought more than that (as I said, I'm not as good a shopper as my conmates, but I will be next time, dammit). Obviously, I haven't read anything yet, but maybe some of these will make it to that way tardy review pile.

There is one thing I looked at, and that's the sketch Mike Bocianowski did for my dalmatian sketchbook. As I mentioned earlier today, Jason Richards has me wanting to blog my sketches, so I'm going to do that.

SPX 2003

Scott Dalrymple (Fade From Blue):



Tom Beland (True Story, Swear To God):



Pam Bliss (Dog & Pony Show):



Pittbsurgh Comicon 2004

David Mack (Kabuki):



MoCCA 2004

Jim Rugg (Street Angel):



Rich Watson (Rat: A Love Story):



Pittsburgh Comicon 2005

Mike Bocianowski (Yets!):

Back from Pittbsurgh, late with reviews

Since I'm a perpetually lazy blogger, I didn't get those reviews done yesterday, nor did I blog about the surprisingly excellent Pittsburgh Comicon (but David and Rose already did).

Pittsburgh has always been a strange show for me, both in terms of scope (the guest list is always very, very hit and miss) and outside factors (one year, I had to leave early for family stuff, and last year I had to leave in the middle of the show to get a replacement battery for the video camera work sent me for filming purposes). Rose, Steven and David were such great company that I not only enjoyed the show, but stayed at the show almost all day.

Originally, I had planned to do a list of things I had purchased at the show, but all that stuff is at home. Almost everything I bought was local minicomics, because I learned too late how to maximize my dollar at a retail-oriented show (MoCCA and SPX are retailer-free shows). Watching David, Rose and Steven shop, I learned that it's surprisingly easy to get good deals on most independent and small press trades and graphic novels, as they don't seem to move very well for the more mainstream stores--there was lots of great stuff in the $5 trade bins, including Scooter Girl, various Ait-Planet Lar trades, A Few Perfect Hours, When I'm Old and Other Stories (which I forced David to buy), and others. Of course, there were also plenty of really crappy things available (I always forget how many comics got their names from simply juxtaposing two random words--BRAINCHILD! DARKLIGHT! MINDNIGHT! I don't remember specifics, but that's about right). I'm sure I'm going to hate some of the things I bought, but at least I know for next year that travelling retailers are not the devil I once thought them to be. I do regret not taking up Steven's find of getting the Thor trade that had the first appearance of Beta Ray Bill, Shawn Hoke's favorite space donkey, and not budgeting better in general, but I've learned my lesson, and I'll make sure to search for deals first. Also, I found a retailer to order from the next time I'm looking for old and independent stuff--Mostly Independents, which I think is where David snagged his Even A Monkey Can Draw Manga from.

Now that Jason Richards is blogging his sketchbook, I'll make sure to do my doggie sketchbook at some point soon, because the one I got this weekend really is all sorts of ass-kicking.

Another quick link: On Reviewing

A site I had previously dismissed, Comic Foundry, has posted an interesting conversation with Tom Spurgeon on reviewing comics and comics criticism.

There's a lot of good stuff in there. Here's just one bit:

You should consider it a great thing if people are combative in response to something you're written; it's a really high compliment, similar to the compliment you paid to the art in question by choosing to write about it. I would say that you want to get to the point where your reviews speak for themselves, and not get mired in a back-and-forth argument. That's sort of how I feel about the Internet generally, now. There's an assumption online that if someone says something you have to counter it or that other person wins! But they're not filing a brief in court that demands a response; they're just trying to get you into an argument. In most cases, life's too short.

I'd make a "Spurgeon wins" comment, but that would throw everything out of whack.

There's links after the self-indulgent whining.

I haven't been posting lately, mostly because I was disappointed regarding my graduate school rejection. I've come to terms with it, though, and now I've learned that when I reapply next year, I probably should apply to more than one school. Also, I should not rush out a sloppy, crap-filled portfolio for the next round of applications.

Of course, the wife buying me The Complete Peanuts 1955-1956 and The R. Crumb Handbook as a thank you for helping her with some things cheered me up--the woman knows the way to my heart.

In any case, I've been grumpy and busy at work, so the reviews I've promised are still delayed. Reviews always take me longer than anything else, for some reason. I'd say that A Strange Day and Lunch Hour Comix should be reviewed by Monday at the latest.

• I guess as up on what's coming out from Speakeasy Comics as I should be. But former CWN columnist Erick Hogan has a book coming out through them, evidently. I'm going to have to buy it based on the cover alone:



Not only is it pretty, but it has a dalmatian. Hogan, you also know the way to my heart. I had to pester Hogan for more information after seeing this--he gave me the solicit:

Welcome to Megalotroplis, where superheroes battle for truth, justice, and top story on the evening news.

Alpha Major was Megalotroplis' biggest hero... until now. Everything changes when a young upstart, Diesel, arrives on the scene to steal the spotlight. Embarrassed and ashamed, Alpha goes into hiding until he meets a young boy that teaches him the true meaning of being a hero.

It doesn't sound groundbreaking, but it might be good pop comics, and it has art that Hogan described as coming from "Sam Keith's bastard digital son." Hero@Large is expected to drop this August from Speakeasy Comics.

• Speaking of former columnists, Broken Frontier's former columnist (and somewhat current blogger) Matt Maxwell has a new column published semi-regularly at the Isotope Lounge called "School of Hard Knocks." Even though I really have no desire to make comics, his column is an interesting look at his learning curve.

• Hey, I just noticed that Shawn Hoke has posted his review of the R. Crumb Handbook.

• I was talking to some people recently regarding the quality of the writing in the comics blogosphere, and it got me wondering... Am I missing anyone? Who should I be reading for the quality of the blog itself, and not just the content? I'm looking for anything interesting to read, no matter what the focus is--engaging writing is engaging writing, even if it's about something I'm not very interested in. For example, as much as I disagree with a lot of what he writes, Don Simpson has been making really thought-provoking posts lately.

• If you live in or around the Toronto area, this might be worth checking out: An Evening with Warren Ellis.

• I don't usually play the referral game, but it did tickle me that someone came through with a She-Hulk Haiku search. The low class porn search was less pleasing.

Quick links and Eisner predictions

• So, next weekend is the Pittsburgh Comicon. The attendees are still generally not worth getting excited over, but Jim Rugg has recently signed up for a table, so yay for that. What I'm most looking forward to is meeting up with a few blogger people.

• While I'm on the convention tip, all the APE related posts around the internerd have me really looking forward to this year's MoCCA Arts Festival. Somehow, I missed that the preliminary line-up has been announced. Until recently, it seems lighter than last year's show, but more exhibitors have been announced since I last scoped the list.

• So, the Eisner nominees have been announced. Go check out the full list.

Back when I was in college, my Film as Lit. professors always ran an Academy Awards contest as extra credit--the person closest to the final result got five points or something towards the final grade. Since then, I've done similar things on and off just for kicks. I should mention that I'm never, ever close. But that's not going to stop me from sharing my predictions. These aren't the winners I would necessarily choose, but the ones that I think will come out on top.

Best Short Story: “Glenn Ganges: Jeepers Jacobs,” by Kevin Huizenga, in Kramer’s Ergot 5 (Gingko Press)

Best Single Issue (or One-Shot): Eightball #23: “The Death Ray,” by Dan Clowes (Fantagraphics)

Best Serialized Story: Astonishing X-Men #1-6: “Gifted,” by Joss Whedon and John Cassaday (Marvel)

Best Continuing Series: The Goon, by Eric Powell (Dark Horse)

Best Limited Series: DC: The New Frontier, by Darwyn Cooke (DC) (I had a hard time between this or We3, but I think Cooke will take it.

Best New Series: Ex Machina, by Brian K. Vaughan, Tony Harris, and Tom Fesiter (WildStorm/DC)

Best Publication for a Younger Audience: Owly, by Andy Runton (Top Shelf)

Best Humor Publication: Plastic Man, by Kyle Baker and Scott Morse (DC)

Best Anthology: McSweeney’s Quarterly #13, edited by Chris Ware (McSweeney’s)

Best Digital Comic: Mom's Cancer, by Brian Fies (www.momscancer.com/eisner.htm)

Best Graphic Album—New: It’s a Bird..., by Steven T. Seagle and Teddy Kristiansen (Vertigo/DC)

Best Graphic Album—Reprint: Bone One Volume Edition, by Jeff Smith (Cartoon Books)

Best Archival Collection/Project: The Complete Peanuts, edited by Gary Groth (Fantagraphics)

Best U.S. Edition of Foreign Material: Persepolis 2: The Story of a Return, by Marjane Satrapi (Pantheon)

Best Writer: Brian K. Vaughan, Y: The Last Man (Vertigo/DC); Ex Machina (WildStorm/DC); Runaways (Marvel)

Best Writer/Artist: Dan Clowes, Eightball #23 (Fantagraphics)

Best Writer/Artist—Humor: Kyle Baker, Plastic Man (DC); Kyle Baker, Cartoonist (Kyle Baker Publishing)

Best Penciller/Inker or Penciller/Inker Team: John Cassaday, Astonishing X-Men (Marvel); Planetary (WildStorm/DC); I Am Legion: The Dancing Faun (Humanoids/DC)

Best Painter/Multimedia Artist (interior art): David Mack, Kabuki (Marvel)

Best Coloring: Laura Martin, Astonishing X-Men (Marvel); Ministry of Space (Image); Planetary (WildStorm/DC); I Am Legion: The Dancing Faun (Humanoids/DC)

Best Lettering: Todd Klein, Promethea; Tom Strong; Tom Strong’s Terrific Tales (ABC); Wonder Woman (DC); Books of Magick: Life During Wartime; Fables; WE3 (Vertigo/DC); Creatures of the Night (Dark Horse)

Best Cover Artist: James Jean, Fables (Vertigo/DC); Green Arrow, Batgirl (DC)

Talent Deserving of Wider Recognition: Raina Telgemeier (“Smile,” Takeout)

Best Comics-Related Periodical: Comic Book Artist, edited by Jon B. Cooke (Top Shelf)

Best Comics-Related Book: Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book, by Gerard Jones (Basic Books)

Best Publication Design: McSweeney’s Quarterly #13, designed by Chris Ware (McSweeney’s)

Hall of Fame
Judges’ Choices: Lou Fine; René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo

Four will be selected from:

Matt Baker
Wayne Boring
Nick Cardy
Yves Chaland
Gene Colan
Johnny Craig
Reed Crandall
Floyd Gottfredson
Frank Hampson
Graham Ingels
Robert Kanigher
William Moulton Marston
Hugo Pratt
Frank Robbins

I hope I remember I posted this, so I can go back and see how close I was or wasn't.

• Speaking of the Eisners, check out Tom Spurgeon's commentary, if you haven't already.

Who says porn and comics don't mix?

Right now, Comic World News has an interview with Ty Gorton regarding his online petition for separating or eliminating non-comics porn from WizardWorld conventions.

For discussion purposes, here is the petition's text:

“This is a call for a clear separation of non-comic book, pornographic booths from comic book related booths at all Comic Book Conventions.

“Comic books, as other forms of entertainment, are created for all ages. Some books are for children, others for adults, while some appeal to a wide range of age groups. The issue the undersigned of this petition are concerned with is pornography that has no relation to comic books whatsoever.

“While some adult comic books feature nudity and/or sexual content, they are still comic books first. It damages the credibility and affects potential sales of comic book creators when their booths are positioned directly alongside pornographic booths that have no basis in comic books.

“In terms of the comic book industry as a whole, the casual mixing of non-comic book based pornography with comic book related booths causes widespread harm to creators. When families can no longer walk the aisles of a Comic Book Convention without worrying about coming face to face with non-comic book based pornography, it detracts from the entire industry, and makes it that much more difficult to gain momentum.

“The undersigned call for a clear separation of non-comic book based pornography booths from comic book related booths. Non-comic book based pornography should be located in a separate section that is clearly marked with warnings and easily avoidable by those people that do not want to come in contact with non-comic book based pornography.”

It is important to note that they are not asking for no porn at conventions--they just want a clear separation (that is something many of the signees failed to pick up on, or something they'd like to see added in). There is a part of me that feels that Gorton and some of those signing the petition have their hearts in the right place. Personally, I don't like the presence of porn stars at comics conventions. Not for any moral reason, really--it just kind of makes me sad. At the Pittsburgh show a few years ago, Myatt Murphy and I were talking about the porn chick a few booths down from his. I think her claim to fame was an appearance in Penthouse in the late '80s/early '90s. I'm sure those present at the WizardWorld shows are more current or successful in pornography, but there was something about that image that stuck with me: a woman selling pictures of herself that no longer resembled her to a guy for whom she was still way out of his league.

However, I can't bring myself to sign it. On the most simple level, I have no right to sign a WizardWorld focused petition, as I've never been to one, nor do I plan to in the near future--it would be disingenuous for me to do so. Oddly, it's at the small press shows--where comics-related porn is prevelant--that one is least likely to find pornography unrelated to comics.

I won't go into a "kids don't read comics, so why bother?" rant, because kids do read comics (although I would say that they probably don't read the comics some of the petition signees would want them to read, and, in some cases, they read comics that might shock some of the signees--I'm thinking specifically of certain manga titles here, and not in a pejorative way, as I tend to think kids--depending on the age and maturity level--are more capable of handling things than adults give them credit for). I also won't mention the questionable reasoning behind separating comics porn and non-comics porn--if I were concerned about parental outrage or "damag[ing] the credibility" of the creators present, I'd be more worried about people coming into contact with comics with explicit sex scenes if they haven't read the metric ton of "Bam! Socko! Pow! Comics aren't for kids anymore" slugs in newspapers across the country.

The first point I'd quibble on is the value of an online petition. Such petitions rarely carry any weight, due to the difficulty of verifying signatures. "Freddie" (187) has signed the petition, but who is Freddie? I also have the sneaking suspicion that "John Byrne" and "John Byrne, Jr." (162) is not who they say they are.

Secondly, read some of the comments signees have included:

• "JAM": A good baseball bat would help stop these xssholes!
• Dave H: Porn chicks make me wanna touch myself and the next thing I know Im looking at BENDIS!
• "John Byrne": No more porn stars at cons. Unless they're blond latinas.

To Gorton's credit, some lines have been removed already. But judging by some of those remaining, I shudder to think at what those voided lines said. These kinds of comments lessen the gravity of some of the more well-reasoned and cogent points, such as these three:

• Michael Pullmann: Nothing against porn, or even a small presence of adult stars at conventions, but comics stores have specific adult-only sections, so why not comic cons?
• Kathleen Webb: Speaking as an Archie Comics creator, what place does porn have next to work I might create? Time to remove it so parents can feel comfortable bringing their kids to the conventions.
• Lisa Lanier: I don't mind them being at the conventions, just as long as they're in a separate location exclusively for them. I think the parents who do not wish for their children to see them (or anyone who doesn't wish to) need to be able to have the choice and not stumble upon them when they're wanting to visit with various artists/creators of comics. It's distracting, and inappropriate, I feel, to have them located with everyone else.

It's a shame that points like these can be missed through the "get it the hell out of there" eruptions.

Even though I disagree with the scope of the petition, here's my suggestion for future attempts: instead of doing an on-line petition, do a group mailing. Start with a form letter, and encourage people to share actual experiences in addition to the main body of the text. This is a tactic employed by the Parents Television Council (PTC)--in fact, most of the complaints the FCC receives comes from this type of thing. While I don't agree with that group, either, their methodology has had some impact on broadcast television.

Honestly, when I'm at a show like the Pittsburgh Comicon (the only show I attend that has a comparable audience demographic and booth content to the Wizard shows), I tend to be more suprised by the "booth babes" and the attendees wearing costumes. In the interview, Gorton said:

Located on the 2nd or 3rd aisle of Artist’s Alley was a pornographic booth. The material was not comic book related. The young woman featured in the pornography also ran the booth, and to say her clothes were provocative would be an embarrassing understatement.

I fail to see how this differs from the booth babes that are standard at the more mainstream comics conventions (who, often, are wearing less clothing than the porn stars). In fact, I find the booth babes more worrisome than the pornography as it has nothing to do with the comics themselves (part of the language of the petition), but is used to draw attention to the comics. Where, exactly is the difference? Even more of a mixed message: the new publisher of Gorton's Runes of Ragnan, Silent Devil Productions, has used booth babes in the past (as I understand it), and has a picture section on their website of their mascot posing with booth babes (as well as other women--in all honesty, I don't know which are which).

I hate making slippery slope arguments--it's just bad reasoning. While my gut reaction tells me, "stop them! They'll come for Love & Rockets next--don't listen to that 'non-comics porn only' bit--it's a trap," my head is warning caution. However, some of the less vitriolic comments did make me feel like a slalom skier, so I'll share those as well:

• Ismael Cueva: Nice to look at, but there were kids around. Not to mention the perverts. Distracts attention away from the creators.

I'd wager that some of the comics creators present at the show in question were selling things appealing to the same "perverts." Fan service isn't limited to manga alone.

• Steve Vernon: Comics are for kids. That's the market base you're going to draw your future collectors and/or customers from. Don't muddy the water by mingling porn and comic conventions. Draw a line.

This comment, and others like it, are enough to give any fan of art- and alt-comics pause. It's the kind of reasoning that gets quality books like Nick Bertozzi's The Salon labelled as "smut" (well, that, and idiotic retailers). Comics, as Dave Lewis pointed out in that column I linked to a few days ago, are a medium. And, while broadcast television provides Disney's Kim Possible, it also provides Law And Order: SVU, a show definitely not for kids. In fact, this may be the one thing I can agree with the defenders of shit comics like Identity Crisis--while I'm content to say that superhero comics, as a genre, tend to work best when created with kids in mind, I wouldn't say that they should only be created for kids (and, again, my complaint with Identity Crisis had nothing to do with tone or content, but with the fac that it was a shitty comic). Extending that argument across the spectrum of comics publishing, and "comics are for kids" arguments sound like little else than hot air from people who want to control the state of all entertainment in the United States.

• Jim Clark: Having adult stars grouped in with comic creators devalues the medium.

Shit, 75% of the comics published devalue the medium.

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

• Mike Thompson: Pornography has no business in places where kids can have access. I'd be embarrassed taking my wife to a convention if this stuff is present.

For non-comics-related purposes, this would also negate: Barnes & Noble, many gas stations and convenience stores, and other venues. I would think that the responsibility to keep pornography out of the hands of children rests with the parent first and foremost.

• John Rauch: What's the point? Didn't comics used to be kid friendly?

Some still are.

• Gregory Huber: I am a parent who loves comics, and would like to get my young daughter to love them as well. But there's no way I can take her to a convention with all of the half-naked women and graphic imagery. Meeting a creator is one of the most special times to a young fan. Let's make it possible for that to happen to her and make a new life-long reader.

Ahem.

Sorry. I must have had something stuck in my abdo--I mean, throat.

• "Locelaro": Wizard, as a magazine is little more than a tabloid that victimizes the fine art of comics. Everything they do seems to cheapen comics and devalue the art. Don't buy their rag!

Ok. I agree with him. Moving on, though... As much fun as I have bashing Wizard on occaision, it may not be fair to look at this petition as an indicator of negligence on their part. One respondent, Stephan Nilson, shared the following experience on the petition:

Wizard has been good about separating the booths at the show when notified of the problem. They moved us in LA when we showed them the problems we were having because we were next to pronographic material.

Perhaps if more people actively tackled the subject while at the show, there wouldn't be as much of a need to hastily craft an online petition.

Another complaint I've heard related to the presence of non-comics porn at conventions, succinctly stated in the petition comments:

• Ted: this is a good idea, too many indy artists suffer bad sales when put beside the porn people.

This may or may not be true. As anyone who regularly reads this blog would guess, I often lament the fact that indie comics don't sell better. However, I think there's a chance that, in some cases, blaming the porn presence may be a way of passing the buck--it's much easier for a creator with a sensitive ego to think that some malicious outside force is preventing his/her comic from achieving massive popularity due to outside factors, rather than coming to terms with the idea that people just don't like or "get" his/her work.

Over at The Great Curve, CWN E-I-C Michael May shares why he signed the petition:

I support it because it's another example of how something cool and comics related is becoming diluted by something else. Conventions'll stick Kenny Baker and Lou Ferrigno off in their own section of the show, but Chanel Ryan and Taylor Wane get to peddle their wares right next to Mike Oeming and Angel Medina. Don't miss my point. I wouldn't want Dr. Phil setting up shop next to Tim Vigil either. Or a political party. Or even Gil Gerard.

At the same time, WizardWorld conventions will highly publicize the appearance of more visible (to today's audiences) stars, such as Jessica Biel, Allison Mack, and Thomas Jane when they are attending, and I don't think (but, I should admit, I don't know for certain) that they shove these stars off to some back corner or Artist Alley section. Furthermore, would a strictly-comics convention be enough to draw a sizeable audience? Take the San Diego Comic Con, for example. I get Variety and other entertainment-focused periodicals for work, and I followed the coverage of SDCC. While some attention was given to comics-as-proof-of-concept, comics-as-their-own-thing, and Stan Lee, a big portion of the focus was on comics-related movies and celebrity appearances. Also, I don't know how SDCC advertises in California, but if they do TV and radio spots, and mainstream print advertising, I'm sure the exhibiting celebrities are given ample attention in the hype.

I don't mean to piss on the idea behind it as much as it may seem. There are quite a few creators who've signed that I respect and/or like (Rafer Roberts, Dave Roman, Christine Norrie, Trisha L. Sebastian and Richard Starkings, to name a few at random). Separating porn dealers and/or stars into their own section isn't a bad idea--there are just probably better ways to go about it.

As well-intentioned as the petition may be, I just can't sign it. I won't try to stop you if you feel differently.

But I may start an online petition asking you not to do it.

The "what the hell are you going on about that for?" meme thing, more self-indulgent stuff, and some links buried at the bottom..

Actually, let's get the links out of the way first. There aren't many, because I'm tired.

• Graeme fills in for the still honeymooning Shawn Hoke with a look at Or Else on the poetic tip. His regular column went up, too.

• I didn't get to it before, but A. David Lewis has an interesting primer for comics terminology directed at the fanboy set. Which is good, considering people still don't understand simple things like "criticism," yet are fully aware of nuanced language like, say, "taintpunching." Christ.

---------

Alright, memeing. Damn you, ADD. THIS IS THE LAST MEME FOR A REALLY LONG TIME. Or until I get bored.

But this one is kind of intersting, and I'm kind of self-centered, so it's a perfect fit.

List five things that people in your circle of friends or peer group are wild about, but you can't really understand the fuss over. To use the words of Caesar (from History of the World Part I), "Nice. Nice. Not thrilling...but nice.".

1. Spectator sports. Honestly, this is the biggie. I've never, ever understood the fascination people have with sports. Why do you pick your favorite team/player? How do you remember random numbers on how the 1978 Pittsburgh Pirates performed? Does yelling at the screen help in any way? Why the fuck do we televise five hours of cars going around in circles, and then how do you pick your favorite driver? You can't see them! And unless you really, really like Tide or some shit, it can't be the sponsor, right? How does three hours of that maintain your interest without plot, characterization or theme? I can watch basketball sometimes, but that's very quick and then it's like watching dance or something. Oh, and martial arts. But the football/baseball/hockey/racing thing? Right over my head.
2. Foreign films with subtitles. Two of my friends are college professors who teach a film class, and they love some foreign films. I do, too, but it helps me so much to have the film dubbed. I know, I know, that makes me bad. I just feel like I miss out on visual things when I'm reading subtitles.
3. Tech-geek stuff. Now, I have a satellite radio, but that was kind of a necessity. I've got this friend West who's deep into the gadgetry--Treos, projectors, other things I don't understand... I love listening to him talk about it because he totally gets and gets off on those things but, man, I just... I mean, new shit comes out all the time. It's got to get expensive. And I still haven't figured out all the features on my cell phone, which I only got a year or two ago.
4. "Jam bands," or whatever you call them. Some of my friends outside comics--including my younger brother--and maybe some of my friends in comics are big on those things. Will, to his credit, only vibes on the Grateful Dead for familial reasons, but others are into Phish and whatever other bands there are. To me, it sounds like what jazz would sound like if jazz decided to suck harder than Kenny G.
5. Clinging to college drinking games. Occasionally, I still get together with my boys from college (not often enough, sadly). Here's the thing, though--they still insist on playing beer pong, asshole, or whatever other games people play to drink more. I didn't even like that when I was in college. Of course, this could have something to do with the fact that I'm utter shit in the way of any competitive game not revolving around trivia. Now, I'll play, just to stay involved, but I don't get into it.

To add to the list, here's five things I can't understand why some people I roll with don't go all gaga over:

1. Hip hop. I just don't get why people don't go apeshit when they hear Slick Rick, KRS-One, Common, the Roots, De La Soul, Mos Def, and tons of other MCs and groups.
2. Comics that don't revolve around superheroes (or, on the same note, comics aren't done by people who'd really rather be doing superheroes). Again, this is an obvious one.
3. Jazz music. Again, how do you not go nuts over Mingus, Parker, Davis, Monk and countless other brilliant fucking musicians? ARGH!
4. Asian food. Outside of my wife, no one in my new in-law related family will eat the stuff. Why can't they see that it tastes much better than the meat/fish-potato product-corn trinity of bland that they eat almost daily?
5. Musicals. Seriously. How can you not love Guys and Dolls? Or Cabaret? A Chorus Line? Bastards have no joy in their hearts.

And if I'm going to be a totally self-indulgent wanker, here's the "three french hens" thing also stolen from the thuggish, ruggish Doane:

TEN random things about me:

10. Like Alan, I have a terribly keen sense of smell, of which smoking for eight years hasn't cured me--it still remains an almost burdensome sensory experience.
9. If I had a bunch of free cash, I'd likely be covered from neck to ankles with tattoos, with some space left bare for aesthetic purposes. Right now, I have four tattoos, but one of them took over 24 hours to do. And I'm down to four piercings, not counting my ears because I can't wear earings in them without the holes stretching back out to the size of the half-inch spacers that used to be in them.
8. There are some movies I have memorized from beginning to end.
7. Thanks to the odd life skills my father taught me, I can pick locks and get out of handcuffs without thinking about it.
6. When I was little, I'd dream about Freddy Krueger. Except, instead of trying to kill me, we'd play chess and talk about books. In fact, the only horror movie that gave me nightmares was Troll, which may be the most embarassing thing that I'll ever admit.
5. There's never been a dog that wasn't friendly towards me. At least, as of yet.
4. Speaking of dogs, I sing songs to all my dogs, regardless of where I am or who's with me. Yes, even to the deaf one, who still looks at me like I'm a moron despite the fact that he can't hear how moronic I really am. He's smart like that.
3. I'm still not used to being married, or to living out in the middle of nowhere. It's probably why I spend so much time talking comics on-line.
2. I'm terribly introverted, and have to force myself to be extroverted--often, obnoxiously so--to get by in social situations.
1. I could read before I was potty trained. Admittedly, I potty trained late--embarassingly late--but I was reading by two.

NINE places I've visited:

I'm a shit traveller, so...

9. NYC.
8. Sauk Centre, Minnesota (boyhood home of Sinclair Lewis!)
7. Philadelphia, PA
6. Pittburgh, PA
5. Orlando, FL
4. Panama City, FL
3. Detroit, MI
2. Washington, D.C.
1. I've actually run out of places, I fear, but since I drive everywhere, there's probably points in-between I could mention.

EIGHT things I want to achieve in life:

8. Like Graeme, I want to learn to ride a bike. I've never learned.
7. I'd like to write some stories, books and/or poems that I like for more than five minutes.
6. At least one moment of pure bliss.
5. At least one moment of gut-wrenching sorrow.
4. Get my Masters and, eventually, my PhD.
3. Help someone else achieve greatness.
2. Meet more of the beautiful fuckers I've met on-line.
1. If I'm to stay in this general region, I'd like to find something to keep me amused.

SEVEN ways to win my heart:

7. Know your shit. I don't care if your shit isn't my shit, but if you can talk for hours about something and hook me because you have it down, I'm yours.
6. Moreover, be passionate about something.
5. Show me new and wonderful (or grotesque) things. Amaze me.
4. Tell me when I'm being an asshole or an idiot. I like honesty.
3. Gain the trust of my dogs.
2. Never, ever kiss my ass for any reason. Well, figuratively. If literal butt kissing is your thing, that doesn't bother me quite so much.
1. Be yourself. God, that sounds Chicken Soup for the Soulish more than Polonius when phrased that way.

SIX things I believe:

6. That all social interactions, to some extent, mirror canine pack mentality and/or high school social strata, which probably indicates some primeval mammalian societal law.
5. That language has power and beauty, from the most polished prose to "improper" colloquial phrasing and from the pretty words to the vulgar.
4. That one can manifest change through sheer will.
3. That cience is can be art, and art can be science.
2. That hallucinogenic drugs saved me from needing therapy for a few years.
1. That Ally McBeal was great fucking television.

FIVE things I'm afraid of:

5. I fear my wife's inevitable breakdown when our one dog dies, as he is absolutely without question her dog.
4. Getting old and, more specifically, getting Alzheimers.
3. Honestly? Not being liked. Yeah.
2. That my marriage will fail, meaning that I spent five years or so in the sticks for nothing.
1. Medical things--specifically, being in a hospital, having blood taken or having blood pressure taken.

FOUR of my favorite things:

4. Learning new things.
3. Books of all types.
2. Black coffee.
1. My dogs.

THREE things I do everyday:

3. Drive somewhere. Anywhere.
2. Pee! I've a bladder like someone who pees a great deal.
1. Drink coffee.

TWO things I'm not trying to do right now:

2. Watch As The World Turns with my wife. My soap operas are better.
1. Dwell on the potential for some bad news.

ONE person I want to see right now:

1. My little brother.

Making an "April is the cruelest month" comment would be cliche, but...

it seems to be breeding something, and it isn't lilacs...

Lately, it seems that people can't seem to get along when talking about comics (and this, of course, isn't new, or April-centered, but...). Whether the topic is sacred cows or corporate comics crossovers, or whatever gets people feeling hot and bothered.

Are there sacred cows in comics? I'm not sure if there are--I can't think of any one creator that is universally praised. Both Jim and Johanna's posts (and comments following) make for interesting reading on what is, by nature, a touchy subject. One thing Johanna said stuck out for me:

Jumping down to comment #19, I find the sentence "I continue to praise Morrison and Bendis because I continue to enjoy everything they do." disturbing for unclear reasons. Perhaps because I like to draw a line between something good (praiseworthy) and something liked (enjoyed). They may go together, but they may not. By the same author, "my biggest shortcoming as a critic is to extend the benefit of the doubt to artists who’ve impressed me in the past, even if their current output is less impressive" is a warning reminder to not get caught up in brand names, even if that name is Morrison.

Sometime back, I expressed a similar notion--that just because someone likes something doesn't make it good--in relation to Hugh Grant movies. And the converse is also true--for example, I got into a conversation earlier today that involved me admitting that I'm not a big Watchmen fan. On a storytelling level, I'm not entertained (even if I recognize its craftmanship, importance to the medium and the superhero genre, etc.) Or, in other words, it's not a book I just want to kick back and reread multiple times.

Here's the thing: be honest. Nothing gets added to the exchange of ideas if everyone feels the need to praise the same things in the same manner (any time you feel pressed to type "wow, me three," for example)If you see a sacred cow, feel free to tip her.

But be wary--too much negativity, and people lose their patience. In some ways, I agree with what Dorian is saying, particularly in regards to the notion that the constant negativity and one-upmanship doesn't really push the discussion forward. Or, like the sacred cow discussion, the same bits of negativity repeated over and over aren't expanding the discourse either. His post lead to a few responses of the "Yay, fucking claps all around! Someone said it!" vein, including a link to what has to be the worst extended metaphor of the last week. However, this isn't taking into account a few reviews that aren't all piss and vinegar. I'm also sure there are some positive reviews out there, but they're generally done by reviewers I tend not to read. I've really got nothing to say regarding the book itself, as I don't plan on reading it. Again, though, it's the discussion of the discussion that has piqued my interest.

Over at The Great Curve, T.J. Dietsch expresses a similar sentiment to Dorian:

Personally, I'm getting a little sick of so many people complaining about the deaths of characters in comics. Yes we're supposed to become attached to these characters, but not so much that we actually mourn the passing of someone who never existed.

Except... that's not what people have been complaining about. At least, not in my experience. Perhaps T.J. and I are in different reading circles, but most of the negativity towards both Identity Crisis and Countdown to Infinite Crisis has been based on the characterization, contrived plots, forced bits and other technical issues, rather than what characters DC has decided to off (the comments thread has also taken some interesting turns).

The problem is, not all complaining done by fans, bloggers or columnists is just "fanboy whining." The "Sins Past" thing with Amazing Spider-Man irritated me--not the book itself, but the reaction to it. Reading countless comments by people who would have preferred to see Gwen Stacy raped than seeing her engaged in consentual sex bothered me a bit. In my view, that's a symptom of being too attached to fictional characters. Similarly, trying to reconcile that people hated the "retcon" in that, but adored the "retcon" in Identity Crisis confused the fuck out of me.1

The same kind of "anti-negativity" talk came up at the Isotope forum recently. In regards to two somewhat negative reviews of his work in Steven Grant's Permanent Damage, Saul Colt responds:

Wouldn't it do more help to small press publishers to either just not mention them or rather in the case of this review, instead of saying the book was "Uninspired, with the usual mediocre art, but vaguely readable in spite of that, which for ECLIPSE & VEGA is high praise." Why not say something like "This was by far the best book of the series and I can now see a steady improvement.......but it still far from great"

Neither is good but at least one is more positive.

The problem, though, is the statements have completely different meaning because, you know, they're completely different. The point of a review isn't to sell the book--that's what PR and marketing are there for (and smart PR types know how to use a favorable review). On the rare instances when I review, I try to follow Johanna's reviewing guidelines to the best of my ability.

"So, if there are no sacred cows, no official virgin sacrifices..."

Some have taken all this negativity as an excuse to focus on the positive. Kevin Church gets the gold star on that front:

Instead of disparaging something completely, I'll talk about another work that's quite nice and maybe people who've liked X will want to check it out. It's easier to tear something down and tell you why you shouldn't read it than it is to tell you why you should check out something new and different. Think of it as The High Road (Hi, Ed) Approach to looking at comics and whatever other media I end up discussing here. And for those of you worried that I'm going to become some sort of Zen saint, worry not - I'll still crack wise on occasion about a book, but in the same way I'd dismiss Everybody Loves Raymond, not how I'd go on about how horribly misguided a Ken Burns Documentary Series About Something Important could be. As the website says, Comics Should Be Good and I'll try to point you towards the ones that I like best.

Greg at Comics Should Be Good expresses a similar sentiment when he points out that "nostalgia is a stupid reason to buy a certain comic," and goes on to suggest new things for people to try. I'll admit, I don't agree with many of the titles he suggests (for example, while Shiver in the Dark is drawn pretty at points, it's a very slight read--Sayger really needs someone to write his books for him), but I think his heart is in the right place.

However, while I appreciate the thought behind the movement to The New Positivity, I personally can't leave the negativity behind. For one thing, I do take some self-absorbed pleasure in making fun of and/or criticizing things. However, that's not the real reason I can't join on the happy bandwagon--I really just don't like the implication that nothing positive can come from pointing out perceived faults in a work/trend in the industry, or that singing "Everything's Coming Up Roses" will make flowers manifest.

Here's something I will do, though, if anyone's interested in taking me up on it. I'm opinionated. I don't budge easily, and I am one of those people who'll casually dismiss something as crap. In fact, I'll probably continue doing that. However, just this once, I'm looking for good explanations to why people like some comics I haven't enjoyed (in some cases, comics I may have pissed on, either here, or at Fanboy Rampage, or elsewhere on the blogosphere). So, if you have read and appreciate something that has been pissed on here or elsewhere, here's what I want: actual, hard reasons why the negativity towards a title is unfair (from a standpoint other than "it's popular" or "it sells," neither of which necessarily indicates quality); why the comic is, in fact, good (something meatier than "but did you see that shit? It was cool. Oh, and big boobies, or something")

Suggested titles for defense:

The Gift - Raven Gregory, various artists (Image)2
Eclipse & Vega - Saul Colt, various artists (SSS Comics)3
Dead@17 - Josh Howard (Viper Comics)4
Ant - Mario Gully

I'm actually surprised that I'm having trouble thinking of more comics I've been negative towards. But, hey, it's a big comics internet, so I'll extend it out to a defense of any book that you feel is unfairly maligned. Just two bits of small print:

1. It isn't your book. Of course you like it. You made it. Also, I'd like to avoid this kind of clusterfuck.
2. Demonstrate some kind of logic/criticism/analysis in your defense. It should go without saying, but...

Depending on the response, there may or may not be a prize offered to the best defense (right now, I'm thinking of David Yurkovich's Less Than Heroes from Top Shelf, maybe some other stuff--spring cleaning!). I don't want a slug like "______ is less offensive than Boiled Angel" or something to win whatever I might give away just because it's the only response, you know?

In the meantime, go read something that blows your mind.



1. Might they be "mixing / Memory with desire?"

Sorry for that groan-inducing footnote.
2. I didn't even like the issue that had all the proceeds going to some charity. Christ, how much of a dick am I?
3. Check out a preview of one of the E&V books. The art isn't terrible, but... I just don't understand the appeal.
4. Of the three I mention, this one I like the best. Howard's style is generally appealing, but the story leaves a lot to be desired.