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.