So, you've clicked in, and now I'm sending you away again. Such as it is with the linkblogging game.
I know apologies for not posting, and not posting a certain type of content are
lame, but work, home, health and various other things are kicking my ass, something compounded further by the distractions stemming from a pile of books ten deep and my cable system's addition of Turner Classic Movies to its lineup.
•
More Bryan Lee O'Malley love The always-lovely
David P. Welsh interviews
O'Malley in the lastest
Flipped column at Comic World News. Forget for a minute that both men are completely charming in the interview--what I dig the most is how there's not much in the way of hype in it. That kind of thing is absolutely refreshing, and makes for an engaging read--it treats the interview as a
product, and not just a marketing tool for another product.
•
Always thinking big at the beginning of a year.There's something about taking the old calendar down and putting up the new one that gets people all future-minded, as well as thinking about "the state of things."
Heidi links the hell out of another round of the mainstream discussion, prompted by comments from
Tom Spurgeon. I liked
Neilalien's summation, too, particularly his "Neilalien missed the memo: everyone but him seems to now think that showing cool characters/celebs (instead of just 40-year-old virgins and Kevin Smith monologuists) reading comics (and not just superhero comics) in movies (not superhero movies) the way they show cool characters smoking cigarettes (hooking many teens per day) is an (one) impossibly dumb idea (among thousands that could surely only help)" comment.
The whole thing is going to trickle down yet again and get even more convoluted and messy, with tons of specious arguments coming from all perspectives--that's the nature of things. It's something I'll probably come back to at some point (he types, omitting the fact that he's not posting much of anything lately), particularly in light of some of the This Will Save Comics proclamations that get invariably get bandied about when things like this are discussed. I think the short and obvious answer, though, is that whether or not "comics" "need" "saving," there isn't One Perfect Solution--things are to complex for that.
This whole dialogue may be a sign of things to come, which could be a good or a bad thing. Even if the repetitive discussion of the same topics starts to feel more old hat the longer we're involved and invested in discussing the medium, I don't think it has to be a bad thing--particularly if it helps critics and fans challenge, support, or recreate their positions and the positions of others. At the very least, some people are
promising new focuses for 2006:
Actually, that's why I wanted to talk about these lists. There's so much fracturing in comics right now, with the only things that we can all agree on being sort of horrible. I'm going to try very hard this year to open a dialogue about comics that engages the medium as a whole, rather than being 'about manga' or 'about superheroes'. I tried that a little this year, last time was talking about young OEL creators showing their influences, and that went interestingly. I dunno. I think it's a great big medium and there's good in all of it. There's crap too, and I know how you love for me to point it out.
Anyway, here's hoping that 2006 brings out the best in all of us and the medium we love, rather than just being full of doom and gloom and stupidity. Let's demand that our art be smart and our entertainment be entertaining, and let's not just keep buying things because we're not bright enough to think of anything else to do, alright?
I mean, dear lord, when
Chris Butcher comes across as the shiny optimist, you know 2006 will be at least
somewhat interesting.
On a related note, Steven Grant starts off this year's
Permanent Damage run with a giant bang:
Most independent publishers, excluding self-publishers, break down into two groups: those that want to be Marvel or DC, and those that don't want to be Marvel or DC. The former group are the ones who've bought into the myth that market presence=market success, and the way to achieve market presence is to put out a lot of different comics. The latter group are the ones who base their publishing decisions on what Marvel or DC wouldn't do. Virtually no independent publisher projects a viable independent self-image, nor do many demonstrate a coherent game plan with their publishing. Market presence doesn't mean pumping out a lot of books, especially when most of those books are half-assed, derivative or empty. It means projecting an identity that suggests dependability to customers. The right kind of dependability.
Which may be what the industry needs more than ever in 2006: publishers with "dependable" output who aren't Marvel or DC.
We're really far too complacent an industry on far too many levels, and we have no right to be. Comics still have the potential to be great, but they're never going to be great simply because we say they are or because we want them to be. They're never going to be great by being a vast ocean of ugly, barely literate tripe. Sure, there are great comics out there now, but on average they're really pretty bad. We need the average dramatically lifted.
It was hard picking out what, exactly, to pull-quote, because the whole thing is well-written and food for thought.
Even if selling you out means compromising the secret identity you've worked so hard to protect for years and years. Even if revealing your identity puts Karen herself in mortal danger. Even if you and she were lovers who nearly married years ago. Even if Karen herself is already dead, savagely killed by your most ruthless arch-enemy:
