the Lottery Party: Zounds!posted on August 26th, 2009 in
columnsIn recent weeks, I have been excessively harsh in my ongoing critique of business models and practices of this funny book industry us cool kids obsess over, I admit. I have taken shots at lackadaisical retailers, the gross monopoly of our current distribution system, the hypocrisy of the larger publishers and the incompetence of oh too many of their editors, and have apparently upset certain creators and behind the scenes folks in the doing. To continue my line of thought to the next logical progression, I am turning my steel gaze inward. I am putting what I and ComicNews.Info do under the same damn scrutiny.
And I promise, this will be somewhat interesting.
The longtime readers may know that my writing background began with assorted articles and essays, for print and online media. My first contributions to this site (way back in 1823) were in the form of the occasional news story, which eventually led to my writing this here magical bi-weekly column. Along with faithfully maintaining this schedule, I have reviewed a wide range of materials, and have found myself currently in the role of lead interviewer. Now, I have learned a tremendous amount since I began my path in comics journalism, and believe it or not I am actually humble enough to know that there is still a world of lessons yet to be learned. So this time around I feel obligated in sharing my own take on comics journalism, as there seems to be a bit of a debate going on elsewhere as to its place in the proper scheme of things.
I made the decision early on, to never promote anything from either DC or Marvel. I have been criticized for this on many occasions, but I stand by my guns. However, the editorial pool hereabouts are not prone on enforcing rules on our contributors, as such may stifle anyone’s voice. I myself have never reviewed anything from the big two, and plan on continuing this course. Here’s why. Marvel and DC get plenty of attention elsewhere. Any given week you can find dozens upon dozens of articles and blogs about X-this or Bat-that. I would rather give the space to underdogs, especially the ones not getting the limelight that they so painfully and obviously deserve. A problem with this, is that though the intentions are good and true, few seem to give a flying rollerskate. The big names are what get the hits. It bites, but that really is how the story always seems to fly. People have to go with what they know, as most are generally petrified by anything and everything new and/or different.
Where regards my interviews, I tend to prefer to focus on the creators themselves as opposed to any singular work. Many writers and artists though, can often be heard griping about how every interview given is the same, a list of unoriginal questions answered over and over again ad nauseum. I try to keep mine interesting, to the point of refusing outright to send anyone a list of questions. I think the dialogue stays much more organic and real when things are handled one at a time. And dammit if I don’t think my system works. Regardless, I am not interviewing Brian Bendis or Jim Lee, and my fanfare of nonexistent hit counts testify well to the results.
With reviews, I think I could write a book on the do’s and dont’s. At least a novella. Reviews are arguably sales pitches for or against unto themselves, and I have seen time and again that a negative review can affect sales as richly as a positive one. If only more smaller publishers could understand this. It is awkward at times, when some creators get so offended by a bad review, no matter how honest and constructive it may be composed. Sometimes, I suspect some folks expect a miracle. In representing the site officially, it is never a welcome thing to see someone shut us out over not enjoying a singular work, but the maturity levels of all adults are not always in keeping with each other. Personally, I try to never write specifically for or against, as either way is the biased route, but then again that is a narrow walkway. To dryly relay the events and datum of a book is another problem, as it will scare the reader away into a fitful sleep. So the middle ground, of choosing books worthy of attentions (and again, those that are not getting any elsewhere), coupled with an attempt to write the review in the style of the comic in question, has for me settled in as a base approach. Still, for every thank you I receive, or notification of how sales were thusly helped, there is an equal number of publishers no longer willing to have their works read by me.
With comparable sites, I and my fellow teammates here receive a royal mess of press releases, which I have never been much of a fan of running. If a company wants us to post an ad for them, why not just purchase adspace from us? This goes for previews as well. In the few and far between exceptions that I run any myself, I at least rewrite the damn things, even if the book chosen is one that no other site is acknowledging all that much of. And besides, original content is always better than the alternative.
I do not think that I do things right, or necessarily wrong for that matter. I do what I do objectively, always. I am indeed honest to a fault. And at times, it really feels like I am alone on an island writing for my own pained amusement, like some sado-masochism by way of the written word. Sometimes there are beliefs I really try earnestly to present, causes I aim hard to push, facts I try to hold up to the eyes of others; and more often than not, it feels like I am playing to an empty room.
Is it frustrating, co-editing a site with over a dozen contributors, more than half of whom do not so much as touch base with any regular occurrence? Yes. But I do know, we all have lives to live, and the passions of some cannot be met by others. And passion is what so much of comics journalism boils down to. Unless you are actively playing Uncle Tom, jumping however high the masters tell you to jump, pushing whatever rubbish comes your way, then you run this same risk of standing against not merely a stream, but at times a raging current. Ineptitude knows no bounds in the wideness of its reach.
I wish at times that I could run more of a well-oiled machine. I wish the rest of our staff here were as drunk on comic book love as I tend to be. I wish folks who write for other sites who put far less thought into what they do regularly were more interested in stopping to ask why on occasion, or at least bother with a little originality, maybe even some random fact checking. But then, if standing in line for the chance to overlook someone like Joe Quesada contradicting himself yet again is solid comics reporting, then I could honestly care less. My passion compels me to shoot from the hip. And I will continue to do just that, because I absolutely love every aspect of it.
And for something completely different, a great big wave from across the room to the good John Morrow, of TwoMorrows. Some six weeks or so back, life saw fit to have my dumbass relocated, and my Marvelman-centric issue of Alter Ego was lost in the nexus of the United States Postal System. John was kind enough to promptly send out a fresh copy to my current lodgings, and on his own dime at that. As for TwoMorrows, the various books and collections that his company releases every month are an ongoing series of love letters to the history of this fantastic medium of sequential art, and all parties interested should really check them out. Especially the afore-mentioned Alter Ego magazine, edited by the legendary Roy Thomas.
Richard Caldwell - Managing ?
Posts
