The state of comic book criticism
SolitaireRose
Posts: 1,445
(Just a note, this was prompted by a twitter discussion with Mr. Peter Rios, who is a genius at getting people to think and question this perceptions, so thank you Peter!)
Over the weekend, Tom Brevoort, editor at Marvel and Kirby Fan, said this:
“From what I can see, most reviews have no great impact on the sales of a given title by themselves. In aggregate, it’s possible to see an effect, but only in a “Rotten Tomatoes” situation where every review is similarly damning or similarly laudatory.
I’ve lamented a number of times about how I wish that there was a better standard of review available somewhere. Most of the reviews that I read aren’t what would typically be considered reviews at all—they’re more like blog postings. Not a lot of genuine critical faculties or technical knowledge or analytical thinking is applied to most reviews, it seems. They all come down much more simply to whether the reviewer liked the book or not on the most surface level.
There’s nothing wrong with any reader expressing their opinion, but I’d love to see reviews that set a higher standard. In those cases, when a reviewer’s word comes to mean something, comes to stand for something, then the reviews can have a chance to affect their readers more readily and to affect sales. You can see this with certain storied reviewers and critics of film and prose and television. And I’d love to see the same for graphic fiction.”
I tend to agree with him, as the reviews on the Big Sites (IGN, Comic Book Resources, The Savage Critics are the ones I know of) are very much like the reviews by the local movie reviewer: “I liked this, it was fun, you should read it” or “I didn’t like this, you should probably not read it.” Even on CGS and my own podcasts, they are very high level Thumbs up or Thumbs down. Now, back when The Comics Journal was a monthly magazine, or Amazing Heroes was still around, you had people trying to do reviews on a higher level.
They would get into the layout and design of pages, the literary aspects of the stories if they deserved it, and treating comics more like literature. It’s odd that now that comics are accepted, for the most part, as an art form and a form of literature, the reviews we get are more like pop-movie reviews than actual literature.
There’s nothing wrong with recommendation reviews. They serve a very strong purpose for us as consumers, and they are brought my attention to comics that I otherwise might have missed. Especially with SO many comics coming out, it’s pretty easy to miss something from a publisher who puts out 3 – 5 books a month or a creator who moves from one of the bigger publishers to a small press publisher for a idea or series he wants to own.
But, I’m looking for something deeper than I am currently getting from the comic related media. Much like how I feel that there is no real journalism about comics any more, there is a lack of real critical writing and talking about comics as an art form. I’m looking for less of the “I don’t like Jim Lee’s art” to “Jim Lee’s art is visually pleasing, but here are the reasons why his stories don’t flow properly and the errors in his panel transition.”
One of the solo episodes I am working on is a breakdown of the story “Master Race” in Impact #1 – not just saying it is a great story, but putting it in historical context, researching the storytelling style and visual tricks used, breaking it down structurally as a short story….and I know this was done in the past in comic-related magazines because I have READ articles that do it. One of the reasons I take so much time on some episodes is because I’m putting in the legwork to get as much info as I can…and I think my recent Kirby from 1962-1970 episode did SOME of this when breaking down the “Him” story in Fantastic Four 66-67 as part of my hypothesis that that is the story where Kirby decided he was done giving away his creations to Marvel.
Is it out there? Am I just not seeing it? Point me in the right direction and help me learn something!
Over the weekend, Tom Brevoort, editor at Marvel and Kirby Fan, said this:
“From what I can see, most reviews have no great impact on the sales of a given title by themselves. In aggregate, it’s possible to see an effect, but only in a “Rotten Tomatoes” situation where every review is similarly damning or similarly laudatory.
I’ve lamented a number of times about how I wish that there was a better standard of review available somewhere. Most of the reviews that I read aren’t what would typically be considered reviews at all—they’re more like blog postings. Not a lot of genuine critical faculties or technical knowledge or analytical thinking is applied to most reviews, it seems. They all come down much more simply to whether the reviewer liked the book or not on the most surface level.
There’s nothing wrong with any reader expressing their opinion, but I’d love to see reviews that set a higher standard. In those cases, when a reviewer’s word comes to mean something, comes to stand for something, then the reviews can have a chance to affect their readers more readily and to affect sales. You can see this with certain storied reviewers and critics of film and prose and television. And I’d love to see the same for graphic fiction.”
I tend to agree with him, as the reviews on the Big Sites (IGN, Comic Book Resources, The Savage Critics are the ones I know of) are very much like the reviews by the local movie reviewer: “I liked this, it was fun, you should read it” or “I didn’t like this, you should probably not read it.” Even on CGS and my own podcasts, they are very high level Thumbs up or Thumbs down. Now, back when The Comics Journal was a monthly magazine, or Amazing Heroes was still around, you had people trying to do reviews on a higher level.
They would get into the layout and design of pages, the literary aspects of the stories if they deserved it, and treating comics more like literature. It’s odd that now that comics are accepted, for the most part, as an art form and a form of literature, the reviews we get are more like pop-movie reviews than actual literature.
There’s nothing wrong with recommendation reviews. They serve a very strong purpose for us as consumers, and they are brought my attention to comics that I otherwise might have missed. Especially with SO many comics coming out, it’s pretty easy to miss something from a publisher who puts out 3 – 5 books a month or a creator who moves from one of the bigger publishers to a small press publisher for a idea or series he wants to own.
But, I’m looking for something deeper than I am currently getting from the comic related media. Much like how I feel that there is no real journalism about comics any more, there is a lack of real critical writing and talking about comics as an art form. I’m looking for less of the “I don’t like Jim Lee’s art” to “Jim Lee’s art is visually pleasing, but here are the reasons why his stories don’t flow properly and the errors in his panel transition.”
One of the solo episodes I am working on is a breakdown of the story “Master Race” in Impact #1 – not just saying it is a great story, but putting it in historical context, researching the storytelling style and visual tricks used, breaking it down structurally as a short story….and I know this was done in the past in comic-related magazines because I have READ articles that do it. One of the reasons I take so much time on some episodes is because I’m putting in the legwork to get as much info as I can…and I think my recent Kirby from 1962-1970 episode did SOME of this when breaking down the “Him” story in Fantastic Four 66-67 as part of my hypothesis that that is the story where Kirby decided he was done giving away his creations to Marvel.
Is it out there? Am I just not seeing it? Point me in the right direction and help me learn something!
Comments
Just did a quick look-see and the latest review is for Batman Beyond Universe #13. It's pretty in depth..the reviewer, while discussing Phil Hester's art, talks about his layouts, use of momentum and negative space.
I've never read reviews like the ones that used to be in the CJ or AH but I think WCBR does an above average job when compared to what's usually out there.
That's a 100% true. I've been reading comics my whole life; I'm not willing to put in the time or effort to a proper critique of a comic book.
Truthfully I believe most single issues of a comic do not deserve the time and effort a good critique would take. I can see breaking down a good/bad story arc/trade, even a particularly good/bad single issue, but most aren't worth the time to do so.
That asshole over at Comic Spectrum does a pretty decent job at trying to move beyond "I liked it/I hated it". I hear he's been at it a while now, and it's turned him into a hardened, bitter man. :)
And to be fair, there are only a small percentage of movie-goers who want that type of movie critique, but being as there are many more movie-goers than comic book readers, there are also many more movie-goers who want analytical critiques than there are comic readers who want analytical critiques. I would say there is a higher percentage of novel readers and fine art aficionados interested in deep anyalysis, but it’s still a minority.
;)
I think a lot of this has to do with how comics internet culture has changed over the past half-decade or so. It's also impossible for me to analyze any of this without bringing in my personal history with everything and how I myself have changed as a reader and consumer of comics.
To be very general, I got back into comics in a big way about 7-8 years ago, and I was thrilled to find so many detailed discussions of Grant Morrison's Batman online. The reviews were interesting too, but really I enjoyed reading and participating on message boards in which the mysteries of the series were discussed, and in which Morrison's techniques and allusions were analyzed. It was a great thrill.
Fast-forward to 2014, and basically I'm just reading comics for entertainment. There's hardly anything out there that really excites me intellectually anymore. A couple of years ago I thought Brandon Graham's Prophet was really innovative and worth thinking about long and hard... but in my opinion that series just turned into a bunch of randomness. There are still smart comics out there, obviously, but nothing really excites me to the point that I need to give it a lot of analysis.
And all across the comics internet it seems like a lot of people are feeling the same. Gone are the discussions of "What's gonna happen?" They have been replaced with pontificating about whether or not such-and-such Big Two comics character should be portrayed more like the movie version... or whether or not such-and-such creator just stuck his or her foot in their mouth... or whether or not such-and-such comic detail is sexist, or racist, or nauseatingly politically correct, or whether it matters, or whether anyone who thinks it doesn't really matter is guilty of ignoring big social issues, or... etc. etc. etc.
People are talking about the business, the industry, the politics, and the "culture creation", but they're not talking about the actual comics, story and art, with nearly as much interest and detail as they used to. Forget analyzing panel-by-panel innovation. At this point I'd just like more reviewers (and podcasters) to talk more about the actual stories and characters, without one eye always on speculative factors such as "Ah-ha! So this that happened right here in the series was probably why the last writer quit eleven months ago!"
Original Sin has been something of an exception recently, because it's gotten people to talk about the mystery of it all, discover obscure characters, and think about continuity as a living document. And I guess some people would say that Multiversity is proving to be similar in that respect. (Personally, I feel like I've read Grant Morrison do this sort of thing enough already, but... this sort of thing that Grant Morrison does DOES warrant thought and critique.) Otherwise it just seems like the comics internet is on cruise control. Comics come out, we read them but only talk about the hot-button issues that the Big Two publicity people have already PRIMED us to talk about. We don't talk about, for example, Miles Morales' relationship with Ultimate Kate Bishop. We don't talk about the tons of world-building going on in Charles Soule's Swamp Thing. We don't talk about the always improving art techniques of Francis Manapul and Stuart Immonen. But we talk about whatever nasty thing Dan Slott just said on Twitter, and we've analyzed "The Death of Wolverine" eight months before it even started, like we're NFL commentators talking about the NEXT season right after the Super Bowl, because Marvel purposely leaks news about it.
As far as critique and criticism go, while I wish there were more rigorous analysis, I don't think there's anything wrong with just saying whether or not you like a title. It doesn't need to be deep. I can't really complain about reviewers or podcasters not getting really detailed in their analysis, because personally, like I said, right now there's nothing that interests me a whole lot either. And, actually, there still are great critics out there. Greg Burgas on CBR has been doing a "Year of the Artist" column every day, providing great analysis of a ton of artists. Highly thoughtful stuff. (On the other hand, one of CBR's other columnists just wrote a column in which she admitted "This week I was thinking of writing about some comics I like, but I'm sort of still obsessed with some sexist incidents that happened in the video game industry months ago, so I'm going to write about that stuff again, even though I've already written about it before, in my column that's supposed to be about comics." I'm paraphrasing, but that's almost exactly what she said. And I agree with her political points, but at the same time it's like... You've written about comics before. You've written about them well. Please do so again and stop being distracted by video game news from months ago.)
It does seem like there's been a brain-drain, though. Years ago I listened to iFanboy a lot, and while it was never the deepest place for analysis (and that's fine! it was entertaining!), it at least had some meat to it. I listened to a few recent episodes and there's like ZERO detail of the books themselves. They review them by saying whether or not they like them, note the creative teams, which usually triggers jokes and personal anecdotes about the creators, and then they move on to the next comic review. It's like the comics themselves are beside the point or something.
I do note a huge disconnect now between my experience with reading comics and my experience with going on the internet and reading about comics. There's very little overlap now. When I'm actually reading comics, I'm still immersed in the story and the craft. The comics internet reviewing/discussion culture, however, seems less interested than ever in story and craft.
This is sort of why I like CGS Spotlight episodes so much. And Footnotes. And Murd's Time Bubble.
I am also much more interested in review and analysis of the work itself rather than reaction to what is going to be published later, and speculation about why it is going to be good or bad based on the tiny bits we have been told about it.
And I think you are right that those that are doing what they can to get us buzzing about books the books that the retailers can still order in the future are priming the conversation in that direction; and in the age of social media, where there is a huge appetite for "WHAT IS THE NEWEST THING THAT EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT THAT NEEDS MY OPINION AND REACTION???", those looking to promote and get buzz and attention find the perfect partners.
And that is not to put myself above any of it-- I have certainly been as guilty as anyone of having discussions around things we don't have in our hands to read yet. So I get where all that comes from.
But I find the most interesting discussions to have, and read, are the ones where everyone participating have read the same thing, and therefore it is about the work itself, as opposed to discussions about what a not-yet-published work should or should not be, or how it should or should not be promoted.
Unfortunately, though, when it comes to the topic at hand, *informed* criticism (and I will set the bar low: I am not talking about the credentials of the reviewer beyond being informed by the fact that THEY HAVE READ THE BOOK) of comics has to compete with all the sound and fury of the hot topic of the moment. . . which is almost never a book that is actually out. Usually, the hot topic is either a book that has just been announced to be published later, or some kind of dust up about fan culture, what decisions have been made in the movies or TV shows that haven't come out yet; or the latest bit of sniping between pros online, etc.
Those stories grab more attention because everyone gets to feel like they can participate in the discussion-- you only have to consume a tiny thing to have an opinion: a promo image, a cover image, reading a few tweets, watching a movie trailer. Two minutes later, you suddenly are expert enough to join the conversation, and so many do.
Writing about, or even discussing, the actual finished work of a comic might take buying and reading 20 or so pages of content. Not a very high bar for entry, but enough to leave a lot of people out. Suddenly there are a lot less people interested in reading and participating in such reviews, and so less of them get written, and even fewer get written thoroughly and well.
For a lot of comics, I think going over a single issue can be like discussing the 4th chapter of a novel, there are still some stories that could be handled on an issue by issue basis. Astro City, while it doesn't have the heat it used to, is still working through many of the storytelling tropes in new ways, and deserves serious discussion of what it is attempting and if it succeeds.
I have heard GREAT discussions of individual episodes of TV series, so it can be done, even with long running, episodic series that are part of a greater whole, and I feel the same can be done with comics...so, if issue #3 of the arc is part of the second act, is it building suspense? Is it stopping for character development? Is it marking time and hurting the pace?
Just because something is a single issue, doesn't mean it can't be looked at as a separate work of art: For example, Kirby's New Gods #8, The Pact is something that I feel could be discussed without the rest of the New Gods series, even thought it was all interconnected. Conversely, you can discuss Picasso's Guernica as part of his entire output, as just a part of what he was saying with his career.
Criticism is an art form, just like anything else. And as an art form, you can play with form, style and substance.
And there is plenty of schlock in the worlds of fine art and illustration, film, and literature, that was done for nothing more than a paycheck with no thought to potential impact, lasting or otherwise—stuff that is just as disposable as any comic.
Personally, I don’t think the creator’s intent should make any difference in whether something deserves a deeper look or not. Any piece of art’s real significance is going to be defined by its audience, not by its creator.
“Say what you have to say, and then stop.” Rudolph Flesch
“If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.” George Orwell
“Anybody can have ideas—the difficulty is to express them without squandering a quire of paper on an idea that ought to be reduced to one glittering paragraph.” Mark Twain
“The shorter and the plainer the better.” Beatrix Potter
“Men of few words are the best men.” William Shakespeare
Point? As long as the review doesn't last longer than it took to consume it, then I don't have a problem. I've disagreed with and agreed with those who criticize eloquently. And I've disagreed and agreed with those who merely say "it sucked" or "buy this now!"
Unlike most Mark Twain quotes, which often come from his essays or letters, when he is speaking for himself, with his own voice, any quote you see attributed as "William Shakespeare" is actually something he is putting in the mouth of a character. Usually it is dialogue for a character; and even the less-quoted Sonnets have enough contradictions in them to make it clear he is not necessarily the poetic "speaker" expressing himself.
So these characters being quoted do not necessarily reflect an opinion Shakespeare had, anymore than any other writer if you quote his character. It would be like attributing this way (to borrow some comics quotes):
"I'm the best at what I do. And what I do ain't pretty."
-- Chris Claremont
"I hunger!"
-- Stan Lee
"I'm the goddamn Batman."
-- Frank Miller
As for whether Shakespeare himself believed that men of few words are the best men? Well, we will never really know. The length of his work, and the amount his characters go on at length might suggest otherwise. The quote in context is a description of a character, Nym from Henry V. His belief that men should be of few words comes in a list of his bad qualities. And later in the play, King Henry hangs him for stealing from a church:
And that has been the Shakespeare nerd sidebar nobody asked for.
"Quiet! Or papa spank!"
-- Bill Finger
And that has been the Shakespeare nerd sidebar nobody asked for.
"Quiet! Or papa spank!"
-- Bill Finger
Feels a lot like you missed the point entirely (being a man of few words). Even if a fictional character said it doesn't make it less proverbial. In fact, I'm sure I could quote Confucious, Plato or even a number of holy books to evoke the same point. But thanks for the analysis and criticism.
It goes back to what I said earlier, in-depth analytical reviews appeal to only a niche of the comic reading public. And that’s not a judgement on anyone on either side, that’s just the way it breaks down.
Examples: Love or hate Harry Knowles at Ain't It Cool News, he has a very unique way of approaching his movie reviews. Sometimes he'll start at what he had for breakfast that morning or what was going on with his glasses that day. We may not even get to the meat of the review until a good eight or nine paragraphs. I like this style because our state of mind going into any review will no doubt affect our criticism of the subject. Sure, it's overly wordy and you need to invest yourself into reading it, but that's part of the reward, so to speak. Knowles has a good voice and eye for movies. It's worth the read, usually. And the review is more personal than most out there.
The late Roger Ebert was able to achieve the same effect with fewer words, but his real gift was simply being such an authoritative voice on movies. You might disagree with his reviews, but he left little doubt that he was speaking from a solid foundation when he wrote. Bottom line, he knows things you don't. Pay attention, whether or not you agree with him.
Equally effective was Spin's three-word review of Metallica's Load album, which simply read "Load of crap." :)
They all work, depending on what the reader is looking for. In my own reviews I've used elements of all three. A recent review of the manga Monster Musume first involves a trip by me to SDCC. We don't get into the actual review until a few paragraphs down. On the flip side, my editor at IGN still loves the review I did for Pirates vs. Ninja, which simply stated "It took five people to write something this awful." :)
edit:
I can of 5 people who probably don't love the review.
Feels a lot like you missed the point entirely (being a man of few words). Even if a fictional character said it doesn't make it less proverbial. In fact, I'm sure I could quote Confucious, Plato or even a number of holy books to evoke the same point. But thanks for the analysis and criticism.
You're welcome. I did say this was a side bar.
I think I do get your point. And whether one prefers long or short reviews is entirely up to them. I don't think one is better than the other. Both forms can work.
But I also think, as a reader of Shakespeare, that if we actually had writing advice from Shakespeare, it would not be advocating brevity. Which is why attributing these quotes directly to the writer doesn't work. Unlike Confucius or the Bible, Shakespeare wasn't writing philosophy or proscriptive parables. He was scripting drama and comedy, which involves a lot of statements he likely did not agree with. That's all.
Again, this is just something I bring up whenever I see some of those popular Shakespeare quotes. It is tangential to the discussion. It is not actually to argue against your point.
If it's anything like your last EC podcast (Solitaire Rose Radio 18: A Personal History of EC Comics Part 1) then I'm sure I'll enjoy it!