Mundane Morrison Madness
Finally got around to reading the Grant Morrison interview over on The Pulse.  There's some fun stuff in there:

I see I'm not the only one wondering where Jen Contino got the idea that ten-year-olds wrote and drew Golden Age comics:

THE PULSE: In the Golden Age ten and eleven year olds could get jobs drawing and working on comics. Why do or don't you think comics are better now because that isn't likely to ever happen again?

MORRISON: I was 17 when I did my first professional comics job, which is ancient when you think about it. Jim Shooter was the youngest writer at 14, I believe. Joe Kubert's first pro outing was when he was twelve but ... apart from that, who ever told you there were ten year old creators in the Golden Age?

That sounds like one of those Mark Millar things ....

We learn that there's a popular comics creator desparately trying to copy Morrison, but it's not Mark Millar:

Even Alan Moore himself ran screaming from this kind of story and began an ungainly, 15-year long attempt to reinvent himself as me.

Morrison reveals that he's created a religion based on the story from Earth X:

Like skin cells or perhaps more like immune cells, we as individuals are all part of one immense intelligent living creature which has its roots in the Cryptozoic era and its living tendrils - including us - probing forward through the untasted jelly of the 21st Century. The body of this vast and intelligent lifeform - the biota as it's known - is still in its infancy and still at the stage in its life cycle where it must consume the planet's resources like a caterpillar on a leaf. What looks like environmental destruction to us is, I believe, the natural acceleration of an impending metamorphosis; just as a caterpillar gorges itself to power its transformation into a butterfly, so too does the biota consume everything in its path, in preparation for its own imminent transformation into adult form.

The Pulse is able to baffle the Master of Mad Ideas himself with one of their unintelligible questions:

THE PULSE: Are you of a Kid Eternity and [Captain Marvel] Jr. are brothers mind or of a how could anyone of EVER done that to those two characters type of mind?

MORRISON: Brothers? Are they supposed to be brothers in some weird League of Everybody-Knows-Everybody-Else universe? It all seems a little desperate.

Morrison (deliberately?) engages in a bit of double-speak:

This will not be one of those ... "We're completely reimagining the characters to be exactly the way they've always been" kind of things we're seeing so much of lately. These are new approaches to the material and some completely novel ways of recreating the whole concept of the "adventure hero" comic, using established templates. [Emphasis added.]

Uh, aren't you saying the same thing that you just criticized, Mr. Morrison?

All in all, an appropriately bizarre interview with Grant.  I look forward to reading his upcoming work.  The titles alone (Vimanarama, We3, Seaguy and the Wasps of Atlantis, Indestructible Man, C.O.O.L., Supertrendy Young Doctor) sound more imaginative than many comics out there.  And the artistic talent involved--Cameron Stewart, Frank Quitely, Philip Bond, Rian Hughes--certainly doesn't hurt.
  ¶ 1:43 PM | |

  Listless
Not much to contribute today.  I see that the rush to wrap up 2003 is on.  I suppose these guys already have their holiday shopping done, too.  About the only thing that stirred much of a reaction was Steven Grant's piece on criticism, particularly this passage:

As reviews editor at a music paper, I annoyed other reviewers by banning the word "I" from reviews — one woman complained "If I don't say 'I think' the readers won't know it's just my opinion," to which I commented, "Believe me, they will, and if they don't..." [Insert shrug.]

I understand what he's getting at:  Hopefully readers are sophisticated enough to distinguish fact from opinion.  But sometimes reviewers write as though they're unaware of that distinction themselves.  As an example, here's a recent commentary from my local paper on Rolling Stone's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time:

In its list of the 500 best albums of all time, published Friday, rock's old-guard fanzine gave top props to the Beatles' "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" and a whole lot of other overrated rock fossils.

The choice of "Sgt. Pepper's" -- followed by the Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds," and then the actual best Beatles album, "Revolver" -- was utterly predictable.

I had to stop there.  Any reviewer who uses the phrase "actual best" isn't worth my time.  I'm all for strong opinions, but I like them better when they're strongly supported, not just strongly worded.  Or to rephrase as though Steven Grant were editing this:  Strong opinions are great, but they're better when they're strongly supported, not just strongly worded.
  ¶ 5:05 PM | |

  Topics That Will Not Die: #3 - Series That Will Not Die
Reflecting more on David Fiore's post, I realized that I neglected his points about the interactive nature of monthly comics.  Before getting into his thoughts on the "open-endedness" of perpetually serialized comics, David wrote that "serially published super-hero comic books (those which feature letters pages as integral parts of the text, anyway), beginning with Marvel in the early 60's, offered a wonderful paradox to the world: synchronic, interactive narrative!"  David elaborated more on why this aspect of comic books interests him over in the comments section of Rick Geerling's 11/19 rant:

[S]peaking as a person who wants to write a dissertation about the aspect of the medium that you deplore--namely that it's the only artform in which the creator/public boundary is somewhat effaced by the texts themselves (thanks to the letters pages--which I hear are disappearing...)--I think you're underestimating how wonderful and unique these "neverending stories" are!

It's easy for me to say, since I write prose fiction, not comics, and I don't have to deal with people interfering with my most cherished ideas, but as a critic I find the creator/readership of monthly comic books absolutely fascinating...

One thing I will say is that I don't believe in endings anyway, never saw one in any medium that didn't feel like a con, so "seriality" has never been a problem for me.

I don't quite understand how David sees all these elements as intersecting.  For one thing, as David himself notes, most monthly mainstream comics are closing down their letters pages.  But even back in their heyday, did fan letters really have much of an impact?  I doubt they influenced many creators to change their stories (except perhaps when the letters called for more gorillas).  Perhaps the sphere of influence was somewhat different:  Fans may not have had much impact on pros, but fans could influence each other ("Oh, I see--I didn't understand why Lois rebuffed Clark like that, but reader K.B.'s detailed analysis brings it all into sharp focus now!").

Obligatory Manga Boosterism:  If David feels that fan interaction is a vital part of the appeal of sequential art, then he should really like manga.  Not only are manga anthologies such as Shonen Jump, Raijin Comics, and Super Manga Blast some of the last comics around to publish letters from readers, but Shonen Jump even publishes fan art each month!  And Raijin Comics, adopting the practice of Japanese manga publishers, solicits fan feedback to see which serials will continue to see print!  Just think if Marvel and DC operated this way:  Publish thick anthologies with new material, and fans get to vote on which series would survive month to month.  Why isn't anyone doing this here?  It would combine America's love for crappy reality TV with big, cheap comics!  It's a natural!!  It can't miss!!!  (Disclaimer:  I am not an industry insider, either, so my enthusiastic armchair opinions should not be mistaken for sound business advice:  It could very well miss.)

As for David's point about not believing in endings, I'm somewhat sympathetic to this view.  Often a story's resolution feels forced and tacked-on, and some authors try to make an ending "mean" too much, when in reality things wouldn't be so tidy.  But at the same time, I've never really had an across-the-board problem with endings, mainly because I think of them more as "stopping points."  Although there are times when I'm so engrossed in a story that I don't want it to stop, for the most part I realize that, practically, stories can't simply go on forever.  For one thing, even if a story were truly endless, I would still reach an endpoint, so the result would be much the same.  And even if a work were only ridiculously long (rather than truly endless), this would still cause problems as it ate into the time I had available to devote to other stories.  I also worry that long-lived works would wear out their welcome:  Eventually a story reaches a point of diminishing returns as an author (or series of authors) dilutes a concept in order to keep it running.  I'd rather see a story end in its prime instead of becoming a weak, watered-down shell of its former self.

Further, I think in many cases a story's finiteness actually contributes to its open-endedness.  I certainly felt that The Matrix was more open when it stopped with Neo flying up, up, and away out of that phone booth.  At that point, the story was still interesting in my mind:  Sure, Neo looked like a badass Man of Steel, but there was still so much work for the resistance to do--so many minds to free from the matrix.  Just think of all the possible stories...  So it was a little disappointing when Reloaded came along and closed off certain storytelling possibilities.  Instead of conjuring up our own visions of Zion, for example, we were now locked into a lame rave-happy version.  I hear fanboys experienced similar disappointment when a bit of Wolverine's mystery was chipped away with Origin.

I know it's a natural impulse when a story reaches its stopping point to wonder:  What happened next?  But do we really need someone else to show us?  Isn't it better in some cases to leave it up to our own imaginations?  (And just to close off certain avenues of response right away:  This isn't a call for bad fan-fiction.)  I do think that the stretched-out seriality of corporate comics can lead to some interesting effects (retcons, revamps, reinterpretations, etc.), but I don't know if extended seriality strikes me as an intrinsically good thing, especially when it comes at the cost of creative ownership and control.
  ¶ 7:23 PM | |

  Topics That Will Not Die:  #2 - The Floppy Format
This topic will probably persist until the single-issue format fades away.  Laura Gjovaag has blogged quite a bit about this topic recently.  According to her, David Fiore has the last word on the issue, although I'm not sure why.  David argues that the "seriality" of comics makes them unique:

I would submit that the very things that intelligent fans seem to deplore these days (characters that don't change, zero opportunity for "closure", endless permutations that grow out of minute variations in the approach to a very limited number of existential situations, etc.--the super-hero comic, in its "open-ended", monthly form is a bonanza for structuralist analysis!!) are the things that make this genre unique and fascinating.

A bit further down, David claims that the monthly format of floppies contributes to this "open-endedness":

I'm not saying that self-contained "sequential art" is devoid of interest, but I am saying that the "traditional" model for the presentation of these narratives is actually far more compelling (formally!) than the types of works that mature fans seem to be clamoring for. My message to the proponents of the monthly, "single" super-hero format? Do not equivocate, and do not apologize!

I'm not sure I see the connection between David's two points.  As far as I can tell, a story's "open-endedness" is entirely independent from the format the story is told in.  Even if comics were all published as big, thick OGNs the story could still remain unresolved from book to book.  And big, thick anthologies can be monthly as well (Shonen Jump, anyone?), so even if "open-endedness" is somehow tied to publishing frequency, this doesn't resolve the matter in favor of the floppy format.  Heck, if how often a comic comes out determines its resistance to closure then fans such as Fiore must have been crushed when Raijin Comics switched from weekly to monthly publication.  Perhaps this is an argument for the return of the weekly anthology à la Action Comics Weekly?  That way you could split many monthly comics into shorter serials that come out weekly.

I think other factors are more critical in determining most comics' "open-endedness":  Lack of creative ownership/control and publishers' desire to maintain properties in a recognizable state so as to maximize their licensing potential.  But I've already rambled on long enough (especially considering Sunday's entry), so I'll leave that argument as an exercise for the reader.
  ¶ 12:01 AM | |

  Topics That Will Not Die: #1 - Manga
Dave Intermittent continues to press his question about whether manga is handled with kid gloves because kids read it.  He adds an interesting element to the issue, pointing out that American comics were still the target for pointed criticism even back when they sold in much higher numbers and were read by children:

At one point, superhero books sold better than manga sells today; and during that time, their popularity did not insulate them from fairly pungent criticism. There were some people who argued that their popularity was in fact a disadvantage, since people would look past good books on the assumption that all comics were was four color beatdowns for kids. Too popular; go figure.

These remarks spurred a lot of thought on my part, so please bear with me if I begin to stray from Dave's original starting point.  (Or in other words:  WARNING - LONG-ASS RAMBLING ENTRY AHEAD.)

First, I think the type of argument Dave is referencing here is completely distinct from his earlier concern about bad manga being immune to criticism.  The argument that the popularity of superhero comics is bad for comics overall doesn't necessarily entail anything about the quality of specific superhero comics.  Each and every superhero comic book published could be an undisputed brilliant work of art and one could still argue that the stranglehold of one narrow type of comic on the medium is bad for the medium.  The argument that diversity of subject matter is important for comics is logically distinct from issues of individual comics' quality.  It's a macro-level "emergent" argument that relies on the overwhelming existence of one specific type of comic.  If one type of manga (say shoujo romance manga) comes to dominate comics in the future, a similar argument could then be made that the prevalence of that genre is bad for the respectability of comics.

It's difficult to say without knowing which particular arguments Dave has in mind, but perhaps some versions of the "stranglehold" argument supplemented that basic approach with the addition of Sturgeon's Law:  If all comics are superhero comics and 90% of anything is crap, people will be more likely to come across crappy superhero comics whenever someone tells them to try out comics.  Thus, people will come to associate comics with crappy superhero comics.  This strikes me as more of a psychological argument about how people form classifications of things.  It assumes that most people will fail to distinguish between the potential of an art form and the particular realizations of that art form.  Nevertheless, I think the remedy would be the same as for the above scenario:  Diversity.  A wider-ranging line of subject matters in sequential art might make it harder for people to lump all comics into one easily written-off group:  "Well, superhero comics still seem kind of lame to me, but there sure are a lot of good horror comics out there."

Speaking of stereotypes, it's interesting to consider the general conceptions that surround comics.  Are they still thought of as being kids' stuff?  I guess that assumption still seems to pervade most mainstream articles on comics (especially when they're trying to counter that notion and they self-defeatingly title the article with something like "Zap! Bam! Pow! Comics Not Just For Kids Anymore!")  This perception is generally attributed to the dominance of superheroes to the near exclusion of all else.  Conversely, it seems to be part of the general understanding of manga that it's not just for kids, at least not in its homeland of Japan, where adults read manga unabashedly.  (I'd also add that my personal perception of European comics is that they're targeted at all age groups.  In fact, walking into most comic stores or bookstore graphic novel sections in France, my impression was that comics are primarily geared toward adults.)  Unfortunately, the stereotype of American superhero comics being for children doesn't even carry the comfort of kids actually consuming such comics:  Most pundits agree that whoever is buying superhero comics these days, it ain't kids for the most part.

So perhaps the excitement over manga's growing popularity does color some commentators' critical faculties when it comes to manga:  After worrying so long about the declining sales of comic books (both in general and specifically with respect to younger audiences), seeing increasing sales, largely to children, may be causing some critics to turn a blind eye to any shortcomings specific manga may have.  On the one hand, I can see why certain members of the comic community would give more weight to sales than quality:  Retailers and publishers have reason, especially in such a soft economy, to be concerned primarily with sales.  (This isn't to say that sales is their exclusive concern:  Publishers and retailers may both have motivations for promoting quality work, but I think the nature of each business demands that they give greatest weight to economic considerations.)  On the other hand, sales can't excuse everything:  Just because something is popular (with any audience segment) doesn't necessarily mean it's good.  (Popularity doesn't necessarily entail poor quality, either, a fallacy that seems more pronounced with cynical/cranky critics.)

The question of whether the fact that kids read something changes the standards of evaluation is an interesting one.  I touched on this briefly in my response to Dave's original entry, but now I realize there's much more to say about this topic.  If something is targeted for kids, shouldn't we judge it according to that aim?  After all, it's generally accepted that one standard of fair criticism is to consider the goal of a work when evaluating it.  Taken literally, this principle has always bothered me:  How can I know what the artist's intent was in crafting his work?  How do I know what audience a work was really aimed at?  With Shonen Jump we might point to the fact that the magazine identifies its intended demographic in its very title.  For other, less precisely named works, one might attempt to address such issues by focusing on their "effects":  If a work elicits a certain response or attracts a certain audience, then we can assume that those were the intended effects.  The problem with such an approach is that it ignores the possibility of unintended consequences.  Was the original Star Wars movie really intended as a work of myth, or did Lucas simply graft that language on after critics such as Joseph Campell started analyzing the movie in those terms?

My own way of resolving this tension has been to approach reviews from a "charitable interpretation" standard:  I may not have access to an author's intent, but I certainly have access to my own imagination, so I can attempt to construct scenarios under which a work "works."  Of course, this approach sounds great in theory, but it runs into its own problems in practice, namely the limits of my charity and interpretive abilities.  My dislike of something may be so strong that I may ignore charity in order to go on the attack more fully and freely.  In such cases, others may rightfully call me on my abusive lack of impartiality.  Or there may be an interpretation under which something "works" but I may fail to consider it.  In this case, others may rightly charge that I've missed the point of the work.  There's also the practical difficulty of knowing how many possible interpretations one must run through in order to be reasonably charitable.  Even if I could generate endless interpretations for a work, do I really want to?  How would I ever satisfactorily review even a single work in such detail?  Finally, there's the worry that one can be too charitable.  A review probably isn't going to be of much use if it only offers advice to the effect of "Some people may find this comic entertaining to one degree or another, but other may not."

So how do I resolve all these tensions in my own reviewing?  I don't know if I ever do, at least not fully.  I try to be aware of such concerns, but mainly at the level of doing a "sanity check" on a review after I've written it.  Is it excessively uncharitable or unfair?  Is it too bland or boring?  And to be completely honest, not all reviews will be written with the same goal in mind.  On occasion I may be one of the first to review something, so I have to do a little more work outlining what the comic is about.  And if I like the book, a degree of evangelism may enter the recommendation.  Kind of like ADD or Shawn Hoke and their reviews of Palomar.  Conversely, if I think something is receiving undue praise, I may write a review slanted more towards exposing the deficiencies of said work.  I still try to keep the reviews "honest"--I never want to boost or bash something that I couldn't back up with genuine opinions I actually hold.  But I'll admit that my reviews can often be written in reaction to factors other than just The Work Itself.  Some might find this distasteful, believing that criticism should be as entirely objective.  But I don't see how criticism can ever occur in a vacuum.  We all have beliefs and biases that impact our opinions.  I think the key thing, as Dave suggests, is to be as upfront as possible about the factors influencing one's opinion.

Which leads quite naturally to wondering:  OK, John, what factors are influencing your opinions on manga?

One thing might be that, whereas Dave feels as though manga is getting a free pass, I actually feel the opposite way.  Reading many message boards, it seems as though most comic fans already dismiss all manga as crap.  I'm sure everyone's seen the threads where fanboys gripe that all manga contains the same "big head, big hair, big eye" art.  Over on his blog, Dave Lartigue offers a similar complaint, writing that "many many manga that are brought to America fall easily into three categories: books about schoolgirls and their panties, books about giant robots, and books about schoolgirls who pilot giant robots in their panties."  He acknowledges that this doesn't describe all manga, but he feels that the good stuff is getting lost in the sheer amount of crap being brought over from Japan:

I realize there are many manga titles that aren't schoolgirls and robots and wacky Japanese "humor". My point is, you have to really search to find them. Book and comic stores are simply unloading manga on the public by the shovelful, and nobody I know has the time or desire to sift through the crap and find the quality stuff. Until the manga aficionados are willing to admit that there are good comics and bad comics, and some are Japanese and some are American, their arguments are going to be drowned out by the sound of a million otaku happily kissing the ass of anything Japanese.

So maybe we already are at a point where manga is suffering from a generalized "guilt by association":  Because most of the manga the casual observer sees seems to be crap, it's assumed that all manga is crap.

To a certain extent, then, my own musings on manga may be seen as a reaction to such animosity.  But I still think my arguments have a specific grounding beyond a desire to offer a contrarian position.  My own belief that manga isn't (necessarily) crap was formed in much the same way as my belief that comics aren't (necessarily) crap:  It's much too sweeping of a statement.  I'm sure there are bad manga comics out there, just as I'm sure there are bad superhero comics, bad autobiographical comics, bad "art" comics, and all kinds of other bad comics out there.  How can I be so sure?  Well, I've read bad comics in all those categories.  But I've also read good comics in all those categories, too.  I'm not sure how I'd break down the division of Bad/Good, but 90/10 seems rather high (and simplistic) to me.  I'd rather focus on specific cases, and even then it can be hard to make a blanket "good/bad" judgment.  Most individual works have elements of good and bad in them.  I'm most interested in critics who can address both aspects and everything in between.  I've tried to do that in my own reviews, whether I'm reviewing manga or American comics.  My review of Gyo #1, for example, was fairly critical even though I consider myself a fan of Junji Ito's earlier horror manga.  And if I ever get around to writing reviews for Berserk and later volumes of Sanctuary you'll get to see more of me being "negative" toward manga.  It's just that my negativity will be directed at specific manga, not manga in general.
  ¶ 3:55 PM | |

  Locking = Comic Genius
Nick Locking cracks me up.  Here are some of his recent "speed-round" reviews:

• Green Lantern: On every page, there should be a caption saying "STAY CALM, READER - GRANT MORRISON WILL BE HERE SOON."

• The Punisher: YES, OKAY, WOLVERINE IS DUMB. GET ON WITH TELLING A NEW STORY.

• Ultimate Six: Something happened! Now, some other things should happen, please.

• 1602: "Odds bodkins! Yon giant red wagon o'er yonder hath transmogrified into a mechanical manne! Why, what an impressive sight! Why, there are more! We might even call them Transmogrifiers! And lo! The giant red wagon is clearly the best, and the first, of them all, and so we might even call it Best First! But in Latin, methinks!"

• Tom Strong: WHERE IS ALAN MOORE? WHERE IS ALAN MOORE? WHERE IS ALAN MOORE?

• Stormwatch - Team Achilles: FUCK this rocks. ROCKS. CAPTAIN AMERICA VS. AMERICA, and I cannot get enough of it. Micah Wright has found the perfect solution to the Talking Heads problem - got a boring old talking scene? Too much dialogue? Visually unengaging? Well on every panel, DUDES ARE HOLDING UP COOL FUCKING GUNS! HOLY SHIT! IT'S INTERESTING AGAIN!

More at link.  And if you enjoy Locking's sense of humor humour, I just discovered he has his own (languishing) blog, with yesterday's entry being an interesting vision for The New Trial Of Michael Jackson.
  ¶ 6:02 PM | |

  The Trouble With Blogging
I think I'm gradually realizing there's one thing I'm not crazy about with blogs:  The tedium of tracking a discussion that wends its way through multiple blogs.  It's especially frustrating when I just want to respond to one specific thing that's sandwiched in a fairly long entry.  Example:  Sean Collins takes issue with my description of Bendis' dialogue as "Tarantino-esque," stating

John was certainly mistaken in calling Bendis's dialogue ripped-off Tarantinoisms--it's actually ripped-off Aaron Sorkinisms. But Bendis is actually better than Sorkin, because the dialogue is crafted (as Jason suggests) not to sound clever, but to sound human.

It's an interesting, if somewhat fine, distinction.  And I'd like to react to it, but at the same time I feel it's not something that merits its own blog entry.  (So instead I craft an entire blog entry around why it doesn't deserve its own blog entry.  Yeah, I know.)  So I guess one thing message boards do better than blogs is facilitate discussions in smaller increments.  Perhaps it's only a personal preference, but I find it much easier to scroll through a thread than to click through multiple sites.  (Immediate counterargument:  Except when message boards grow littered with irrelevant comments, trolling, flaming, unwieldy quotes and sigs, and general inanity.)

At the very least I really wish Sean (and others) would reconsider implementing a comments feature on his (their) blog(s).  I know it's not a democracy and he runs it as he sees fit, but as a reader, there are times I'd much prefer to fire off a quick reply instead of composing a new entry on my own blog, linking to the appropriate entry on his blog, and finally writing out my short response.  (As an incentive (?) for Sean to add a comments feature, I'm going to withhold my thoughts on his opinion, saving them for such a time when I can post them on his blog in some form.)

As an example of why I think allowing comments can be good and useful, consider this exchange:  I linked to one of Jim Henley's entries to bolster my own argument; Jim read my piece and thought I misconstrued his point, so he clarified his position in a comment; I explained that I understood his original point but admitted that I may have phrased it poorly.  Issue addressed without either of us having to wait for the other to update his blog with his take on the other's post.

Now to touch on the hot memes of the week:

• Manga:  Not necessarily crap, although I'm sure some (lots?) exists.  Possibly clichéd or formulaic at times, but deep down, what isn't?  Why not try out some of the manga recommended by critics you kinda-sorta-mostly trust?

• Floppies:  Not inherently bad, but the cost is becoming prohibitive.  I'd like 'em a lot more if they were a lot cheaper, but they're not, for various reasons.  So my greedy/selfish side prefers formats that provide more bang for my buck (ignoring issues of content quality for the sake of argument/comparison).

• Palomar: Ordered, check.

Finally, regarding Tuesday's same-sex decision in Mass., I'm still mulling everything over.  I'm at the stage where I've succeeded in confusing myself so thoroughly that I can't even justify why I'm married, let alone why anyone else should be.  (No offense, honey.)  So I'm not going to blog anything about SSM or the court's ruling until I can make sense out of my own thoughts.  This may take some time, especially if I decide I need to go to law school before I can parse out just how and why marriage is a fundamental right and how the strict scrutiny analysis should play out.  I also realized that I skipped the endnotes when I read the decision the first time, so I'd like to go back and reread everything.  (The HTML version makes it especially easy to jump back and forth between the main arguments and the endnotes.) 

In the meantime, I thought I'd recommend this article by Slate's Dahlia Lithwick.  Dahlia, one of my favorite pundits (her Supreme Court Dispatches are hilarious and insightful), raises a lot of issues I'd really like to see addressed by those who kvetch about the "sanctity of marriage" and how allowing SSM will "irreparably harm" the institution.  I'd like to be an idealist about marriage, too, but I don't think it's fair to hold same-sex couples to some abstract, impossible-to-actualize Platonic Form of Marriage when opposite-sex couples get an "Anything Goes" license along with their marriage one.
  ¶ 4:39 PM | |

  Marvel Comics for Feb. 2004
Can't wait til Monday noon Eastern?  Courtesy of Diamond [links to big text file], here are the Marvel comics shipping Feb. 2004:

AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #504 (#63)    $2.25                                
ANT-MAN #3 (Of 5) (MR)    $2.99                                        
AVENGERS #79    $2.25                                                
CAPTAIN AMERICA #23    $2.99                                        
CAPTAIN MARVEL #20    $2.99                                        
DAREDEVIL #57    $2.99                                                
DAREDEVIL VOL 3 HC    $29.99                                        
ELEKTRA #33    $2.99                                                
EMMA FROST #8 (Note Price)    $2.99                                
EPIC ANTHOLOGY #1    $8.99                                        
EXILES #42    $2.99                                                
EXILES #43    $2.99                                                
FANTASTIC FOUR #510 (#81)    $2.25                                
HAWKEYE #5    $2.99                                                
HULK GRAY #6 (Of 6)    $3.50                                        
HULK NIGHTMERICA #6 (Of 6) (RES)    $2.99                        
HUMAN TORCH #10    $2.99                                                
INCREDIBLE HULK #67    $2.25                                        
INHUMANS #11    $2.99                                                
IRON MAN #77    $2.99                                                
KNIGHTS 4 #1    $2.99                                                
KNIGHTS 4 #2    $2.99                                                
MARVEL 1602 #7 (Of 8)    $3.50                                        
MARVEL MASTERWORKS DAREDEVIL VOL 2 2ND ED HC    $49.99                
MYSTIQUE #11    $2.99                                                
NAMOR #12    $2.99                                                
NEW MUTANTS #11    $2.99                                                
NEW X-MEN #153    $2.25                                                
NEW X-MEN VOL 6 PLANET X TP    $12.99                                
NYX #5    $2.99                                                        
PULSE #1    $2.99                                                
PUNISHER MAX #3 (MR)    $2.99                                        
PUNISHER VOL 6 CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES TP    $14.99                        
RUNAWAYS #11    $2.99                                                
RUNAWAYS #12    $2.99                                                
SECRET WAR BOOK ONE (OF FIVE) (Note Price)    $3.99                
SENTINEL #12    $2.99                                                
SILVER SURFER #6    $2.25                                        
SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN #10    $2.25                                
SPIDER-GIRL #70    $2.99                                                
SPIDER-MAN AND DR OCTOPUS NEGATIVE EXPOSURE #5 (Of 5)    $2.99        
SPIDER-MAN DOC OCTOPUS  OUT OF REACH #4 (Of 5)    $2.99                
SUPREME POWER #7 (MR)    $2.99                                        
THANOS #6    $2.99                                                
THOR #74    $2.99                                                
THOR VIKINGS TP (MR)    $13.99                                        
TROUBLE VOL TP    $13.99                                                
TRUTH RED WHITE AND BLACK TP    $14.99                                
ULTIMATE FANTASTIC FOUR #3    $2.25                                
ULTIMATE SIX #7 (Of 7)    $2.25                                        
ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN #53    $2.25                                        
ULTIMATE X-MEN #42    $2.25                                        
UNCANNY X-MEN #439    $2.25                                        
UNCANNY X-MEN #440    $2.25                                        
VENOM #11    $2.99                                                
WEAPON X #20    $2.99                                                
WOLVERINE #11    $2.25                                                
WOLVERINE CAPTAIN AMERICA #1    $2.99                                
WOLVERINE CAPTAIN AMERICA #2    $2.99                                
WOLVERINE CAPTAIN AMERICA #3    $2.99                                
WOLVERINE CAPTAIN AMERICA #4    $2.99                                
WOLVERINE THE END #3 (Of 6)    $2.99                                
X-MEN EVOLUTION VOL 1 DIGEST (O/A) (SEP035142)    $5.99                
X-MEN UNLIMITED #1    $2.99                                        
X-STATIX #19    $2.99                                                
X-TREME X-MEN #42    $2.99                                        
X-TREME X-MEN #43    $2.99                                        
X-TREME X-MEN VOL 7 STORM THE ARENA TP    $16.99                        

Some comments:

• Looks like the Epic Anthology is coming out after all.  Or did they not have time to remove it from the solicits after Phantom Jack was pulled?  I'm  guessing this is the Jack-less anthology based on the price:  $8.99 breaks down to around $2.99 per series remaining.  I think this thing is dead, dead, dead.

• What the heck is Wolverine Captain America?  Is that a feral, mutant version of the Super Soldier?  And why does Marvel insist on dumping these miniseries on retailers (and readers) all in one month?

• I count six new trades, including critically-acclaimed fan-favorite Epic-line-launching that comic where Aunt May gets some, Trouble.

  ¶ 11:21 PM | |

  Personal to ADD:
Alright, alright already!  I ordered the damned book off Amazon this morning!!  Happy now?
  ¶ 10:28 AM | |

  After Mass. Aftermath
Stuff I've run across recently while reading about Tuesday's same-sex marriage ruling:

Strange Hypotheticals.  From David Bianco on the Marriage Debate blog:  "Ask yourself: If a child's parents were killed in an accident, all other things being equal, would it be better for that child to be raised by an aunt and an uncle, or by two aunts? If a little boy's mother died in childbirth, would it be better for him to be raised by his father and aunt or by his father and uncle?"

Answer:  Insufficient data.  Simply knowing the genders of the involved parties tells me nothing about who would be best suited to meet the interests of the child in either scenario.  Bianco can stipulate "all other things being equal" all he wants, but in the real world all other things aren't equal.  You'd have to look at the details of a particular case to decide.  There's no fixed formula for deciding such matters.

Great Quotes.  From Salon : "The right wing is not just anti-marriage for gay people, they're against gay people period. If we were asking for oxygen, they'd be against it." - Evan Wolfson, leader of the Freedom to Marry project.

Job Confusion.  OK, I'm no lawyer or constitutional scholar, but isn't it the courts' job to make sure the legislative branch is legislating properly?  I'm tired of hearing people bash the judiciary as "tyrannical" when they don't agree with a decision.  Yes, the legislature makes the laws, but they have to do so within certain boundaries.  It falls to the courts to tell the lawmakers when they step outside those limits.

Part of the reason I sympathize with the courts is because, in my day job, I'm a Quality Assurance Analyst.  So I know what it's like to be resented for telling others they're not doing their job properly.  And it's not as though I can't understand that feeling--that bristling that occurs when your performance is under evaluation:  It's part of the QA process that quality assurance team members are audited as well (so enough with the "Who watches the watchmen?" jokes already).  But I believe that such a system of checks and balances keeps things running smoothly in the long run, even if there is some friction from time to time.

Political Advice: Slate's William Saletan suggests that Democrats embrace the same-sex ruling and champion the issue as follows:

Marriage is a broadly shared American value. You don't have to support homosexuality to support marriage. A politician can say, "I'm pro-marriage. The issue isn't whether you're straight or gay. The issue is whether you support marriage."

It's a nice idea, but I doubt any Democrat is brave enough to try it.  Besides, for many people marriage simply means "exclusive, legal union between a man and a woman" so a Democrat saying he supports marriage for gays might play like a Democrat saying he supports squareness for circles.  Unfortunately, I think the Republicans have already succeeded in cementing their repugnant position as the "pro-marriage" one.

Talking Past Each Other.  For the most part, the full decision reads like an everyday argument regarding same-sex marriage.  The majority opinion frames the issue as citizens being denied equal access to a fundamental right already in existence.  The dissenters (each writing a separate opinion) see the matter as attempting to create a new right for a distinct group  It's as though the two sides are discussing two completely different cases. 

At least until the third and final dissenting opinion comes along.  Justice Robert Cordy actually examines the majority's opinion and makes specific, supported arguments detailing why the decision may be bad law.  In a nutshell, Cordy argues that "[s]o long as the question is at all debatable, it must be the Legislature that decides."  He then outlines plausible scenarios in which a "rational Legislature, given the evidence, could conceivably come to a different conclusion, or could at least harbor rational concerns about possible unintended consequences of a dramatic redefinition of marriage."  Hmm.  I guess part of being a Watchman is realizing when something is beyond the scope of your own authority, or when your own actions might subvert the very procedures you're entrusted to safeguard.  To indulge in geek speak, it might not be the best idea to slam in a patch without following proper change control processes--even if you're sure the fix will work. 

I still think same-sex marriages should be legal, but perhaps the Massachusetts ruling isn't the best way to go about it after all.  I'll have to reflect on this more.
  ¶ 9:57 AM | |

  "If It's Not Japanese, It's Crap!!"
Dave Intermittent poses an interesting question:  Does crap manga get a free pass because (1) it's manga and (2) kids are reading it?  I know Dave wasn't directing the question at me (he was reacting to an off-hand comment Dirk Deppy made in response to Johnny Bacardi), but I'd like to jump in anyway (again).

Personally, I believe crap is crap, regardless of whether it's "exotic" or beloved by small children.  I know 'crap' is a term tossed around pretty lightly (especially online) but I generally try to reserve it for work that's so abysmally bad that it doesn't have even the smallest shred of entertainment value.  Going by that strict definition, I don't know if I've read anything recently that I would dismiss as crap.  Terra Obscura probably comes closest off the top of my head.  Using the term more loosely, there might be other stuff I'd place underneath that umbrella, but let's ignore that for now.

Moving on to Dirk's remarks, he can probably better explain what he meant by them, but I didn't read them as saying that "transformer-style robots, samurai warriors, teenage soap operas and big hyperexaggerated gladiatorial arena-fight style sagas (sometimes all at once)" are crap; I took him as saying, essentially, your mileage may vary, but it'd be a big help if you were 12 years old again.  I don't think that's necessarily denigrating such comics.  It's just recognizing the audience the stories are aimed at and admitting older readers may not get the same thrill out of them.  (Personally, I think the stories in Shonen Jump are well-crafted and fun.  True, I grew tired of the repetitious nature of the series after a couple chapters, but they're still well done.  For one thing, the serials in Shonen Jump are actually structured as satisfying episodes.)

I think the same standard should apply to superhero comics.  A comic doesn't have to be mature or sophisticated to be good.  It can be simple and entertaining and aimed at kids.  I think superhero comics get such grief because they fail to meet either of these goals.  Face it, most superhero comics aren't for children anymore.  Even when you give kids unqualified access to superhero comics, kids aren't interested in them.  Perhaps this is further evidence of just how bad most superhero comics are.  Or that they're all geared toward an older audience.  I don't think it's a bad thing that there are superhero comics targeted at adults, or that adults read them.  I just think it's depressing that there aren't more mainstream American comics that appeal to young kids.
  ¶ 12:08 AM | |

  Manga Musings
The Pulse has an interview up with Tim Ervin-Gore about Dark Horse's manga line.  He talks about which manga titles have exceeded expectations, and which series aren't doing so well.  He also states "I don't think manga sales have reached the apex yet. I still perceive an expanding audience due to more anime hitting television, and the ever-widening television experience."  He does acknowledge that "the market is fickle" and things could change unexpectedly, but he sounds optimistic overall.

When asked "How do you decide NOW which titles to introduce to Western audiences?", Ervin-Gore offers this humorous response:

First we consult the Hagakure, and then the I-Ching. After this is a period of meditation, concentrating on the image of a salivating otaku, and eventually, it drives us nuts and we can't sleep for days. Of course, not sleeping for days and still having to work, we're driven to drink lots of tea, the leaves of which tell us, in a state of insanity, which books we should nab. Of course, at that point, we're speaking in tongues and we have to call down our Tibetan translator, who is only paid in blocks of ghee and gold bullion. Sometimes these elements are hard to come by, so it's not uncommon for other companies to swoop down and negotiate contracts out from under us. I think it's time to rethink the transcendental method, really.

I think this is similar to Grant Morrison's answer to the question, "Where do you get your ideas?"  (Ervin-Gore seems to become increasingly irritated with The Pulse's questions as the interview goes on, which makes for some interesting replies.  Go read.)

Johnny Bacardi wonders what's up with the name "Shonen Jump"?  James Moar beats me to the punch in the comments thread, explaining that, short answer, that's just what the mag was called in Japan; longer answer, Japanese mags like goofy-sounded titles with one English word in it (e.g., Shonen Champion, Shonen Ace and Shonen Captain).  As for Johnny's bigger issue--why the heck is manga so popular and why doesn't he get it?--Dirk Deppey offers the start of a reply, but I'd like to suggest that Johnny has framed the matter wrong.  Manga isn't all "transformer-style robots, samurai warriors, teenage soap operas, big hyperexaggerated gladiatorial arena-fight style sagas, sometimes all at once"--heck, I don't think Shonen Jump had any "transformer-style robots" in its first twelve issues.  As Shawn Fumo proclaims tirelessly, manga is all about diversity.  We might not see all that diversity reflected in the translated manga that's made it over here so far, but even looking at the smaller pool of translated manga, there's still an amazing amount of diversity in genres.  Just look at the three manga I reviewed a couple days ago:  Bawdy comic strip humor (Crayon Shinchan); action/horror (Island); political crime thriller (Sanctuary).  If you want "transformer-style robots" and the rest, I'm sure you can find it.  But don't let those subjects blind you to everything else manga has to offer.  To do so would be equivalent to someone looking at all the superhero comics dominating a typical comics store and ignoring evidence that Fantagraphics exists.  If you're looking for recommendations, I'd suggest starting with Uzumaki (horror) or Akira (sci-fi action).  Both of these are durn-near masterpieces, and they have the added benefit of being "flipped" (they read in the familiar Western left-to-right format).  If these don't sound up your alley, let me know what your reading tastes are and I'll try to think of something more fitting.

Speaking of recommendations, yesterday I wondered what would be a good shoujo manga to start with.  Several people have offered suggestions in the comments thread, and Kiril Jones was even kind enough to include some links to reviews over at AnimeOnDVD.com.  I'm reproducing the links below in case anyone else is interested in learning about shoujo manga:

• Alice 19th Vol 1
• Basara Vol 1 and 2
• Hot Gimmick Vol 1
• Please Save My Earth Vol 1

Other shoujo manga recommended were: Fushigi Yugi, Magic Knights Rayearth, Kare Kano, and Kodocha.  I'll probably research these a bit and then pick up whichever one sounds most appealing.  If I were going strictly by title, I'd probably get Please Save My Earth --it just sounds goofy, yet so polite.  Thanks to everyone for their recommendations.

UPDATE:  Kiril has also provided a helpful link listing all the manga reviews in AnimeOnDVD's manga forum:  Manga Review Thread Index.

UPDATE II:  Shaenon, who used to work for Viz, reveals that other names were bandied about for the American version of Shonen Jump, including the "blander" Manga Tsunami.  Hmm...Shaenon's right that it does sound bland.  But why does it seem so familiar?
  ¶ 10:30 AM | |

  So Bitching Drives Up Site Hits, You Say...
The new Previews Review is up, detailing books coming out tomorrow, November 19th.  Christopher Butcher opens with an interesting reflection on news about Shonen Jump's skyrocketing sales, and works in a little Comics Activism as well.  Christopher also covers a lot of manga in this week's edition, stuff I've never even heard of.  I realized reading Christopher's blurbs on various manga that I don't think I've read an honest-to-gosh shoujo (young girls) manga.  Any recommendations on a good place to start?

Oh, and Christopher has also written a nice follow-up to his opining from last week.  It's over on his blog, which I'm embarrassed to admit I didn't even know he had til now.
  ¶ 5:35 PM | |

  Very Gay News Indeed
I find this news very heartening.  For the moment I'm suppressing my inclination to worry that the Massachusetts legislature will screw this up somehow.  And I think describing marriage as "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others" is a very workable definition.

UPDATE:  I'm going to have to read through the full decision (PDF) later, but I glanced at the opening paragraph and...wow, just wow.

Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

Wow.

UPDATE, TAKE TWO:  Still haven't read the full decision (HTML version), but I thought this piece on Slate did a nice job explaining why the Massachusetts ruling differs from earlier decisions in other states.  Only thing it doesn't cover is how the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) could still screw things up on the federal level, even if same-sex couples end up able to marry in Massachusetts in six months' time.
  ¶ 1:05 PM | |

  Liefeld Watch
Yesterday's LITG has been updated with comments from Rob Liefeld (I'll reproduce Liefeld's comments below, but visit LITG to see the full item in case you don't know what Rob's responding to):

Rob Liefeld chose to comment on this rumour and speculation...

"The update on all my plans, Arcade, Marvel and beyond are as follows, both Genesis and Brigade have fallen victim to talent jockeying, specifically, coloring and inking setbacks. The colorists and inkers I have been working for have become much more popular with the two big pub's following the release of 'Youngblood: Bloodsport' and 'Youngblood: Genesis' and as a result, I have patiently pushed back deadlines in order to accomodate the quality of the work on these titles. I have made no bones about the fact that I would rather have a job I liked than one that is slapped together by interns in order to meet a dealine. I also don't mind pushing back some deadlines in order to accomodate the aspirations of the extremely talented folks around me. Marvel and DC seem to be the only career facelifts worth a lick to young talent and in the long run if it makes folks happier and the work is better than it's a good thing.

"'Youngblood: Bloodsport' is my fault as always as I continue to re-draw pages until they are as good as my meager talents can produce. Unfortunately, my main career earnings for the last half decade have come outside the comic business and as I uphold those commitments it pushes everything back. I fully understand that whether it's a big 100 million movie like Disney's 'The Alamo' or my little 'Bloodsport' projects being shuffled around the schedule, the media has an interest and a right to know the facts behind the decisions that drive the public batty. That said, 'Bloodsport,' 'Genesis' and 'Brigade' are on target for release early in 2004, say around January-February.

"As for any Marvel plans, for now my sole contribution to Marvel is providing 'Cable/Deadpool' covers.

"I am not intimately aware of Marat's commission prices, but if he has cut them in an attempt to generate more interest it is no doubt in direct correlation to his being stiffed by CrossGen after producing issues of 'The First' that are currently on sale. He was hired at San Diego to do a number of fill ins for CrossGen and after failing to receive a single penny for the issue that was released 2 weeks back despite their numerous promises to pay him, I have increased his workload in the hopes to take his mind off of the runaround he is experiencing. He is currently producing 'Brigade' #2 and another top secret project for next year."

As for Arcade, Liefeld tells me, "No chance of bailing and that revolution is still on it's way, look for an exciting partnership coming to a computer hard drive near you in the very near future..."

Rob is "working for" his colorists and inkers?  I suppose, considering past allegations about Liefeld not paying creators who worked on his books, it makes more sense to say he's working for them if that's the only direction money is flowing in.  And I can see why the colorists and inkers would turn to the Big Two, where they're more likely to receive actual payments for their work.

Also, the line "look for an exciting partnership coming to a computer hard drive near you in the very near future" made me mentally equate Arcade Comics with a computer virus.  If he can't get people to buy his comics, Liefeld will just surreptitiously install them on your PC.  So watch out for future spam with the header "Craving More SHAFT???"
  ¶ 10:33 AM | |

  Clogged Pipeline
Since Augie has announced in his Pipeline pseudo-blog that he's no longer able to accept any more comics for review, I've graciously agreed to step in and help Augie out.  Please send all comp copies (especially expensive hardcover books like the TwoMorrows Wally Wood retrospective) to:

John Jakala
4800 France Ave S
Edina MN,  55410

I thank you, and Augie thanks you.
  ¶ 9:46 AM | |

  Embargo Endrun
Kevin Melrose turned me on to a neat trick:  Can't wait for the midnight embargo on DC's upcoming solicitations to pass?  Well, just head over to DC's website and peek at the February 2004 solicitations for DC's DCU, Vertigo, and Wildstorm books.  Here's what catches my eye:

• I have a strange fascination with Adam Strange, but I don't think I've read many of his original solo adventures, so I'll probably get his first Archive Edition.

• I think I'll check out the Losers trade, especially considering that it reprints six issues for only ten bucks (assuming that's not a misprint).  Per issue, that works out to almost half of what a regular issue costs.

• Is DC getting quicker with collections?  Not only is there the Losers trade, but also collections of such recent series as Birds of Prey and Arkham Asylum: Living Hell; recent storylines from Flash, Superman, and Hawkman; and classic material such as Perez's Wonder Woman.

• Since when is Zero Hour a "classic saga"?

• The "Eye of the Storm" crossover is upon us.  Here's hoping it blows over quickly.

• I've been enjoying Will Pfeifer's work on H-E-R-O, so I'll probably try out his Aquaman, at least for a couple issues.

• Hey, it turns out that Hush guy didn't die after all!  What a surprise!!

If you want to see some of the purty covers DC puts out month after month, go here.  For boring, bland covers, go here.
  ¶ 8:42 PM | |

  Because Sean Collins Doesn't Allow Comments
"[D]on't let's forget that some superhero books are still a hoot and a half":  YES

Citing "Brian Bendis and Mark Millar" as examples of "the entertaining mainstream":  NO
  ¶ 1:39 PM | |

  When Comic Book Movies Go Bad
Caught the tail end of Judge Dredd on TV over the weekend.  Good lord, that was bad.  Some of the standout low points:

• Diane Lane?  Noooooo!!

• Rob Schneider as the annoying sidekick?  Did someone think this was Batman and Robin?  And that Adam Sandler was playing the Dark Knight?

• Why did they show the clones emerging from their cocoons, only to die without doing anything?  I thought this was going to be the closest we got to seeing Judge Death.  Yet the creepy-looking clones don't fight anyone--they just get destroyed in some lame lab explosion.  (Was something edited out for TV?)

• The hoverbike flying scenes looked like they were right out of one of those crappy Universal Studios "simulation" rides.

• Favorite Line:  [Stallone, to bad guy] "I should have put you away myself...personally!"

If the entire movie is this bad, I may have to rent it sometime just for kicks.
  ¶ 10:35 AM | |

  Manga, Sequential Art's Messiah
Over on ICv2's "Talk Back" forum, retailer John Robinson of Graham Crackers Comics wrote a piece entitled "Long Live the Pamphlet."  Part of Robinson's argument is that pundits shouldn't draw hasty conclusions based on the spectacular sales of Shonen Jump.  And he's right:  Shonen Jump is only one example, so it would be premature to decide that from now on all sequential art must be packaged in thick anthology formats.  After all, there are other manga anthologies out there, one which supposedly has newsstand distribution like Shonen Jump, but I doubt Super Manga Blast and Raijin Comics are seeing the sales that Shonen Jump is.

So why do I (and others) get so excited about Shonen Jump?  Well, I've laid out some of my reasons before, but--at the risk of branding myself a manga apologist--I'll try to explain in a little more detail why I think big anthologies provide a promising possibility (not a definite answer) for comics.

Reason Number One:  Value.  Robinson complains that "over the last 21 years in business, the one constant I can always count on is that anthologies will suck wind in sales figures over a very short time." As he argues, "People don't want 64 pages or 100 page of comic material that only contains about 22 pages that they care about."  The problem, however, is that Robinson is still thinking too small:  64- or 100-page comics are nothing.  The twelfth issue of Shonen Jump had 350 pages of material for only $4.95.  That's value.

Reason Number Two:  Newsstands.  Because of the higher page count and price-point, big comic anthologies could be sold on magazine racks.  Robinson only seems to be concerned with how anthologies have typically sold in the Direct Market in the past, but I think we need to look at other markets as well.  After all, I doubt Shonen Jump is seeing much of its sales inside the Direct Market (a suspicion confirmed each month by ICv2's numbers), yet it seems to be doing all right.

Reason Number Three:  Durability.  Somewhat related to the newsstand point.  I've seen comics (individual floppies) in bookstores and drugstores, but they're always horribly beat up.  Often times, I don't even think anyone's read the pamphlets; I think the floppies are just so flimsy that they slide down or flop over in the rack.  Thicker anthologies like Shonen Jump stand up well on their own and fare better with everyday wear-and-tear.  Heck, my floppies seem to crease if I look at them wrong; but I can toss around an issue of Shonen Jump and it still looks like it's in pristine condition.

Reason Number Four:  Subscriptions.  With durable product, it can be shipped through the mail with the expectation that it will arrive in reasonable shape.  Viz's subscription service for Shonen Jump was top-notch, and the magazines always arrived (1) shrink-wrapped (2) before they hit the newsstands.  Plus, the subscription rates were incredible bargains on an already great deal:  The regular subscription rate is half the newsstand price, and the "special charter rate" was even cheaper than that (67% off cover).  Make it cheap and easy to sign up for subscriptions, and I'd be sending my nieces and nephews Marvel and DC anthologies along with their Shonen Jump subscriptions.

Reason Number Five:  Extras.  You say it's not fair that Shonen Jump boosts circulation with extras like CD-ROM games and free gaming cards?  Well, why play fair?  Especially for books aimed at younger readers, put in plenty of free extras so they feel like they're getting something special.

Reason Number Six:  Content.  But aside from the bonuses, you've got to make sure that the core content is strong.  I don't know if this necessarily means it has to be new content, although I think that would definitely help, but it should be related thematically.  I think this is one reason why Shonen Jump succeeds where other anthologies fail:  It focuses on series appealing to (and about) young boys.  Raijin Comics, on the other hand, has series that are too disparate in tone.  The cutesy romance and animal stories of Bow Wow Wata are probably not going to appeal to the same audience that enjoys a more mature political manga like First President of Japan.  I think DC and Marvel could easily put together anthologies that would appeal to well-defined audiences.  Simply collapse the various Bat-books and Superman titles into their own anthologies; the same thing could be done over at Marvel with the growing number of Spider-Man and X-Men titles.  Or put "pockets" of a publishing line together--like the Vertigo or ABC lines.  Or organize anthologies by creator.  Heaven knows some creators generate enough material to put out their own anthologies every month:  Brian Michael Bendis; Geoff Johns; Chuck Austen.  (This would also have the added benefit of quarantining certain authors from the rest of a company's titles.)

I'm not saying that everything should be moved over to a big anthology format.  I think that would be just as short-sighted as leaving everything in the same old 32-page pamphlet form that's been around forever.  But I do think Shonen Jump's impressive sales via bookstores, newsstands, and subscriptions should give American comic publishers something to think about.
  ¶ 12:25 AM | |

  November Preorders for January 2004 Comics
It seems that comics malaise is getting worse:  Several of the usual "Previews Reviewers" haven't written anything up for the latest catalog, and those who have seem downright grumpy about the latest Previews:

• The Fourth Rail guys, who usually split things up into two columns, throw everything into one piece because "January is a depressingly small month for the small press."

• Augie, who usually does a separate writeup on Previews, quickly looks through Previews as part of a regular column.

• Chris Eckman, who usually complains about Previews, complains even more about Previews.

About the only person I've read who seemed enthusiastic about reading through the new Previews was Laura Gjovaag.  Her only unhappiness stems from the fact that she can't afford everything that looks interesting to her.

I did notice after putting my (tentative) order together that it was smaller than previous months, but that's fine with me.  I've been spending too much on comics lately anyway.  If I really needed to pad out my order, I could pick up trades for some of my favorite series (Club 9, Slam Dunk, What's Michael?) but I think I'll hold off on that as well.  I still have plenty of comics to catch up on, so there's no real urgency to get the collected editions of stuff I've already read.

But no one's excited about the DAN CLOWES' GHOST WORLD ENID HI-FASHION GLAMOUR DOLL (p. 384)?
  ¶ 4:33 PM | |

  Manga Stack of Intimidation In The News
The Manga Stack of Intimidation is unstoppable.  Unable to be constrained, it has broken free of this blog and found its way into other columns, such as Matt Maxwell's Full Bleed [not a permalink] and Tony Isabella's Tony's Tips (scroll down to the "More Mailbox" section).  Please report any other sightings of the Manga Stack of Intimidation to the proper authorities.

Even if their columns didn't have such great pictures, I'd still recommend Matt's and Tony's pieces.  Matt discusses some of the more serious problems plaguing the floppy format.  (I'd like to note that the serials in Shonen Jump and other manga anthologies satisfy Matt's request for actual episodic storytelling:  Each chapter is good about developing the storyline instead of just marking time til the next issue.)  And Tony has some sage advice for both creators and reviewers regarding negative reviews:  Let it go already.
  ¶ 11:42 AM | |

  More Mainstream Magazine Mentions
In the November 21, 2003 edition of Entertainment Weekly (#738), the subscribers-only supplement "Listen2This" has more comic reviews:

• Sgt. Rock: Between Hell and a Hard Place: B
• Conan The Legend: B+
• Fray: A-
• Richard Matheson's I Am Legend: B
• Demo: B+
• Amazing Spider-Man #500: B
• Leave It To Chance vol. 3: Monster Madness: A-

Mike Mignola reveals that his all-time favorite graphic novel is Challengers of the Unknown Archives vol. 1.

Upcoming comics mentioned are:  Plastic Man, Michael Chabon Presents...The Amazing Adventures of the Escapist, Brit: Cold Death, Ultimate Fantastic Four, The Mirror of Love, and Sleeper: Out in the Cold (which is described as "a perfectly paranoid super-powered espionage tale")

And in the November 17, 2003 issue of The New Yorker ("The Cartoon Issue"), Pantheon Books ran the following full-page ad:


Nice targeted advertising.

EDIT:  Gah!  Forgot to mention the one-page collaborative strip by Harvey Pekar and Robert Crumb in EW's regular content (p. 19). I can't wait for the Crumb/Pekar reunion tour to hit Minneapolis.
  ¶ 10:18 PM | |

  The Trickle-Down Manga Theory
Dave Intermittent  wonders why the news about Shonen Jump's growing sales should matter much to non-manga comic book fans.  Dirk Deppey has already replied with two reasons (steady bookstore sales keep the Graphic Novel section alive; competition from the manga publishers might encourage The Big Two to produce material in varied genres and formats appealing to younger readers), but I'd like to add a third:  It promotes the art form of sequential art.  Even if the sales of superhero and small press comics never equal that of Shonen Jump, at least the people buying manga are buying comics.  As Ralph Phillips pointed out, even if one portion of comics struggles or withers away, that doesn't mean comics full-stop cease to exist.  And as I believe Shawn Fumo has argued from time to time, today's Chobits fan may grow up to read Cheat or other indie romance GNs in the future.  I would imagine very few of us started out reading black-and-white autobiographical comics when we were in grade school.  We were probably introduced to comics through colorful characters pounding the crap out of each other.  Later (assuming we didn't give up on comics completely) we sought out other, more mature works of sequential art (assuming our tastes evolved or expanded).

A fourth reason might be that readers growing up on manga might become creators of sequential art themselves, and because they weren't immersed almost exclusively in superheroes, they might set out to create more diverse comics.  In fact, this might already be happening:  As Shawn Fumo notes, American creators who grew up on manga and anime are now getting published as part of Tokyopop's ongoing "Rising Stars of Manga" contest, and their topics aren't all about giant robots or teen romance.  Getting newer generations of sequential art enthusiasts to think of comics in terms broader than just "superheroes, superheroes, and more superheroes" could be a very good thing for American comics.

So much for the broad, abstract point.  Now to consider a specific question Dave raised:  How is the "Amerimanga" book Death: At Death's Door doing?  I don't know if there have been any reports on bookstore sales (ICv2 noted that sales were "strong" and that it made the bookstore list of Top 50 Graphic Novel Titles; Publishers Weekly referred to it as "one of the most successful American manga-style books" and listed it as number eleven on its list of "Top-selling Graphic Novels of 2003"), but in the Direct Market sales have been good:  It was the number one graphic novel in July 2003 with estimated sales of 15,364 copies, and it showed up on the Top 50 GNs list again in August and October, with sales of 1,780 and 2,483, respectively.  (Of course, this book undoubtedly owes much of its success to the extremely loyal Sandman fan-base, but Dave wanted to know.)
  ¶ 5:02 PM | |

  Alex Rossenstahl?
So I'd heard there was some sort of hubbub over Alex Ross being a Nazi, or employing the techniques of Nazi propagandists, or something like that.  I guess the furor started with David Fiore's remarks here.  From there various bloggers reacted, including Johnny Bacardi, Laura Gjovaag, Sean Collins, and David Fiore to clarify his position.  I finally read through everything and I have to say...I just don't see it—the inherent fascism or the "uncritical valuation of heroes for their hero-ness."  Maybe it's just me, but I look at Ross' work (which I do like) and I think it makes the heroes seem frailer, not more formidable.  I think my take is something like Sean's in this respect:  When I can see the wrinkles and folds in Superman's skin, or the seams in Batman's homemade cape and costume, the heroes seem more like regular schlubs and less like iconic Olympians.  In short, they look like grown men and women running around playing superheroes.  If this is the opposite of what Ross is going for, then there's a completely different problem with his artwork—namely, it doesn't achieve what it set out to.
  ¶ 9:25 AM | |

  Manga Marches On
Dirk Deppey comments on ICv2's news that the ninth issue of Shonen Jump cracked half a million copies in sales.   As ICv2 notes in the piece, that issue contained a CD-ROM demo for a Yu-Gi-Oh! PC-based video game, so I could already hear detractors saying that these numbers "didn't count."  (Never mind that Shonen Jump's regular sales have skyrocketed 60% from 190,000 to 305,000.)  Luckily, someone else anticipated the naysayers and had a response ready:

Just to head off the usual naysayers: Yes, newsstand-sold magazines are returnable. But if the orders are going UP, there's a fair chance not much is being returned, yes? And yes, #9 sold half a million because of special promotion and a CD, not on the sheer artistic merits of the comics within. Guess what. That's how people do business in the adult world. Cope.

(Thanks to Graeme McMillan for reproducing Warren Ellis' observations.)

And Newsarama ran a press release from Viz detailing their plans for the "First Anniversary Issue" (i.e., #13) of Shonen Jump.  I'm starting to reconsider my decision not to renew my subscription...

Meanwhile, another anthology from a different publisher may never even see its first issue reach publication.
  ¶ 10:28 AM | |

  One-Line Reviews
The High-Concept Pitch for Sleeper #10:  Genocide's origin story = Homer Simpson + The Killing Joke.

The Surprise Twist Forecast for Astro City: Local Heroes #4:  The Blue Knight will turn out to be the lawyer's cop friend, who will then save the lawyer and turn to kill the bad guys...until the lawyer reminds him that "killing them won't bring your family back."

The "It's Deja Vu All Over Again" Award for JSA All Stars #6:  If you're going to have the main character retell his origin within the story itself, opening with the Spectre narrating that same origin story is a little redundant, not to mention a waste of a full page.
  ¶ 9:06 AM | |

  Supervillain Snark
When I need a good dose of snark, there's no finer place than the V Forum.  In this thread, posters offered their takes on various supervillains:

• Kingpin:  "Kingpin...is the dullest fucking villain in the rogue's gallery. His powers: FAT. His motivation: RUN CRIME."

• R'as Al Ghul:  "I get the feeling I should love R'as Al Ghul, but he's the shittiest Batman villain. His powers - old, strange beard. His motivations - the sanctity of wildlife."

• Thanos:   "Thanos gains omnipotent power all the time! Then he loses it. AND THEN HE GAINS IT AGAIN! Then - miraculously - he loses it once more! AND THEN HE GAINS UNIMAGINABLE POWER AGAIN!"  - "That sounds like a cosmic sitcom: 'DARLING, THE SURFER IS COMING AND I AM POWERLESS TO STOP HIM.'; 'NOW THINK ABOUT WHERE YOU LAST HAD THE COSMIC POWER AND REMEMBER WHERE YOU WENT AFTER THAT.'"

  ¶ 11:50 AM | |

  Playing With The Search Feature
In response to Dirk Deppey's concern that the copy of Sanctuary I bought at Half Price Books was remaindered:  I don't think it was.  Usually the remaindered books have what look like computer-printed labels with bar codes on them, whereas other books have smaller, individually-printed sticky price tags.  I've always assumed the latter type of books were ones brought in by customers, not unsold stock from the publishers.  I've also found that remaindered books seem to appear on the Half Price Books website.  So stuff like the stacks of CrossGen's Compendia, shelves of ComicsOne manga (which interestingly list "Diamond Comic Distributors" as the publisher), and piles of Safe Area Gorazde were probably remaindered books (especially since the detail page for each book says "Publisher's Overstock").  But I'm guessing the single copies of various Tokyopop and Dark Horse manga I saw were just individual used books sold by customers.

Perhaps we can use the Half Price Books site as an anecdotal tool to see which graphic novels are doing well in the bookstores.  I was surprised that the site didn't list any of Marvel's hardcovers, since I saw several copies of Ultimate X-Men vol. 1 and the Hulk and X-Men Encyclopedias in the store.  (Perhaps they were all from a collector who expected the books to become "hot" a couple weeks after their release.)  But it is nice to know I can buy back issues of Ultimate Spider-Man and signed copies of Maximum Clonage online.
  ¶ 10:58 AM | |

  Miscelleanous Manga
Found some cheap manga at a local Half Price Books:

Crayon Shinchan vol. 1 by Yoshito Usui (ComicsOne • 120 pages • $9.95)

Crayon Shinchan is one of the funniest comic strips I've read in a long time.  In his review of the first volume, Greg McElhatton compared Crayon Shinchin to another comic strip featuring a mischievous young boy as the lead character, Calvin and Hobbes.  Only as Greg pointed out, Shinchin makes even Calvin look pretty tame.  Shinchin may look like a five-year-old boy, but he acts more like a dirty old man, hitting on single women (see second panel below) and reading pornographic magazines at the bookstore.  Even his parents notice that little Shinchin seems a bit strange for his age, wondering why he doesn't act more like a normal five-year-old.  But then Shinchin's parents aren't much happier when he does things most tots do, such as draw all over himself (and I mean all over himself) or ask embarrassingly frank questions at inappropriate times.

I've included some sample panels below, and readers who'd like more of a preview can check out a 30-page PDF sample from ComicsOne to see if they'd be interested in this book.  The pages shown are pretty representative of the series overall.  One thing that might turn people off is the very simple (one might even say "crude" or "primitive") artwork, but I thought the amateurish art actually fit the material:  The bare-bones art provides an innocent cover for the PG-13 humor, much as Shinchin's childlike appearance conceals the "mature themes" that occupy his thoughts.


Island vol. 1 by In-Wan Youn and Kyung-Il Yang (Tokyopop • 168 pages • $9.95) 

Half Price Books had a number of different "volume ones" from Tokyopop, so I thought I'd try out one since I haven't read much from this darling of the bookstores. (I think I've only read their Battle Royale and Rising Stars series.)   I flipped through a couple different books, but nothing caught my eye til this one.  I saw some of the horror art inside and it looked creepy enough, so—hoping for another Uzumaki—I purchased Island.

As they say, "I've read Uzumaki.  You, Island, are no Uzumaki."

Yeah, it's probably not fair to compare every horror manga (or every horror comic, for that matter) to Uzumaki, but what can I say?  I've been spoiled.  And even if I try to put on my Objective Reviewer's Hat, I still think Island falls short considered in its own right:  The action sequences are confusingly rendered; the sexual violence is crass and gratuitous; and the central characters are extremely unlikeable.  It's never a good sign when you find yourself wishing the main characters would just hurry up and die.  Pan, the main protagonist, is supposedly a serial killer, and he's the character who "saves" the female lead in the story's opening sequence.  Given the oblique way in which this information is revealed in the story (and the coy manner in which Toykopop's website addresses the matter: "Pan is a man of mystery. He may be a serial killer."), I'm guessing that Pan is in fact not a serial killer.  Which makes the back cover's explicit identification of Pan as a serial killer all the more misleading, and all the more annoying

Another drawback with a book lies with the binding, not the storytelling.  On several pages, artwork and word balloons disappear into the gutter.  This is especially irritating when it obscures a character's dialogue.

On the positive side, the art is nice enough.  It's fairly detailed, and there are some nice design elements.  But as I mentioned above, many transitions from panel to panel are confusingly staged.  And this might be more of a personal taste thing, but I didn't find the actual demons frightening.  Yes, they're fittingly grotesque, but the whole Aliens look isn't that disturbing.  The representations of humans possessed by demons, however, are much more effective (see below).

This review of Island is pretty amusing, and they seem to like it much more than I did, so consider it a second opinion.

(And, yes, I know that this book is more accurately categorized as manwha (Korean manga), but the word is so close to manga anyway, and Tokyopop publishes it, so let's call the whole thing off.)


Sanctuary vol. 1 by Sho Fumimura and Ryoichi Ikegami (Viz • 344 pages • $16.95)

Sanctuary tells the tale of two young men's attempt to infiltrate the Diet.  But this is no idealistic political manga like First President of Japan.  In fact, Sanctuary is like First President's evil twin:  The main characters join the Yakuza, beat opponents brutally, and blackmail rivals in order to advance politically. 

The storytelling in Sanctuary is deceptively simple:  Dialogue is sparse; characters and backgrounds are rendered fairly minimally; and multiple panels are often employed to stretch out a single scene or reaction.  The last bit probably sounds familiar to readers of today's comics:  "Hey, that's that decompression everyone's always talking about, isn't it?"  Well, yes, I guess it is.  I feel funny using the term to describe the storytelling of Sanctuary, though, because "decompression" seems to have taken on such a negative connotation nowadays (padding, stretching things out, lack of a competent editor, etc.).  I prefer to think of it as "dramatic pacing."  Of course, it helps when you have actual drama to pace, and Sanctuary has that in spades.  (Another factor in Sanctuary's favor is that when Ikegami uses one close-up after another of the same character, he actually draws different close-ups rather than just repeating the same panel over and over again.  It's nitpicky, but that "cheat" is so overused in so many comics it's really come to bother me.)

Despite the seeming simplicity of this book, Sanctuary is extremely engrossing.  I couldn't put this book down until I'd read the whole thing.  And then once I'd reached the end, I wanted to rush out and read the next volume.  (Looks like the reviewers at Artbomb had a similar experience.)  Instead, I went back and re-read the first volume over again, this time mainly appreciating Ikegami's gorgeous artwork.  I love the confident line work Ikegami uses to define a hand or a suit.  I love the expressive faces he draws—each character looks distinctive and remains consistently recognizable throughout the book.  Finally, I love the women he draws; Ikegami's females are voluptuous and sexy, but never in a pandering or titillating way.  (I would have put up some samples of Ikegami's "erotically charged" (back cover blurb's word choice, not mine) artwork, but I like to keep this blog "work-safe" so instead you get pics of Ikegami's old men, something else he draws extremely well.)


Meanwhile, In Other Manga News...

ADD and Augie agreeing on something—a manga series, no less? Now I've seen everything. Hmm, I might have to check this Planetes out. And you're right, Augie, Kill Me, Kiss Me does sound pretty interesting:  "Laced with cross-dressing high jinks and madcap hilarity wrapped around a tender story of one girl's pursuit of true love, Kill Me, Kiss Me is a charming tale of adolescent angst."  Having grown up watching Bosom Buddies, I'm always up for some cross-dressing antics.
  ¶ 1:28 AM | |

  But Everything I Read Is Brilliant
Candidate for this week's meme:  There are too many mediocre fucking comic books and you really need to stop buying them.  Come to think of it, isn't this the same candidate for Blogosphere Meme as every other week?  (Thanks to ADD for pointing out Christopher Butcher's closing statements in the 11/12 edition of Shipping This Week.  On top of everything else Chris said, I'd like to add that the bunny usually doesn't even taste like real chocolate.)
  ¶ 1:13 PM | |

  The Law Is An Ass
If only Matt Brady had been a day quicker, he could have stayed off Dirk Deppey's Michigan Censorship Inertia Watch.

So if the law only requires that the lower 2/3 of a sexually explicit matter's cover or exterior is prevented from public viewing, what happens if publishers start putting the naughty bits up on the top third of the cover?
  ¶ 12:42 PM | |

  Tenacious Termites
Ralph Phillips of Termite Terrace has a couple interesting entries up.  First, a reminder that the comics medium is distinct from the portion of the comics industry known as the Direct Market.  It's a point people often overlook in their zeal to "Save Comics" but it's an important one.  I agree with Ralph here, especially after seeing bookstores filed with graphic novels during a recent trip to Paris.  People will continue to create sequential art even if your favorite superhero comic is cancelled.  (And I'm not trying to belittle anyone's attachment to low-selling superhero comics, either;  I know the pain of loss all too well, having endured the all-too-short runs of favorites such as Power Company and Chase.)

Second, Ralph looks at the etiquette of properly attributing sources when blogging.  It's something that occasionally crosses my mind when reading others' blogs ("Did they get that from me?") but I think Ralph's right here as well:  Make the best effort to give the proper credit, but don't get hung up on it if others fail to return the favor.

Welcome to the blogosphere, Ralph.  Here's wishing you a long run of finding links I can take credit for.
  ¶ 2:03 PM | |

  Grotesque Gripes: AVENGERS/JLA #2 & ASM #500
Why is it I'm so behind the curve?  Not only do I get my comics later than everyone else, but I seem to arrive at the general consensus on things more slowly as well.  Case in point:  Avengers/JLA (or JLA/Avengers, depending which month it is) #2.  Back in October, I surveyed other reviewers' opinions on the first issue and thought many were being excessively harsh.  Now I've read the second issue and I'm beginning to think they were just quicker to spot the sluggish direction this mini-series is going in.

Things start out encouragingly with a much more dynamic cover than last month's group photo.  There's a helpful summary of the story so far on the inside cover, and the issue begins by giving a little more detail into the conversation between Krona and the Grandmaster, which set events into motion.  So far, so good, but then we run into a big roadblock on page 3:  Who the heck is the floating cosmic chick?  Eternity's sister?  Eternity in drag?  Luckily, ComiX-Fan's annotations for #2 were there to inform me that this is "The physical manifestation of Kismet in the DC Universe."  OK, whatever; I know a lot less about the DCU than I do the minutia of the Marvel Universe.  Don't get bogged down by minor details; keep plugging along.

Next comes the superhero slugfest that got underway last issue.  There are some fun moments here, especially the banter between Flash and Hawkeye ("Purple Arrow" was especially fitting, given Hawkeye's repeated Squadron Supreme jabs).  Meanwhile, Batman and Captain America decide to find out who's pulling the strings while the other heroes fight.  While I can see Batman (or at least Morrison's version from JLA) using the others' fights as cover while he does his clandestine thing, I was taken aback by Cap's quick acceptance of Batman's plan, especially in light of Cap's worry last issue that the DCU heroes were "fascist overloads."  Didn't it cross Cap's mind that some of his teammates might be injured, or that Batman might be feigning cooperation in order to trap him?  And how does sizing up someone's fighting abilities reveal anything about their trustworthiness?  A bit of an awkward transition from the tone of last issue.

Although Captain America seems to have calmed down, Superman still appears to be acting out of character.  (Surest sign that Superman isn't quite himself?  He's quoting Spinal Tap.)   Even Superman's teammates continue to comment on his abnormal behavior.  So now I'm not sure what the point was in having these heroes act so oddly.  At first I thought it was perhaps Busiek's way of commenting on how these characters are the embodiments of their respective universes:  Transported into an alien universe, each begins to act in an alien manner.  But Cap's calm behavior in this issue while in the "other" universe seems to shoot down this theory.  Whatever the eventual explanation (mind control, possession, doppleganger switch during teleportation), the loss of symmetry seems to have weakened the impact of this device.

Speaking of heroes acting out of character, the Thing shows up in this issue to provide some comic relief.  The only problem is that it doesn't seem to be Ben Grimm's trademark gruff sense of humor.  He shows up in the Batcave and yammers on while Batman doesn't get in a single word.  It's a funny scene, contrasting Batman's taciturn demeanor against a much more gregarious character, but Grimm's nonstop chatter is more suited to a character like Spider-Man.  Even worse, the Thing's line that he's not needed "fer gumshoein'—even cosmic gumshoein'" only serves to draw attention to the contrived nature of the cast:  The Thing—who has handled plenty of cosmic affairs on his own and as a member of the FF—only declines to help because Busiek doesn't want him in this story, not because he'd rather lift things for Reed than save the universe.  So why does Busiek include the Thing at all?  Because of the promise to include every character who's ever been a member of either team, and Ben was a member of the West Coast Avengers for a short period.  (Reed and Sue, who were members of the regular Avengers team for several issues, also get a quick cameo for this reason.)  Busiek sacrifices a smoothly-flowing story for some comedy and character checklist completeness.

There were a couple other spots where I felt the story ground to a halt.  Any time Krona and Grandmaster would explain the rules of their wager, my eyes started glazing over.  ("So let's go over this one more time:  If you win, I'll leave your universe.  But if I win, you have to let me wear that darling yellow dress you have on!!")  And since the full plot has yet to be revealed, I know I have even more exposition to look forward to in upcoming issues.

Then toward the end of the issue, it seemed as though every other panel was a close-up of a hero wearing a shocked expression and exclaiming "WH--??"  After a while I lost track of who was being surprised by what.  An acceptable pacing device, but definitely overused here.

Although I found this issue frustrating overall, there were still some fun scenes for long-time fans:  Cap seeing the case containing the Jason Todd Robin costume and asking "You...lost a partner?"; Hawkeye grumbling that he didn't get a chance to square off against Green Arrow; Batman entering the Grandmaster's lair and commenting that he's "fought men with this kind of compulsion before, but never with this scope."  I also thought Perez's art was stronger in this issue, especially in the use of symmetrical page layouts to show the two teams' parallel actions throughout the story.  Check out pages 16-17, 24-25, 37, 38, 39, 47—some very nice stuff.

Next Issue:  The Amalgam Universe!! (?)

On the other hand, sometimes I feel I'll never be able to join in the conventional wisdom on certain books.  My impression is that most people are enjoying J. Michael Straczynski's run on Amazing Spider-Man but I've never been able to get into it.  I've read some of his earlier issues (either through Marvel's DotComics or lucky bargain bin finds) but found them tedious.  But what find of fanboy would I be if I passed up a chance to read a double-sized (well, almost) 500th issue special of my favorite superhero?  So, yeah, I picked up ASM #500.

I'd hardly hit the first page when I already had several complaints.  A J. Scott Campbell cover?  Ugh.  I don't understand why people think his females are attractive; I think his female characters look hideously distorted.  (His Mary Jane has been a featured image in the Grotesque Anatomy Hall of Shame before.)  OK, turn the cover.  Huh?  What the hell is going on??  Why is the Earth X Spider-Man in this comic?  Why does the young Peter Parker have a spider-shaped lamp?  "Happy Birthday, Part Three"???  Hey, doesn't Marvel do those recap pages?  I could sure use one now!  Aarrgh—way to plan for all those casual readers who will be picking this issue up because of the "500" on the front, Marvel...

Since I didn't read the issues leading up to this one, I have no idea why the future Spider-Man is being pursued by the police for manslaughter.  I have no idea who this Lamont character trying to talk Future-Spidey into surrendering is.  And I have no idea why Future-Spidey thinks committing suicide will be "better for MJ."  (Can't you just get a divorce if she's sick of your being Spider-Man?)  So this scene with Future-Spidey deciding to go out in a pointless blaze of glory eats up about seven pages of the (almost) double-sized issue.  From the future, we return to the past as we watch Spidey (with his present consciousness) relive several events from his earlier career, including yet another homage to the "pinned under rubble" scene from ASM #33 (didn't JMS just do something similar to this not too long ago?).  At first the idea struck me as lazy ("Hey, we don't even have to write any new scenes for this issue!  We'll just have Spidey relive his past!!"), but the execution isn't bad.  Watching a wiser, more experienced Spidey wisecrack his way through earlier events reminded me of something out of one of the better Buffy episodes.  Plus, we get to see JR, Jr's renditions of some classic Spidey villains.  (My only complaint is that JMS' lame villains are shoehorned in alongside the classic rouges' gallery.)

Spidey returns to the present, convinces the other heroes not to do something Very Bad, and Dr. Strange shows up to save the day.  Doc also presents Spidey with a special gift—five minutes with Uncle Ben (which is a treat for the reader, too, since the four-page scene is illustrated by none other than Jazzy Johnny Romita himself).  Yeah, I got a little misty-eyed seeing Peter finally unburden some of his guilt.  (And somewhere John Byrne read this scene and shed tears as well, but tears of anger:  "How dare they screw up Peter's motivation for being Spider-Man??  Idiots!!!  Looks like I'll have to step in to clean things up again....")

Actually, now that I think about it, this would make a very good ending point for the Spider-Man saga:  Peter, finally realizing that he is happy, deciding to continue as Spider-Man because he derives satisfaction from helping others.  Yeah, I think it makes sense to stop reading Spider-Man comics here.  I like this ending.

Thanks, Marvel.
  ¶ 12:06 AM | |

  Epic Struggles
Newsarama is reporting that all unreleased Epic titles will now be collected into a single anthology.  I'm not sure how the average Marvel fan will react to this, but I think it's a great idea.  For whatever reason, I'm generally drawn to anthologies.  I think I like the variety and value:  It's usually a good way to sample several series for less than it would cost to buy them individually.  Depending on the price/page count (not mentioned in the Newsarama piece), I may actually get this.  I'm not sure how long the anthology series will last, though.  Despite the frequent online cries for more diverse packaging (such as thick anthologies of all-new material), the Direct Market never seems to support such format experimentation.  Worse, Marvel itself bestows the stink of death on the Epic anthology by suggesting there may not even be a second issue.  Way to inspire enthusiasm in your product, Marvel.  Maybe those Dejemasification theories are correct after all. Any bets on what the next variation on the Epic projects will be? ("We've decided to scrap the anthology; now Epic will be released as a series of limited-edition Dynamic Forces prints.")
  ¶ 5:29 PM | |

  Dearest Comics Retailer...
More bloggers are sharing their experiences with different comic shops:  Laura "Tegan" Gjovaag (who points out that I was probably being overly generous in referring to Golden Age Collectables as a "comics store" rather than a "tourist trap") writes fondly about her local comic shop, Corner Comics (which gets a short little write-up from the local newspaper); David Allen Jones likes his shop so much that he doesn't even mind the 35-mile drive (although it helps that there's a place to buy beer nearby); and Kevin Melrose bemoans the fact that he can't buy his own published comic work at his local shop, even when he offers to order twenty copies.

After reading all of these good and bad accounts of various comic shops, I felt moved to chime in with some words about my own comics retailer, Mailordercomics.  (Yes, as you can probably guess from the name, Mailordercomics (MOC for short) is a mail-order service.  I like the convenience and the savings (in terms of both money and time), OK?)  As I mentioned in an earlier entry, I stumbled across MOC at a time when I was truly burned out on comics (not just the general, good-natured grumbling I've been expressing lately).  Even though I had stopped buying comics, I was still following the main comics news sites and lurking in various message boards.  Someone (I don't remember who or where) mentioned that you could buy comics online at a sizable discount.  I checked out the various sites and settled on MOC.  Well, "settled on" is putting it mildly.  I was seduced by the generous discounts (35% off most "mainstream" books—even more than Amazon's standard 30%!!) and one-time offer of "Free Shipping!" on your first order (something I'm not sure MOC still offers, but it certainly got my attention at the time, which I think was before Amazon offered free shipping on orders over $25).

Now one objection that some people might raise is that ordering online is so impersonal.  On the one hand, this is true:  I'm certainly not interacting with any clerks or other customers in order to get my comics (which could be a Very Good Thing, depending on your feelings/experiences with comic store clerks and customers).  On the other hand, it's not completely impersonal.  I've found other MOC customers online, and we share our experiences (and orders and pull lists).  And I've gotten to know MOC's owner, Michael Robinson, pretty well—mainly because I email him so often with suggestions, but also because (partial disclosure time) I used to review comics for MOC (something I eventually bowed out of because I was so bad at meeting my deadlines).  Michael is always prompt in returning my emails, even when I look back at my original emails and think, "Geez, how annoying am I?  I don't think I would have addressed my comments if I were Michael."  But Michael is so committed to customer service that he even takes the time to respond to my long-winded pestering.

But maybe that's not the best example to prove Michael's commitment to great service.  Heck, for all I know, MOC uses an automated response system and I simply trigger the "Verbose Nitpicker" replies:  "Dear JOHN, thank you for your wonderful suggestion(s)..."  (Just kidding, Michael; I still believe you really write the emails yourself.)  So here's another example.

Michael sent out an email today outlining some upcoming improvements in MOC.  The one that probably got most people excited was the news about EVEN BIGGER DISCOUNTS!!  OK, yeah, that got me excited too, but what really grabbed my attention was this info:

Each month we have a small number of customers that are either shipped a book that didn't belong to them or didn't get something that was listed on their packing list.  With the hiring of some new employees, this is to be expected until they can become acclimated to the new job.  However, in an attempt to reduce these mis-sorts even further, we hired a consultant to come out and spend a few days with us on our methods of pulling.  I think you're going to find that the changes we have made in our pulling system will guarantee you 100% accurate results in your monthly shipping....Next is our packaging.  I actually had a packaging manager from a major catalog company come out to our warehouse and examine our current packing methods and materials.  He made some very good recommendations in both how we pack and the items we use in our void fill.

It might seem like a small thing, but the fact that MOC is willing to hire two consultants to analyze their processes really impressed me.  Part of it is that I'm a QA in my day job, so process stuff like that resonates with me.  But mainly I'm impressed because MOC is making a focused effort to improve its service, service that (from my perspective anyway) didn't even need tweaking.  (I do know of one case where a friend on the Broken Frontier boards had a shipment stolen, but that was a failure on UPS's part, not MOC's.  Still, MOC addressed that situation by replacing all the comics that it could (as you can guess, replacing the missing Marvel comics was a chore) and by switching to Fed Ex as its carrier.)  Maybe part of the reason I'm so impressed is because I've heard stories in the past of readers not getting something in their pull box that they preordered, but being brushed off by their retailers when they brought it up.  I'm impressed MOC is taking the steps to correct the problem rather than just shrugging and saying, "What do you want us to do about it?"

OK, love letter to my retailer over.  I'll try to be in a grumpier mood next week.  If I stick to my plan of reviewing Avengers/JLA #2 and Amazing Spider-Man #500, a grumpier mood can pretty much be guaranteed.

(And because Dictator-For-Life Sean Collins doesn't have a comments section on his blog:  Sean, how am I the man who started it all when I was inspired in part by two threads other bloggers linked to?  I call entrapment!!  (But I still want credit for the Derek Kirk Kim masturbation webcomic link, even though Mr. Bacardi whines that he's had a link to Kim's site forever and I actually got the link from the Termite Terrace blog (which linked to it way back on Oct. 15th).  And did you get the Tomie books yet?))
  ¶ 3:24 PM | |

  Point-Counterpoint: Comics Suck
One interesting thing about blogging is you're never sure what other people will respond to, or how they'll interpret what you've written.  On Tuesday I threw out some scattered thoughts I'd been having and called it a blog entry.  Over the last few days, a number of people have commented on and reacted to my grumblings: Dirk Deppey, Ron Phillips, David Allen Jones, Kevin Melrose, Rick Geerling, and Sean Collins.  While it was certainly interesting to read other people's thoughts and feelings about the ebb and flow of attachment to this hobby, I wanted to clarify my own position on the matter.  I wouldn't really describe my feelings as "burnout" and I wasn't trying to express despair about the current state of the art form; it was really just a strange observation about the floppy format that suddenly struck me.  Yeah, there was some ranting about cramped comic stores and the trap(s) of preordering in there, but none of it made me want to abandon comics or anything.  As I said in my original post,

I guess in the end my decision won't be anything dramatic:  I'm not going to give up comics or swear off floppies completely.  I'll just do what I do whenever I get in a mood like this:  Trim down the pull list and be more selective when I put together my monthly orders.

I can see how my reflections sparked others to comment on their own occasional ambivalence towards comics, but I didn't want anyone to come away with the impression that I hate comics.  I don't—not any more than I hate any other medium, at any rate.  I mean, it's not as though comics are unique in serving as a target for my ire:  I generally hate going out to see movies, because I always end up in front of some morons who think the theater is their private screening room, talking during the movie, making and receiving calls on their cell phones, etc.  I grow tired of TV shows that I've watched regularly.  I buy books, DVDs, and video games based on the recommendations of others and it's not as though I like everything they're so sure I'll love.

So if the question is, "Do Comics Suck?" as Sean Collins put it, I'd have to say:  Yes, but only to the extent that everything sucks.  And, No, because as Alan David Doane points out, there have been a lot of good comics that have come out this past year.  (I feel a special "Year End" retrospective coming on...)  And even with books that aren't as enjoyable or enriching as I might wish (Avengers/JLA #2, I'm looking at you), I still get the pleasure—the intellectual satisfaction—of thinking about why I didn't like the work, why I responded to the work the way that I did.  And for me, that's all I expect out of any form of literature, entertainment, or art.
  ¶ 4:27 PM | |

  Want To Learn More About MANGA?
For all you manga lovers out there (and manga-curious, as well), Shawn Fumo has put together a nice list of helpful manga resources.  Thanks, Shawn.  The Lister X service looks interesting—I'll have to check it out when I have more time.
  ¶ 2:44 PM | |

  Gimee Gimee Gimee!
I've considered adding donation buttons on this blog from time to time but never followed through with it.  Then I saw this entry on Graeme's blog where he linked to an entry on Mark Evanier's blog where Mark revealed he's doing quite well in terms of tips.  So, yeah, that finally motivated me to set up some donation buttons on the right.  And I only mention this to be up-front about the fact that I am doing this for the money, but I certainly don't expect that people have to contribute anything.  If you do, great, thank you, but I won't be guilting people into helping me run the blog or anything.  I don't really have any additional expenses associated with doing the blog (I'm hosting it through Blogger for free, and I store images on webspace that I already had as part of my broadband service), so it's not like I need to be reimbursed for money I'm throwing into this.  There's the time aspect, but like most bloggers, I do this because I enjoy it, not because I expect to be compensated.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter.  I promise never to bring it up again--I just wanted to lay out my reasons for adding the shameless soliciting on the right.

EDIT: Moved the donation buttons to the bottom of the left section because they seemed to be causing problems with the links not displaying on the right for some people. Please let me know if the links still aren't showing up on the right side as they should. Thanks.
  ¶ 12:45 PM | |

  Archie vs. Yugi?
While poking around Tony Isabella's section of the World Famous Comics site, I ran across his latest "Tony's Tips" column.  Playing around with the Inflation Calculator, Tony finds that there are still some good comic book values out there.  The two biggest bargains according to Tony are Archie comics (especially the Digests and Double Digests) and Shonen Jump.  According to Tony's rough calculations, Shonen Jump is a bargain at $4.95 an issue, since a comparably-sized American comic from 1961 would cost over nine bucks today:

That brings us to Viz's SHONEN JUMP, arguably the best buy in comics. Each monthly issue has over 300 pages of manga and manga-related articles. The same amount of material in 1961 comic books would have cost readers about a buck-and-a-half; going by the IC, SHONEN JUMP should carry a cover price of nine dollars and change. Its actual cover price is $4.95.

Tony is also a fan of the anthology's content, noting that "there's so much of interest in each issue of JUMP that you can spend hours enjoying the comic. It would be a good deal at twice the cover price."  Although I've tired of Shonen Jump myself (I won't be renewing my subscription and I doubt I'll continue any of the series in trades), I'd still recommend the anthology, especially to younger readers and comic fans who are looking for a way to sample a large amount of manga quickly and cheaply.

I wonder if Tony does requests?  I'd love to see how $60 worth of Archie Digests would stack up against the Manga Tower of Intimidation.

(And if you're looking for another way to compare various comics, reader Lank suggests using books' square inch size ratio would be a fairer measure than simple thickness.  I'm not sure I agree with (or fully understand) this proposed form of measurement, but you can read Lank's efforts to explain it in the comment thread for the original Manga Stack entry.)
  ¶ 9:36 AM | |

  Now This Is Self-Loathing Theatre!
Derek Kirk Kim is back with a sideways strip titled "The Ten Commandments of Simon."  (Thanks to Termite Terrace for the link.)  In other Kim news, Sequential Tart has a pretty extensive interview with Kim, as well as a positive review of his wonderful graphic novel, Same Difference and Other Stories (available in both webcomic and "dead tree" versions).  If you haven't read this book yet, I'd highly recommend it—easily one of my favorite books of the year.
  ¶ 11:31 PM | |

  Schulman on SSM: Civilization in Crisis
Eve Tushnet linked to this article by Sam Schulman opposing same-sex marriage.  I think the opening passage nicely sums up how fairly and even-handedly the author treats the matter:

The feeling seems to be growing that gay marriage is inevitably coming our way in the U.S., perhaps through a combination of judicial fiat and legislation in individual states. Growing, too, is the sense of a shift in the climate of opinion. The American public seems to be in the process of changing its mind—not actually in favor of gay marriage, but toward a position of slightly revolted tolerance for the idea. Survey results suggest that people have forgotten why they were so opposed to the notion even as recently as a few years ago.

Yeah, people couldn't have been convinced by argument that there was no good reason to oppose same-sex marriage; they must have simply forgotten why they were opposed in the first place.  "Well, I seem to remember I was against same-sex marriage, but I can't seem to remember why.  Guess I'd better just resign myself to slightly revolted tolerance from now on."  I'll have to check USA Today's site to see if they have any of their old surveys archived; I'd love to see how many people checked the "tolerant, yet slightly revolted" option.  Wait, that's funny:  This opinion piece from USA Today states that recent polling data shows increasing numbers of Americans opposed to same-sex marriage.  I guess they forgot that they forgot that they opposed same-sex marriage.

The rest of the article goes on to argue that allowing SSM will result in an "Antigone moment":

To me, what is at stake in this debate...is our ability to maintain the most basic components of our humanity. I believe, in fact, that we are at an “Antigone moment.” Some of our fellow citizens wish to impose a radically new understanding upon laws and institutions that are both very old and fundamental to our organization as individuals and as a society. As Antigone said to Creon, we are being asked to tamper with “unwritten and unfailing laws, not of now, nor of yesterday; they always live, and no one knows their origin in time.” I suspect, moreover, that everyone knows this is the case, and that, paradoxically, this very awareness of just how much is at stake is what may have induced, in defenders of those same “unwritten and unfailing laws,” a kind of paralysis.

To me, this sounds a lot like a natural law argument, something I don't have much sympathy for.  As I see it, laws are created by humans to serve their needs; humans do not serve unchanging natural laws.  (I also thought it was strange that Schulman thinks people have forgotten their reasons for opposing SSM but everyone simply knows that we are in danger of tampering with the very fabric of society.)

Schulman, like most opponents of SSM, settles the matter by begging it:  "[B]y definition, the essence of marriage is to sanction and solemnize that connection of opposites which alone creates new life."  (Well of course same-sex couples can't get married!  Look, the word 'opposite' is built right into the very definition of marriage!  Silly homosexuals!)  Schulman also conveniently sidesteps the thorny issue of childless opposite-sex marriages by simply stating "Whether or not a given married couple does in fact create new life is immaterial."   Sure, but only if the couple is heterosexual, right?  The fact that a homosexual couple could not create new life on their own generally receives a great deal of attention from SSM opponents.  But if a heterosexual couple is childless, for whatever reason?  Irrelevant!!

In a possibly revealing slip, Schulman refers to opposite-sex marriage as "an idea":

Their union is not a formalizing of romantic love but represents a certain idea—a construction, an abstract thought—about how best to formalize the human condition. This thought, embodied in a promise or a contract, is what holds marriage together, and the creation of this idea of marriage marks a key moment in the history of human development, a triumph over the alternative idea, which is concubinage.

This seems to be at odds with his opening claims that human beings are attempting to tamper with laws whose origins in time are unknown.  If traditional heterosexual marriage is simply an idea, why can't that idea be altered as society's (and citizens') needs change?  As Schulman points out, after all, "Circumstances have, admittedly, changed."

Also nice is Schulman's reliance on sexist stereotypes of masculinity to reinforce his position: "[A] man desperate to marry is often considered to have something wrong with him—to be unusually controlling or needy."  Schulman makes this enlightened point while arguing that men never feel incomplete without marriage the way that women do (in itself another nice stereotype:  "All women feel empty if they're not married!")  Perhaps Schulman's never run across men who genuinely want to settle down with someone—men who feel empty after years of unfulfilling dating—but they do exist.  Of course, in Schulman's view, such men must be "deficient" in some way.

But Schulman saves his most offensive comments for this bit:

Why should I not be able to marry a man? The question addresses a class of human phenomena that can be described in sentences but nonetheless cannot be. However much I might wish to, I cannot be a father to a pebble—I cannot be a brother to a puppy—I cannot make my horse my consul. Just so, I cannot, and should not be able to, marry a man. If I want to be a brother to a puppy, are you abridging my rights by not permitting it? I may say what I please; saying it does not mean that it can be.

That's right—Schulman just equated two members of the same sex wanting to marry each other with someone wanting to be brother to a puppy.  ("It's gibberish!  You people are talking nonsense!!  How can I reason with people whose words have no meaning?")  Without even getting into how many people do come to think of pets as family members, Schulman's argument here is mind-bogglingly bad (whether out of mere callousness or malice I have no idea):  No rights are lost if someone is told that they cannot be a brother to a puppy.  But when a same-sex couple is told they can't marry, there are substantive rights on the line—somewhere over a thousand, by one estimate.

Finally, Schulman sets out what he sees as the consequences of allowing SSM:

Severing this connection [between human beings and our animal origins] by defining it out of existence—cutting it down to size,  transforming it into a mere contract between chums—sunders the natural laws that prevent concubinage and incest. Unless we resist, we will find ourselves entering on the path to the abolition of the human. The gods move very fast when they bring ruin on misguided men.

Wow, now that's a slippery slope!  Not only will concubinage and incest naturally follow the adoption of SSM but the very destruction of humanity itself!!  All those underachievers who always pull out the same old hat about polygamy should be embarrassed.  Schulman puts them to shame.

At first I was annoyed that I bothered to read this piece.  But now I'm actually glad I read it:  I mean, this article can't be for real, can it?  This is probably from something like The Onion, right?  (Heck, this Sam Schulman is almost as funny as that Pope guy The Onion covered last week.)  Whew, you almost had me there, man!  But now that I get the joke, all I can say is:  FRIED COMEDY GOLD.
  ¶ 5:21 PM | |

  Preordering Is Hell
Hey!  Previews Review is back again!  They're still behind on the big Previews Reviews (the most recent one covers stuff shipping in Nov. 2003 but the Previews for comics shipping in Jan. 2004 is already out), but the Shipping This Week column is up for today, 11/5/03.   There are a couple books listed that sound interesting but which will probably wait for my next round of bulk buying from Amazon (Palomar, Buddha).  The thing I really wanted to comment on was Christopher Butcher's focused mini-critique of Arrowsmith.  Basically, Butcher argues that Arrowsmith, a series about the horrors of war, fails to actually convey a sense of horror regarding any of the horrific things that happen in war.  I completely agree with this critique.  I thought Arrowsmith got off to a promising start but subsequent issues have seemed awfully dull.  Worse, the characters are painfully stiff and wooden.  It seems as though the characters talk about their reactions more than they actually react (which might be a general trend in Busiek's writing; I'll have to think more about this later).  There are still a couple issues to go before the story ends (and thanks to preordering I'm already getting all of 'em) so things might improve, but the issues I've read so far don't give me much hope.
  ¶ 11:51 AM | |

  SAD: Sequential Art Disgust?
Noticed a couple threads today where posters seemed kinda down on comics in general.  In the first thread, Andrei Molotiu proclaims that he's tired of buying comics that don't satisfy, which prompts others to chime in with similar sentiments and experiences.  In the second thread, posters discuss how the fatigue of dealing with the oddities of the Direct Market (preordering, pamphlets, and Previews) affected their enjoyment of the medium, eventually convincing them to switch to trades.  Normally I wouldn't have given these threads much thought, but some of the opinions expressed mirrored feelings I had recently.  I was in Seattle over the weekend and visited (among other spots) Pike Place Market.  One of the shops there is a comics store, Golden Age Collectables.  Walking in, I was struck at how cluttered the space was.  Granted, they're probably trying to maximize the return on their rent, but the cramped quarters were not conducive to comfortable shopping.  I was actually looking for a couple books, but I didn't feel like navigating the tight aisles, so I left. 

The entrance to Golden Age Collectables	The main rack of comics at Golden Age Collectables

Later that day, I stopped in a Borders downtown.  I was surprised to see a spinner rack of comics near the front entrance, right by the magazines.  Unfortunately, most of the comics were in pretty poor shape, flopping over the front of each rack section.  (Now I see why "floppies" is an apt name for individual comic books.)  I also checked out the graphic novel section.  Didn't find what I was looking for, but I did notice that they had multiple copies of the first two volumes of The Comics Journal Library (Jack Kirby and Frank Miller).  Forgot to look to see if other alt-comix publishers were represented.

Anyway, I didn't really think much about either of these brief experiences at the time, but last night as I was lying in bed, the thought struck me:  "Comic books are weird objects."  I know--deep thought.  I don't know why it occurred to me then, or why it never occurred to me before, but suddenly the idea just seemed so obvious:  Comic books are odd products.  They're flimsy yet garish; small yet difficult-to-store; disposable yet collectible.

I don't know if any of this means I'll give up floppies.  I've grown disenchanted with comics before but eventually returned.  The last time it was mainly an issue of inconvenience:  I grew tired of making regular trips to the local comic shop.  At the time, I thought I would go cold turkey, giving up sequential art completely, but I was lured back by the big savings of online retailers.  Originally I planned to stick to trades only, but bit by bit I found myself seduced by the siren call of big discounts on individual comics.  Soon I had set up a regular pull list again.  And where once I had been able to maintain a self-imposed budget, I eventually ended up a comics glutton, buying anything that looked remotely interesting.  "Oh, a collection of Wally Wood's artwork?  Well, I've always enjoyed his art, I suppose.  And what's this?  A hardcover edition with 16 extra pages of art not found in the softcover?  For only twenty dollars more?  Well, that sounds reasonable, I guess..."  I was like a kid with the Sears Christmas Catalog, only now I had a steady source of income.

So what will I do now?  It seems that more and more fans are switching over to trades only.  I know Johanna Draper Carlson has been moving more and more in that direction and she seems pretty happy with it.  Augie De Blieck Jr. has also been pondering his gradual conversion to trades lately.  I guess in the end my decision won't be anything dramatic:  I'm not going to give up comics or swear off floppies completely.  I'll just do what I do whenever I get in a mood like this:  Trim down the pull list and be more selective when I put together my monthly orders.

(Thanks to Dirk Deppey and Shawn Fumo for pointing out the threads mentioned at the beginning.)
  ¶ 11:47 PM | |

  Self-Loathing Theatre
Augie De Blieck Jr. reviews two manga in this week's Pipeline.  I haven't read any Lupin III, but I have read the first two volumes of Iron Wok Jan.  I'm not sure what Augie meant by referring to this series as his "personal comics find of the year":  I've always understood the expression "personal find" as signifying the unassisted discovery of something no one else knows about.  But Iron Wok Jan has been recommended by a number of reviewers:  Randy Lander, Greg McElhatton, Peter Siegel, Tony Isabella, Bill Sherman, and probably others I'm overlooking.  Perhaps all Augie meant to say was that Iron Wok Jan is something he just got around to reading, and boy is he enjoying it so far.  It just seems strange not to mention the critical buzz surrounding this book, which appears to be one of those manga (along with Uzumaki) that even self-proclaimed non-manga devotees universally enjoy. 

Personally, I've always been surprised that Iron Wok Jan enjoys such critical acclaim.  Although the book stands out for its efforts to make cooking exciting, Iron Wok Jan also relies heavily on the formulas of many shonen (young boy) manga, most notably the single-minded determination to become the best X there is (where X = ninja, card game player, cook, shaman, fighter, pirate, etc.), usually driven by some half-acknowledged desire to live up to a family member's demands or expectations.  This isn't to say that Iron Wok Jan isn't fun, but I am surprised that more attention isn't given to how formulaic the series can be.

I suppose part of it depends on how familiar one is with a given formula, and I don't know how familiar various reviewers are with manga conventions.  Bill Sherman, who's pretty up-front with the fact that he's just beginning to explore manga, does point out how Iron Wok Jan fits the mold of another genre he's familiar with:  "In a way, the chapters of Iron Wok Jan! are structured like an old Silver Age superhero comic: we have a problem and our cooking hero solves it, then explains how s/he solved it to the other chefs and the reader."  And Augie points out how Iron Wok Jan subverts the expectations of romantic comedies:  "As you can imagine, two opposing personalities like that are bound to explode when pushed together. Thankfully, this isn't MOONLIGHTING. This isn't romantic tension. They sidestep that thorny and clichéd issue all together in this book. Jan and Kiriko are heated rivals, and that's the end of it. There are some stories that present one or the other finding new things to respect in their opposite number, but there is no sense that a romance is a fait accompli."  (Bill doesn't sound convinced that Iron Wok Jan will be able to avoid the Moonlighting/Cheers effect, writing "At one point, the two trade so many one word barbs that you just know romance is inevitable.") 

Now that I think about it, I'm not even sure how qualified I am to pontificate on the conventions of shonen manga, since my exposure to that genre is basically limited to what I've read from one source--Shonen Jump.  Perhaps my perspective on the matter is skewed by the material Viz has chosen to carry in the anthology.  And I haven't even bothered to discuss the ways in which Iron Wok Jan deviates from the formulaic structure I think I see in other shonen manga.  (For one thing, Jan, the protagonist, is characterized as irritating and unlikeable, which is a change from other shonen manga where the lead is portrayed as kind and sympathetic.)

So what was my point again?  I think all I've really done in this rambling entry is expose myself as one of those annoying commentators who's read just enough about something (in this case, manga) to act like an expert when he thinks others are getting it wrong.  Which is especially ironic/annoying/hypocritical because less than a year ago I was begging readers' forgiveness for my lack of knowledge regarding manga as I set out to review manga for Anime News Network.

So today's lesson?  Man, I suck.
  ¶ 2:24 PM | |