A while back Michael Dean wrote a now semi-infamous essay in The Comics Journal where he declared that there was no comics journalism on the web — just link farms, commentary, and event coverage. I thought the essay was quite entertaining — a fine example of Comics Journal snark and industry bashing.
I couldn’t help wondering though — presume Michael was correct, and there was no comics journalism on the web. Why should anyone care? Do we really need investigative journalism aimed at comics? Investigative journalism can be great when it exposes injustice, or provides the public with vital information: Seymour Hersch’s reporting at the New Yorker, or Andrew Sullivan’s twitter-aggregating from the Iranian protests seem like cases in point. But…you know, comics is a relatively minor entertainment subculture. In a world of limited resources and limited time, wouldn’t it be better for someone with a real talent for investigative journalism to do something — almost anything — else?
I was thinking about this again in light of a panel I was on last night at C2E2, organized by Heidi McDonald of the Beat. Other participants were Brigid Alverson of Robot 6 and mangablog, Johanna Draper Carlson of Comics Worth Reading, Ron Richards of iFanboy
Lucas Siegel of Newsarama, Rick Marshall of MTV, and a very funny and sweet young guy named Caleb, whose affiliation I sadly missed. [Update: It’s Caleb Goellner from Comics Alliance.]
Anyway, I’m not going to give an extensive recap because — well, I’m not a journalist, and I didn’t take notes. But I can report that, perhaps inevitably, there was a fair amount of talk about what boiled down to professionalism. Brigid talked about the importance of “not being an asshole”. (Brigid is to be fair, coming from a background as a political reporter.) Rick worried some about the implications of making deals to get exclusive info; several people expressed frustration that some folks think they can just start up a blog and get online and expect to be taken seriously.
So, what the hell, let’s look at the top stories at the moment on some of these sites.
IFanboy currently has an exclusive Fear PC Game Download.
Newsarama has a reported interview with Brian Bendis from C2E2 puffing some new series which I refuse to remember the title of for even a second.
Heidi’s reports on news stories from C2E2, said news stories mostly involving new comics series and Diamond speculating about changing its release day from Wed to Thursday.
Robot 6 has a news roundup that’s largely the same as Heidi’s, almost as if they were attending the same convention.
At Comics Worth Reading Ed Sizemore has a brief review of Yotsuba book 8.
And at mangablog there’s a review by Melinda Beasi of You’re So Cool.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with any of that. Personally, the only things I have any interest at all in reading are the reviews by Ed Sizemore and Melinda Beasi, but that’s me. Lots of people want what these sites have to offer, and that’s cool. Download that video game, speculate about diamond, anticipate some new series…it’s all good, if that’s your poison.
But while there’s nothing to be ashamed of in providing such services, I would submit that there’s nothing to be especially proud of either. Being a stenographer for Brian Bendis? Showing up at a panel and duly providing marketing services afterwards? Offering free samples? Even, you know, providing a short well-written review of a popular title…this is not rocket science. It’s not curing cancer. It’s not even a vital, unpleasant task like picking up the garbage or digging coal. It takes time and enthusiasm and maybe some level of professionalism, but lots of jobs that are really quite important require those things as well, big whoop. These stories, in short, define “trivial.”
I tried to make this argument on the panel more or less (I am less eloquent in person than in print, as Johanna kindly noted afterwards), and lots of folks disagreed with me. Johanna said that when people talk about how it’s all “just comics” (my phrase) it’s generally an excuse for their own low standards. Rick said that people make their living at comics, so it can’t just be dismissed. Lucas talked about how important comics are to people.
To which I can only reply, whatever. Sure, people care about comics. Sure, it’s better to do a good job than a bad one in some sense, even if your job is inconsequential. And yes, people make their living at comics. None of this changes the fact that what we’re doing as comics bloggers and journalists and news aggregators is really pretty meaningless in even the not-so-grand scheme of things. It’s for fun.
People care about fun a lot. They make their living off fun. And they draw lines in the sand delineating their little bit of fun and, not coincidentally, their little bit of lucre. Somebody on the panel I think actually talked about how some blogs undermine everyone’s reputation. I mean, come on. You’re basically providing a stream of marketing copy for a long list of crappy products based around nostalgia and indifferently-executed sex and violence. What sort of reputation are you defending?
I don’t exempt myself here; HU is a labor of love, and I’m very pleased that there’s an audience for it. Hell, I’ve worked hard for virtually no money to build an audience for it. I’ve been able to do that in large part because blogging has almost no barriers to entry. That same fact — the there are no barriers to entry — means that there are lots and lots of blogs out there that I don’t care about, that don’t seem to me very good, or that irritate me for one reason or another. And, you know, my solution to that in general is that I don’t read them.
But neither do I wag my finger at them and accuse them of failing to rise to professional standards or whatever (unless I have some vested interest in having them improve, of course.) Because to accuse random little blogs x, y, and z of failing to rise to professional standards would be (a) condescending and (b) kind of embarrassing for me. Even the biggest Poobah in comicsdom is a pretty penny-ante Poobah. To rear up on your back legs and start hectoring and/or kicking at those two steps below you on the child-size step ladder of success — you might as well just podcast your insecurities to the world.
___________________
For me the most fascinating exchange of the evening actually occurred after the panel, when Johanna explained how she makes money from her site. It’s too bad the question of how to make money off blogging wasn’t thrown open to everyone; I at least would have been curious to hear some of the nuts and bolts of how people are managing to make a living (or not make a living, in my case.)
In any event, many thanks to Heidi for inviting me. It was nice to be a real-live pundit briefly, to meet some folks for the first time, and to see Brigid and Johanna and lovely and talented Matthew Brady, who came out to watch. We’ll see if I’ve managed to convince everyone involved never to invite me again!
LOL. I too am measurably more eloquent in print than in person. Someday we can hang out and stammer at each other.
I generally refer to the condition as “Derriditis” (because of his theory that writing was primary to speech)…
This is why IM is the absolute greatest thing ever invented. It’s like talking — in print!
More seriously, while I agree with you about investigative journalism being wasted on the arts, criticism surely isn’t — critical skills aren’t quite the same thing as investigative skills, and I’m not sure journalism is the right basket for criticism. I guess I make the analogy “criticism is to the arts as investigative journalism is to politics,” maybe. I haven’t read the Michael Dean article but I’m guessing Gary Groth’s refrain on the subject is similar?
I was reading Rosalind Krauss’s wikipedia page the other day, and it has this provocative statement about the establishment of the journal October: “This was one important symbol of the eclipse of serious non-academic critics like the New York intellectuals, and the rise of an academic intelligentsia in step with the post-GI Bill expansion of higher education.”
In light of that eclipse, I think you’re giving HU too little credit. Certainly the Web does away with the idea that “serious non-academic critics” will be geographically centralized like they were in New York in the 50s and 60s, but blogs are in one sense “places” in the Web’s “geography.” Yet blogs and webpages often represent one voice, speaking alone, keening out of those little slatted windows along the ceiling of a basement just at ground level.
HU is more like a coffeehouse pub, with all its over-caffeinated cacophany and disparate opinions and banging of beer mugs to emphasize a point, and that’s a very desirable and much needed “place” in the cyber-public sphere.
If I’m not mistaken, Michael Dean’s articles was specifically about news and investigative journalism. The latter does have its place if only because comics is a business. The Journal did some good reporting on the issues of the day: creator’s rights, publisher and distributor problems, the return of original art, first amendment issues etc.
I’m going to assume that Noah wasn’t actually talking about comics criticism per se since he does seem to complain quite often about bad online comics criticism.
Yeah, this panel was much more oriented towards journalism. I was definitely the odd one out in that respect.
You’re right, Suat, that there is some place for investigative journalism — creator’s rights issues are particularly important, I think. But…I don’t know. How many resources or outlets are needed? How important is it in comparison to other investigative journalism? I guess I just don’t know that on my list of things to wring my hands about that would be all that high necessarily….though others may have other priorities, of course.
I on the other hand am more eloquent in person…but that sure isn’t saying a hell of a lot.
Noah, I basically agree with you, but from a more “trivial” perspective. I love the TCJ, and hold it to a high standard, but I regularly read Robot 6, while preferring another CBR blog, “Comics Should Be Good!” I don’t often agree with either (when they provide opinion…which yes is not as often as TCJ), they are more trivial. But for example (I have mentioned her before) Kelly Thompson does take comics to task…she vents a lot. And it is great, because her perspective is needed.
The one thing you mentioned, “several people expressed frustration that some folks think they can just start up a blog and get online and expect to be taken seriously.” What the hell is wrong with that. That is precisely how they got there. Kelly is a great example of this. Yes she has a comics education, and can often write better then I can (doesn’t stop me form having a blog), but the reason she has one on CBR is because she worked at it on her own and was making some waves and last year, someone at Comic Books Should be Good! read it and liked it enough to invite her over. And yes, to add more female perspective to their site, which is precisely what Kelly is selling.
I think there is room here for using comics “journalism” (loosely used here) and/or blogging to provide quality criticism (some of which happens at other site, hate to brake the news to the TCJ), investigative reporting (sure its not usually the end of the world…but there are a few constitutional amendments that pertain to these investigations, not to mention peoples quality of life) and promotional fluff (…no one here is going to convince me that TCJ has not taken to promoting Fantagraphics comics in the guise of journalism…and more power to ’em…I agree on balance, shameless salesmanship here is not a problem…it is one of America’s biggest problem when it comes to other areas of Journalism). I like the occasional list (TCJ does them too, best comic of the year…which usually means if one makes it to a CBR and a TCJ list…well its the big winner…often I still disagree), random pick (I see this at TCJ all the time), or a questionnaire to determine the best character (I am always getting my blood boiled, by how stupid peoples selections are…which is the point)…this is still comics…we need to get over ourselves. Yes we want the art form to be taken seriously; to evolve and expand in quality and diversity. But do we really want to suck all the fun out with it. Noah’s solution is brilliantly simple, just don’t read it.
I hope to see more forums like the one Noah was part of. I think anytime a diverse panel like that is formed comics readers benefit for the exchange.
As to making money…they don’t, and it is only fare…we cartoonist don’t either…darned publishers!
-Ben
Son of a…that’s “on the the other hand ‘I’ am….
Son of a….I had already put the “I” at the beginning. I am ruining everything.
OK…I will just sit back and enjoy the banter.
There are issues in the comics world that are worthy of real reporting beyond the business aspect. The work of the CBLDF has broad implications for freedom of speech. Ongoing copyright disputes involving Siegels/DC, and Kirbys/Marvel seem important.
I think we agree that the size of the comics industry does not justify the number of websites providing coverage and there is hardly any original reporting, even from a business perspective. I think The Beat and maybe Lying in the Gutters are two exceptions.
The issue of wasted resources is a problem for online journalism as a whole. When I look at a top story on Google News and see thousands of news outlets reporting the exact same information, I’ve got to think some of them could be doing something else more original and worthwhile.
Agreed,Bryan.
Sure, comics are a derisory corner of society in the big picture. But injustice is injustice, and people– often cartoonists and their families– are routinely impoverished or even ruined by scoundrels.
This is a constant hazard in comics, as it is in theater or film or literature: in the business of the arts, far too many are eager to work, and far too many others are poised to exploit that eagerness and cheat them.
It is a pity that TCJ has just about abandoned investigative reporting; on another front, I have greater respect for Rich Johnston’s gossip than even he seems to have.
He’s uncovered scam after scam, and followed them up, in his bleedingcool website.
Yeah, I think I have to back off my previous comment a bit. The creator’s rights stuff is fighting the good fight, and I have to agree with Michael that it’s kind of a shame that no one has really figured out a good model for doing that sort of work regularly online…including TCJ.
Caro, I like HU too! At the Beat Heidi has me pegged as the it’s just comics! person, which I think I more or less said at the panel. At the same time…I’m obviously not adverse to thinking about comics at length.
The real issue, though, is professionalization — which is always about solidifying hierarchies. I’m happy to sneer at critics for being dumb or wrong. That’s a little different than saying they don’t meet professional standards or best practices or whatever. In some cases professionalization makes sense, as in medicine for example — though even there it can cause some serious problems (obstetrics in this country is a lot worse than it should be because of professionalization..) But with comics journalism or criticism? It’s just nonsense to say that there’s any reason to professionalize the practice other than the egos of the people who have already carved out some turf.
I guess the point is I’m happy to take comics seriously (or at least take them as not ipso facto worthless) as art. I’m not willing to take them at all seriously as an excuse for even marginal professionalization.
Suat – I see; point taken.
But I think that it’s a mistake to make “investigative journalism” and “industry reporting” synonyms. The big ticket issues — like copyright and creators rights, and stories like the Chris Handley case — are not at heart comics-industry issues, and it’s selling them short to think that their most obvious journalistic home is the must-read blogs of the industry and fanbase. They have relevance to a broader audience than that, and it will never be sufficient for industry/subculture reporters to cover them from the industry/subculture perspective, because it’s not big enough. The echo chamber of the comics blogosphere (as with any other fan- or industry-oriented journalism) only works against those issues getting the traction they need in the larger culture.
Instead, you need issue journalists, the ones with a target audience of people who care about the issue irrespective of its context, as well as mainstream journalists, to be interested in those issues.
This is essentially by way of agreeing with Noah that comics journalism in particular does not need a ton of outlets that prioritize this kind of reporting: rather you need just exactly the amount sufficient to get the issues out of the subculture and onto the radar of the outlets that speak to the broader audience. I’m not sure what that exact amount would be, but it matters that the point is getting that news to people outside of the community, not getting better news to people inside.
Industry journalism, in contrast, is largely only interesting to people inside, the ones with a stake in the industry: professionals or hard-core fans. So if you’re a comics journalist reporting on the industry (or really, an industry journalist in any industry), you either accept that you have an inherently limited professional audience — or you have to tie it back in some way to criticism, to a conversation about the art form. My sense of what TCJ was doing back in their investigative journalism days was the latter, arguing that industry practices worked against a healthy art form.
Comics is unique in many ways among arts subcultures and one reason for this is the intimacy with the industry that fans have. But that’s a double-edged sword: there is a wonderful, communicative spirit in the comics blogosphere — I can’t think of anything in my experience to compare to it — but there is also that echo chamber. I think recognizing the difference between the core audience that cares about the industry and a larger audience that can be motivated to care about issues of wider significance is vital to addressing the echo chamber without losing the vibrancy of the smaller community…
‘Bout the creators rights stuff: But.. but, every creator has a blog now, right? And if they have a valid/interstingly bitchy complaint, Spurgeon or Journalista or Heidi’ll pick up on it and disseminate it to pretty much all the people that care.
A few years back, pre-everybody-on-the-interwebs, I can see the need for investigative journalism in comics. But now there are very, very few working media professionals who can’t get their stories out there.
That’s an interesting point. I think there is still a place for journalists — creators aren’t always interested or able to air their laundry, and sometimes new people in the business don’t necessarily have access to media outlets….
On the other hand, I think Caro’s right too that sometimes the most helpful thing is to have a wider audience made aware of what’s going on, as in the Christopher Handley case….
Noah,
I understand what you’re trying to get at. I don’t think anyone believes that Access Hollywood or Entertainment Tonight is providing a vital service to our society. Also, I doubt that Alfred Hitchcock or Steven Speilberg is ever going to be on a list of the greatest figures of the 20th Century.
That being said, art does have the power to influence people and even get people to change their minds. Uncle Tom’s Cabin was as instrumental in the abolitionist movement as Frederick Douglas’ speeches. Kierkegaard said that art has the ability to sneak behind our rational defenses and touch us at the deepest parts of our being. Even crappy little art like comics has the power to influence and change people.
So I want to be careful that we don’t belittle the power of the comic art form in attempting to maintain perspective on our relative importance to society. (I note you are being a good utilitarian in your method of evaluation for what makes a person importance to society.) Works like Maus have the power to enlighten and educate in way that maybe the Diary of Anne Frank can’t. Pluto might get people asking deep questions on the nature of personhood in a way that a college course in philosophy won’t.
While it’s true that I’m not adding economic value to society as a reviewer, I do think comics reviewers and journalists offer a valuable service. We are part of the custodianship of an artform. We are helping to laud the best and weed out the chaff. So we are part curator and part reporter.
As such, we should show some responsibility in our duties, even if these duties are just a hobby. We should hold others accountable to also act responsibly. We do this not because we think we’re curing cancer or keeping the streets trash free. We do this out of respect for the artform we love and believe has the power to do more than simply entertain. Comics at their noblest are equal to any artform humans have created. Aren’t comics worthy of our best efforts? I think they are.
Hey Ed. Art can influence people, certainly. In general, though, I think artists and art (and entertainment) tend to get a lot of attention, validation, and props relative to the likelihood that they’ll influence anyone for the better (or worse, for that matter.)
It’s also really far from clear what “acting responsibly” necessarily means in terms of art or art journalism. Again, this isn’t the medical profession, where it’s clear that if you leave a scalpel in someone that’s really quite bad. If you gush about the weightiness of brave and the bold, or run a review saying how great the second issue of a comic was that you appeared in the first issue of — is this really a reason to consign you to the outer darkness?
I mean, I’m all for sneering at people, as I’m sure you know, but it’s worth remembering too that the stakes here are not ultimately all that high. And it’s also maybe worth keeping in mind that professionalization has a lot of downsides. Low barriers to entry may mean “low standards” in some ways, but it also means that lots of people who wouldn’t necessarily get a chance to be part of the conversation can make themselves heard. That’s a recipe for ten thousand screaming trolls of course — but it also means (for example) that American comics journalism (broadly defined) is way more open to women then American mainstream comics (which still have high barriers to entry relatively.)
I guess the point is — you say “our best efforts.” And the question is, whose best efforts? I think focusing on the “best” is often a way to distract from the “our,” however defined.
Noah,
I can’t claim to define a community’s standards by myself, but here are some examples.
Is what you’re saying factually true? Did Bendis actually say that? How are you determing sales numbers? Was that comic published in 1975 and not 1976?
Is you’re writing clear? Do people understand what you’re saying or do you find yourself constantly have to clarify your remarks? Are you using good grammar and proper spelling?
Does your review focus on the the book? Do you talk about content of the book or how it reminded you of this bad date you once had? Do you use the review as an excuse to promote a personal crusade against the artist and/or author?
I don’t point the finger at other people to distract attention from myself. By the standards I judge, so let me be judged.
I agree it’s great that anyone can be part of the comic press. However, that doesn’t mean we have to let anything go. You’re right, it’s not fair to assume that everyone starting out will be a polished and perfect. We let people entry were their at and then encourage them to improve their writing and critical thinking skills.
I don’t think criticism has to be destructive. Criticism can be construtive and instructive. For example, I have ask other reveiwers to critique my work and provide feedback to improve my writing. I have done likewise for them. The criticism is offered to help each other improve not to point blame.
Now, how do we come to an established set of standards is an excellent question. Where will these standards be published so that everyone has access to them? How to we point newcomers to these standards and help them live up to them? Who gets to police who? I’m sorry I don’t have the answer to these questions. I hope that dialogues like the panel at C2E2 will help us find answers.
See, I’d reject almost everything you say there. For example:
— Boy do I not care when Bendis published anything.
—I do like clear writing, but it’s not the be all and end all, and people with technical problems can sometimes say much more interesting things than people who happen to be able to spell.
— I could give a crap if a review focuses on a book. If someone has more interesting things to say about their last date than about X-factor 36 1/2, by all means talk about your date.
— Personal crusades can be much more entertaining to read, and even more illuminating, than yet another boring balanced review of a not-especially-interesting title.
And I strongly believe nobody should be policing anybody because — it’s comics criticism! It’s not a situation where you need legal sanctions.
Noah,
I don’t mind reading about someone’s bad date, but that’s a blog post, not a comics review. I don’t have time for personal hate crusades, life’s too short and love’s in too short supply (sorry to go hippie on you there). I welcome any suggestions on how to be a better writer or reviewer so police away.
I guess all I can do at this point is agree to disagree.
“I don’t mind reading about someone’s bad date, but that’s a blog post, not a comics review.”
I wouldn’t! And if you can pull off your personal hate crusade with style and wit, go for it.
Basically, I look at writing about comics as an art form – albeit a minor one. (I can drawn you a chart of what I consider minor and major art forms, if you want.) Someone who’s stretching boundaries a bit and playing with audience expectations is generally gonna be more fun to read than someone who rotely (note: Not a real word) Kowtows to audience expectations.
Basically, my allegiance is to folks who consider themselves artists – And a lotta my definition of “worthwhile artist” is someone who reads a list of rules and says “Fuck that. I’m good enough to make that work.”
Ed, the “agreeing to disagree” is kind of the point for me. If you want to write careful reviews expressing love for your fellow man and reverence for comics, that’s fine. And if some other soul (benighted or not) wants to write reviews about his dating life and bowel movements with misspellings and factual errors by the mile, that’s fine too.
By “fine” I don’t mean “I approve, let us all join hands in sweetness and light.” I’m perfectly happy to sneer at other critics for being dumb or boring or self-indulgent or whatever. But the sneering is personal; it’s because I think they’re wrong or dumb or both. It’s not because they’ve failed to live up to some objective professional standard and are pulling the rest of us down.
I’m all for meanness. Condescension just doesn’t sit well on comics journalists, though.
Noah,
I can see what you’re saying. I wish I had a more persuasive presentation for my own opinions.
But please feel free to leave comments at any of my reviews you feel are boring, dumb, or self-indulgent. I can use the guidance and lesson in humility.
Touche. I’m not saying your reviews are any of those things at all…and I really have no desire to teach anyone lessons in humility. I do appreciate your stopping by — and I thought you expressed your point of view quite clearly. I’m happy to call it a draw!
Pingback: C2E2 Journalism Panel » Comics Worth Reading