As you know if you’ve been reading the internets, some mysterious anonymous soul showed up here in comments and stated that Comics Comics was going to be merging with our former hosts, The Comics Journal.
Matthias Wivel has a short piece about the good and the bad of this move. (If it’s true!)
The site [tcj.com] has long needed an overhaul, both in terms of design and editorial direction, so I’m looking forward to what’s next, even if it may mean a consolidation of two sites that ideally would continue each on their own. There are precious few comics resources online of ComicsComics’ quality, so it’ll be somewhat sad to see it subsumed, even if it means a much better Comics Journal.
I basically agree. As I noted recently, tcj.com has been a huge mess. Having CC in charge would almost certainly fix that. CC has a strong sense of mission and a clear editorial vision and focus. The CC guys are also very familiar and comfortable with the Internet — something nobody in control at tcj.com seems to have been thus far. Judging by the lovely CC redesign, there’s every reason to think that a CC-manned comics journal will look better than the current ugly site. Moreover, CC has tons of connections with great critics and creators— as just one example, there’s every reason to hope that with TCJ’s budget, a CC/TCJ amalgam would be able to publish more work by Nicole Rudick.
I can see some downsides too. As Matthias says, it seems kind of too bad that the Journal has lost its way so thoroughly that it has to cannibalize the competition in order to stay relevant.
Also, as I’ve said before, I have some differences with CC’s approach. I think (as I pointed out above) they have a very strong focus, but I worry that that can sometimes be at the expense of a diversity of views. CC is a very articulate advocate for a large canon of artists — but their canon is, for all its breadth, has few curve-balls, and their interest in things outside it can seem limited. They’re fearless enforcers of professional standards among critics, which is important and valuable (see this really smart Tim Hodler piece, for example, or Dan’s piece on the Masters of American Comics Criticism in the Best American Comics Criticism volume.) But they’ve been less interested in debating aesthetic first principles or questioning received critical wisdom. Jeet Heer’s decision to close comments on his (entirely reasonable) post defending Art Spiegelman was in no way wrong or indefensible, but it was, I think, indicative.
Still, it’s reasonable to assume that a CC that took over TCJ would be somewhat different in focus than their current site. And even if some of the weaknesses remain (or at least what seem like weaknesses from my perspective), I think the strengths will be more important. It would be great to see tcj.com establish a substantial online presence worthy of its legacy. I’m pretty sure that if CC takes the reigns, that will happen. So, overall, I’m hoping the rumors are true.
Oh fer god’s sake, that was just one anonymous poster talking out of his ass! Even in the extremely remote possibility that it is true, there was nothing there to warrant even the tiniest commentary on this, let alone the mini-industry of the last 24 hours. Why this head-long rush to gullibility? If I posted anonymously and let it slip, say, that Ivan Brunetti has been chosen as artist-writer in perpetuity on all Superman titles, would the internet be ripe in a couple of hours with speculation on the wisdom or not of this decision?
Ah well; what’s the internet for if not for heedless speculation and gullibility?
We’ll see soon enough! If I’m wrong and you’re ever in Chicago, I’ll buy you a beer (or a comic, if you prefer!)
Andrei–
That comment has become a focus because it reflects a lot of behind-the-scenes chatter that preceded it. I first heard that either Comics Comics or one of its principals was going to be taking the reins at tcj.com on Saturday. I wouldn’t be surprised if Noah or Tom Spurgeon or whomever were hearing the same thing. All “rivers cuomo” did was be the first person to say it in public.
And they haven’t denied it over at CC. Take from their silence what you will. We’ll all find out in a couple of weeks.
As my personal heroine puts it, “Speculation is never a waste of time. It clears away the deadwood in the thickets of deduction.”
On the upside of leaving TCJ, there won’t be any more idiotic pictures of the cursed Marvel heroes atop our posts. And when one isn’t getting paid to write anyway, one can’t really be fired…more like being emancipated.
Wait??? Did I hear right? Ivan Brunetti is taking over Superman?? I must quickly post my thoughts about this over at the Panelists….
Put a link here when you’re done.
Oh, and James, I and regular bloggers were getting paid a (very) little (like, the amount you’re thinking? Less than that.). We actually decided to start putting it all in a pot at the beginning of the year to help go towards a redesign or other improvements….still. You could say I was fired. (I prefer “dumped” I think.)
What about AdSense or AdWords or whatever the Google automatic ad server is called? Get in a few ads, purity be damned.
I’ve thought about it a little as a possibility.
Ideally we would have thought all this stuff through before the move…but of course we didn’t have a whole lot of time. So, yeah, trying to sort out a lot of ideas at the moment; it’ll just take a little time.
I think the internet would be a much better place if people did things like review or comment on Ivan Brunetti’s (imaginary) Superman comics.
Can’t help but wonder if the very idea of a CC take-over of TCJ irks Andrei because they’re pretty openly hostile to his abstract comics mission…
I thought you weren’t reading us anymore!
You know I can’t stay away, Noah!
I got a number of emails about this, and it actually seems there is something behind the speculation. Ah well, shows you what I know.
The “takeover” doesn’t so much irk me as it seems irrational: why get rid of two perfectly good blogs then hand over all your operations to a third blog that is no better than the two you jettisoned? It’s a strange lateral, even downward move (downward inasmuch as, rather than incorporating that blog, tcj is supposedly letting itself be taken over by it.)
Also, it leads to fewer voices out there. Strange.
On the other hand, I’m totally excited about the next issue of Superman! I can hardly wait until it comes out, in November 2017.
Comics Comics is usually thought of as the gold standard in comics blogs, I think, at least for the art/literary comics end (Dirk said as much when he was leaving, for example.) And it’s pretty different from HU, so I can see where Gary might want one and not the other. The Panelists are great, but haven’t been around long enough to really establish a strong identity yet…though I’d agree setting them up and then pulling the rug out from them was an odd thing to do, to put it kindly.
“thought of as the gold standard in comics blogs”
Thought of by whom? I’ve read some good essays there, but I’ve read just as good ones here, or on the Panelists, or on Matt Seneca’s blog. I fail to see the great distinction in quality.
Well, like I said, Dirk singled them out. And they were nominated for an Eisner, right? I mean, obviously different people like different sites for different reasons, but CC has a really solid reputation — and of course Dan’s highly thought of as a publisher as well as a blogger.
Andrei— Are you sure your feelings about CC aren’t to do with their attitude towards “abstract comics”?
I mean, I think that’s fine if that’s the case. Why not state it?
Does CC have a common attitude towards “abstract comics”? I wasn’t aware of it. The one time I mentioned Andrei’s book was to express curiosity about it (I hadn’t read it at that point). Was their a big attack on “abstract comics” that I missed? In any case, the CC crew doesn’t really have a party line — there are a lot of comics that one or another CC writer will like that I don’t (and I’m sure visa versa).
I shouldn’t have phrased it that way. When I think of CC, I think of Dan Nadel, Tim Hodler and Frank Santoro. ( No offense, Jeet. I associate you with work you’ve done before CC.) I definitely recall Dan expressing some hostility toward “abstract comics”. Not sure if the other two have, but I can’t really see them appreciating it…
Noah— I’ll keep reading H.U as long as I find it relevant. I skipped over months and months of H.U because it seemed like it was dominated by posts about gay manga.
I think when you criticize CC for lacking “diversity” , you need to question whether you’re presenting actual “diversity”, or if it’s more a simulation of diversity; are the average TCJ readers ( white guys who like Chris Ware) engaging with the more coloful posts/writers? Are the gay writers really involving themselves with another sub-culture? If none of these things are happening, I can’t help but think you’re providing a simulation; it’s an exercise in ideology . These exercises never quite manage to please actual persons, they just engage with an abstract/critique of “people”, and that critique exists in your mind. It’s not a lived experience, it’s a complaint about not being able to live the experience that ideology promises you.
Similarly, when you write of “challenging received wisdom” ( in the form of comics tastes), I don’t think it’s really a challenge unless you’re prepared to lose. I can’t see you admitting defeat, ever. I can see you surrounding yourself with tokens that remind you of your own righteousness , which seems like it’s only to be found in the awfulness of those who don’t fit your scheme.
It’s born of alienation and it only alienates.
Well, I don’t necessarily want to get into a big thing about it. I think there’s value to having different people in the same space, even if everybody’s obviously going to read what they want. I try to include voices I don’t agree with. I don’t really see writing or discussion as a zero-sum game in any event, so the idea that I have to either win or lose isn’t exactly where I’m coming from usually.
I don’t think I’m especially alienated! Lots of art and even comics that make me happy; lots of people who come by the blog to chat. HU’s been a quite rewarding experience overall.
But it seems like the comics that make you happy are the ones that best upset your notion of the received-wisdom others apparently have, don’t question and are too blinkered to even acknowledge .
I can’t think of a comic you’ve championed that hasn’t played a role in that critical-theory dynamic. It’s almost as though those comics are presented as social utilities.
That’s not how I relate to comics, or any media, really. I can see it happening in the academy, but that kind of deal is never self-sustained, it’s always a project, funded by the State or a private university. There isn’t really a demand for it, and it goes without saying that if you want a solid readership, you need to engage with their desires.
I’m not trying to tell you what to do. I know that sounded priggish and pedantic. I’m trying to tell you what would make me want to read your blog.
I don’t know; a lot of your critiques seem really centered in politics and ideology to me as well, Uland. I don’t think that’s wrong; on the contrary, it’s natural. Art’s part of the world; it seems weird to suggest that you could or should separate them.
I would like readers, obviously, but I’m not getting paid here, so following my own bliss is pretty important as well. Anyway, I think we’re doing all right. We’ll never be the Daily Dish, or even the Beat, but there seems to be at least a small audience for what we do, which is all you can really hope for with this kind of endeavor I think.
“Johnson saw human existence as inseparable from dissatisfaction. It is man’s nature to suffer from incompatible desires simultaneously—for example, wanting both security and excitement. When he has one, he longs for the other, so that contentment is rarely unalloyed and never lasting.
However, most people find it more comforting to believe in perfectibility than in imperfectibility—an example of what Dr. Johnson called the triumph of hope over experience. The notion of imperfectibility not only fans existential anxieties, but also—by precluding simple solutions to all human problems—places much tougher intellectual demands upon us than utopianism does. Not every question can be answered by reference to a few simple abstract principles that, if followed with sufficient rigor, will supposedly lead to perfection—which is why conservatism is so much more difficult to reduce to slogans than its much more abstract competitors.”
Dalyrymple on Ibsen:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_urbanities-isben.html
Sure, I don’t disagree with that. Saying that one’s moral and politics affect one’s aesthetics doesn’t mean that those morals or politics have to be utopian. I have sympathy for lots of conservative ideas — skepticism of progress for example.
Well, if progress ( or some kind of revolutionary change) isn’t what you’re ultimately after, what is the point of critical theory?
“most people find it more comforting to believe in perfectibility than in imperfectibility”
I got to disagree there. In my experience most people don’t believe in human perfectibility, and a lot of them do find a certain comfort in the shittiness of the world’s limits.
I’m not saying they’re wrong either. I’m just saying Dalrymple is wrong. That’s why “you can’t fight city hall” is a saying and “you can fight city hall” is not.
I think if you look at the rhetoric politicians use to get votes, it plays far more to a desire for perfectibility. Even ostensibly Conservative politicians play to it, constantly ( the city on the hill, we’re number one, spread democracy, etc. ). It’s the “hope” for “change” that will finally do away with the extrinsic problem of everybody else doing stuff that makes it harder for me to finally be happy and free.
Whether people would admit to these kinds of beliefs in their private, sober moments, I don’t know, but we know what kinds of rhetoric people tend to respond to. The difference there between public and private belief is, I think another example of the distorting effects of modern liberalism/secularism has on us; we tend to view the world as a system that can be managed ( everybody else), but absolutely refuse to fit into it ( ourselves).
You guys should read Dalyrymple’s essay. It’s pretty great.
I think there can be change without revolution. And I think there’s a long tradition of advocating for equal rights and treating one another decently.
I mean, I really didn’t think Obama was going to change the world. I just wanted a President who wouldn’t invade Iran.
You make some interesting points, Uland, so I will read Dalrymple. But I don’t find that campaign hyperbole represents a belief that the world can be made perfect. Optimism and “we’re great” aren’t the same as belief in utopia.
When Obama talked about hope and change, he wasn’t talking about perfection. He was talking about hope for a change from the Republicans so we wouldn’t have a collapsing economy and 2 pointless wars. At least that’s what I heard, and there’s nothing in the Democratic platform that indicates otherwise.
Whether he delivered is something I’ll leave for others to debate. But wanting to make things better is not the same as believing you can make them perfect.
A vote for McCain isn’t the opposite of a belief in perfectibility though…
I’m speaking in broader terms. Sure, a practical reason for voting for A or B might exist, and I think changes can and should occur, but I’m after deeper motives here. I’m thinking about what why mean when we say things like “hope for change” and why and to what end. What, exactly, are we trying to improve and why?
Liberalism can’t really extend itself beyond the desire of the individual. The premise of Liberalism is to liberate from that which binds us, what makes us less “free” and less “happy”. The premise of Progressivism is that we can manage conditions enough through expertise ( scientism) to get as close as humanly possible to an ultimate happiness.
These are premises that I can’t support. I think they’re self-contadicting.
Stuff like using “boy’s love” as a keyword to the just-posted discussion about a manga series: Fucking yuck. Gross. Ugly. Shitty. Stupid.
This is why I can’t hang out here. Sorry I’m not open-mided enough for pederasty..
What is your agenda with this kind of content? Why would you want to attract anyone who would use “boy’s love” as a search term?
What’s the deal? How do you explain it?
I find it funny how “Uland” talks about the “average TCJ reader” when this reader (as imagined in his head) wouldn’t or couldn’t support the magazine it its latter years. And considering that the reading audience for “gay manga” is quite possibly tens of thousands larger than the “white guys who like Chris Ware” audience you would think a little humility would be in order. But hey, why talk about subjects we actually know something about?
Boy’s love (BL) is the name of the genre. I put it in the label because that’s what it’s called.
And…really, man. If you don’t like the content, just don’t read the blog. I’m fine with that.
Are you sure “Boy’s Love” isn’t just what you’d call a certain kind of pornography that features young boys?
— I don’t think his rhetoric was meant to address those concerns alone. That might’ve been the stated reason for it ( are you sure Obama thought the two wars were pointless? He talked about upping troop levels in Afghanistan while he campaigned.) You’re right that that doesn’t prove a belief in utopianism, but I think it, and all of the other rhetoric that seems to work, suggests it.
It’s everywhere, really. Think of the mythic quality the Civil Rights movement is presented with on television, for example.
While Utopia isn’t often the stated mission, so many issues are presented and so much ideology is based upon the idea that there is a massive force out there that must be overthrown before people will finally be made right, before the “Dream” can be realized. This isn’t really about Marxist indoctrination, it’s probably ( I think) more to do with James’ Kurths’ “Protestant Deformation” thesis ( something Marxists certainly took advantage of; think SDS reaching out to midwestern hippy kids.).
So, I guess the question is why you’re covering a genre of manga called “Boy’s Love”…
Steve— The “white guys who like Chris Ware” comment refers to a back and forth Noah and I have been engaged in for some time now. It’s basically short-hand for what I think of as Noah’s notion of who makes up the indie comics bourgeoisie.
So, where are these millions of gay manga fans then?
Are you sure TCJ’s problems are the result of these Chris Ware fans not providing enough support? How so?
I think their use of H.U could be seen as an example of TCJ losing touch with their readership. Who are the people who complain about TCJ?— Sammy Harkham, Tom Spurgeon, Dan Nadel. White ( or Jewish) Chris Ware fans…
Uland, it’s a popular genre of comics. Some of the most important manga artists have worked in the genre. I’m somewhat interested in it.
Again, if you don’t like it, just don’t read about it.
And I think this thread has had its day. I’m closing comments.
Pingback: Under new management: The Comics Journal revamps, relaunches its website | Robot 6 @ Comic Book Resources – Covering Comic Book News and Entertainment