It’s been more than two months since I wrote this post discussing some of the problems on TCJ.com. I wanted to do another go round — though I think this time there’ll be a good bit less fire and brimstone. In part that’s because there have been improvements to the site. Mostly, though, it’s because my initial disbelief and panic has largely given way to resignation. This is the tcj.com we’re going to have; best to get used to it.
Let’s start with the positive though. The site design has been improved. Clear visual boundaries have been added at the bottom of each post, and the “Read More” links have been made clearer and more attractive. Some (though not all) posts now have brief summaries on the main page rather than just starting in with text, so the posts no longer ends in the middle of a sentence. The Comments links on individual posts are also easier to find. And helpful blue tags (“Review” “News” “Blog” etc.) have been added to each post. All of this may seem like small beer, but the cumulative effect is noticeable. The site still isn’t particularly appealing, and the flashing ads on the side remain distracting and ugly. But it’s no longer a chore just to look at the content.
TCJ has also added a box of links to “Top TCJ” stories in the sidebar. Again, it’s not a huge change, but it’s definitely a good idea — and will hopefully give new users a good introduction to recent content. Individual posts now have social networking links available, which seems like a good move. And the link to the message board is now better marked, which is helpful (though it may be too little too late at this point.) Finally, TCJ is now down with those newfangled social networking sites. (Though one of the first Twitter posts is a Ken Smith link? Why?)
So that’s the good.
The bad is that TCJ’s content has been unsettlingly erratic, to put it mildly. There remains a lot of good writing, from Shaenon Garrity, Matthias Wivel, Tom Crippen, and many others.
But there’s also been David Ritchie posting random tchotchkes, Dave Pifer posting even more random snapshots and
Kent Worcester posting his course syllabus, complete with advice on writing style quoted from Strunk and White. And while these are particularly egregious examples, they aren’t aberrations. You don’t get through a week on tcj.com without at least a post or two that makes you think, “what the fuck?” And not in a good way.
The problem here isn’t that posting random photos or random crap or your syllabus is necessarily wrong. My very strong preference would be not to look at any of those things…but probably someone out there is interested, and what the hell…more power to them. I mean, I keep posting these music downloads even though it’s fairly clear nobody really wants them. But, damn it, it’s my blog, and my readers can l scroll past it once a week if they want to get to the comics criticism.
That’s kind of the thing though; it’s my blog. With tcj, it often feels like there’s nobody at the helm. To pick on poor Dave Pifer again — who is he? Why am I looking at this snapshot he posted, anyway? TCJ.com has managed to get a blog’s randomness without the blog’s personal touch. Thus, for example, R. Fiore’s one-liners come across not as charming eccentricities, but as half-assed fuck-yous by somebody who’s posting because he’s supposed to, rather than because he’s actually committed to being there.
The sense that no one gives a crap is only accentuated by the fact that so many of the supposedly regular bloggers are already AWOL. Where did Anne Ishii go? Eric Millikan, one of the most interesting promised bloggers, barely even got started. There are some constants; Shaenon has been a rock; R.C. Harvey pops up consistently to talk about the comics pages; Rob Clough has been blogging his heart out. But overall…well, on February 10, there were 7 posts, one of which was an HU link, and one of which was Journalista. So you’ve got like 20 writers listed on the side there and effectively five posts. One of which, as it happens, was a review by me.
Meanwhile, on the same day, Tom Spurgeon had 17 posts. Sure, some of them are just individual images…but many of them were substantial. With its layout problems, the one thing tcj.com had going for it was the promise of constant, high-quality content…and yet its team of dozens is getting its ass kicked by one guy. Because that one guy actually cares. And caring, as it turns out, really matters.
I’m being somewhat inconsistent here; in my earlier post I said there was too much content; now I’m saying there’s too little. But, alas, I think the site has managed to have both problems at once. Because there’s no sense of why what’s being posted is being posted, the site feels both overwhelming and insubstantial. The whole thing has an air of despairing malaise — the toilet paper spools and spools, and you can hear the creaking and the distant flush. Who are we talking to? Do they want to hear tit jokes? Do they care what happens at the Hooded Utilitarian, and if so do they really want those damned desperately “controversial” updates every day? The comments sections positively echo; the message board has been rendered almost mute; it’s like everyone’s sitting around with their mouths slowly sagging, waiting for the drool to plop out and ruin their laptop so they can get up and burn their longboxes in despair .
I’ve made suggestions before about what the site should do, and I guess I still have ideas about what I’d change if I were king of the world. But at this point it mostly feels like rearranging the deck chairs, etc. — or, to pick a more poignant metaphor, like adjusting the format of your magazine for the fifth time while the industry goes belly-up. I think tcj.com’s main problem is simple, and perhaps unfixable — there’s no sense of editorial guidance. I have the highest regard for Gary, Michael Dean, Kristy Valenti, and Dirk. Individually and together, they know a ton about the industry, a ton about the internet, and a ton about putting a magazine together. For whatever reason, though, all that talent, knowledge, and dedication has so far added up to a site which seems to be running on autopilot. I mean…why not have themed weeks? Why not have roundtables? Why not have new interviews, for god’s sake — that’s what the Journal is known for, right? (And when you do have an interview why not include a paragraph or two of introduction so that people who don’t already know the interview subjects have some incentive to wade into the four part video?) Why not have Gary dive into that rolodex and get some creators to write pieces? Why not do something to make it seem like the energy that went into so many issues of the journal is being put into tcj.com? Everybody involved knows that a successful magazine needs enthusiasm, heart, and genius if anyone is going to want to read it, but nobody seems to have noticed that a successful website needs the same thing. The cosmetic changes are helpful and appreciated, but until and unless someone decides to treat this site as a personal labor of love, it’s not going to be worth the bytes it’s printed on. And bytes aren’t worth a hell of a lot.
_______________
Update: Suat has an even more brutal take here
Update 2: And Johanna Draper Carlson weighs in.
Just in case anyone thinks that this particular snarkfest brings me joy, I thought I’d mention that reading Suat and Johanna on tcj.com, as well as many of the comments here, makes me feel vaguely sick. I would like tcj.com to succeed anyway, but having tied my fortune to their wagon…well, let’s just say I keep hoping that things aren’t as bad as I think they are. Being continually disabused of that hope by a long line of folks whose opinion I value is not especially pleasant.
Update: And Heidi weighs in.
I don’t think there’s anybody whose job is “web editor.” It’s sort of a left-libertarian paradise around the main site.
As an outsider who never even glanced at the tcj.com site prior to the re-org except for the subscription page, it seems like their vision is to be more a content aggregator than a site with content of its own. The front page is a glorified RSS feed: here’s what’s popped up on our site in the last x hours. It’s not readily apparent that there is an overall editorial vision.
It surprises me a little bit because I have heard Gary Groth say things that in general match up with what you said. I know he’s GOT an editorial vision somewhere in a filing cabinet.
I’m guessing everybody who works at tcj has some other title and is probably off busily doing some other work, perhaps connected to a more direct revenue stream. Or maybe they’re just swamped with the print magazine redesign and are having to put the site on the back burner for awhile. (I know how that feels…) Hope springs eternal.
I posted my comics syllabus because a couple of folks specifically asked me to in the comments section of an earlier post. Sorry it was too random for you. My most recent post was a review of the new Craig Yoe antiwar cartooning book. Before that I posted on Will Eisner. I agree with many of your criticisms of the tcj.com website, but I hope my posts don’t elicit a WTF? from most readers…
I meant to ask — is there actually a webmaster email for this site, that you email if you have technical problems? Like, what is up with the “subscriber area”?
Kent — your syllabus didn’t confuse me: I did cringe in remembered anguish and sigh in relief that I never have to make another one again.
I’m interested though that here you say it was requested in comments: might I recommend a new intro blurb saying “as requested in the comments to previous post on blah”? I would have gone hunting for the comments if I’d known.
Such a blurb might also provide the context and continuity that Noah appeared to be missing. All thoughts of context and continuity were blown out of my mind by post-traumatic stress related thoughts of “OMG syllabus noooooooooooooo!!!!!”
Hey Kent. You have posted a lot of stuff, much of which seems eminently reasonable.
You’ll notice that I sneered at my own posts on tcj.com as well. I think the lack of editorial vision means we’re all flailing about more than a little. Until and unless the folks in charge figure out what they want to do, we’re all making it up, and that means that a lot of things (and in some ways, everything) is going to look random and stupid.
Caro, I think you can email Dirk? Possibly? Or Kristy? It’s somewhat unclear though….
I don’t suppose I care deeply that I can access content that’s supposed to be accessible only to subscribers without actually logging in at all, but if I had the opposite problem I would probably be aggravated…
I think it probably is supposed to be Dirk. But it’s the general unclarity of it that supports your argument.
I don’t so much mind the randomness — they’re tangents and that’s kind of cool — as I mind the fact that there’s no circle they’re tangent to.
Noah, it’s obvious that you need to seize control of TCJ and brutally impose your own vision. The masses need strong leadership.
I’ve been hugely disappointed in the “new” Comics Journal. When this thing started, Gary Groth posted a statement promising “one of our goals was to bring the Journal’s editorial strengths to its website — perspicuous, analytical, passionate, and fearless criticism and commentary about comics.” So far I haven’t seen much evidence of that.
I have so many questions. Why are practically all of the most substantial essays, interviews, and reviews reruns from the old print version of the magazine? Why are long posts divided up into multiple pages (or even multiple posts), making them less convenient to read? Why is the interview referenced in Noah’s post presented as a YouTube video instead of a transcript? (I don’t come to the Comics Journal to watch TV.) One of the last print issues, published before the apparently weirdly sudden decision to go online, promised an issue #301 featuring interviews with Kevin O’Neill and Bill Plympton. What happened to the stuff that was going to go into that issue? And will Kenneth Smith ever write anything that isn’t a variation on “Everyone’s stupid but me?”
The comments sections are surprisingly sparse and often appear to be little more than Comics Journal writers talking to each other. If that’s going to change, the site’s going to have to develop some substance.
Any writer who refuses to participate in an Ariel Schrag roundtable will be shot at dawn….
Whoops; that last one is in response to Richard. Sorry Wesley.
But re your comments; yeah. I agree with all of that. (Except maybe the transcripts; I do prefer reading to viewing myself, but I think interwebs have moved past me.)
I gave up on the TCJ.com shortly after the relaunch because it made me work too hard to find content I liked. Given the number of other interesting things on the Internet, I haven’t really missed it. I looked at TCJ.com again today, and the changes that Noah described aren’t enough to bring me back.
One thing that might have gotten me back was the new TCJ.com Twitter feed. I find Twitter to be a better aggregation tool than RSS, since the size restriction forces a succinctness that lets me make a quick determination on my interest in an article. It’s perfect for filtering sites like the New York Times and Boing Boing that generate a large volume of content on random subject matters. Maybe it could do the same for TCJ.com.
However, at the time I’m writing this, TCJ has three tweets and they don’t link directly back to TCJ.com, they link to TCJ’s Facebook page. I’m a casual reader of their site, and it’s the accumulation of things like this that continue to keep me away.
“TCJ has three tweets and they don’t link directly back to TCJ.com, they link to TCJ’s Facebook page.”
Argh.
TCJ 301 is still on pre-order status at amazon. I presume it will be the first in the new print format?
I have a few interviews in the works, by the by.
Personally, I see tcj.com’s main vision as one entirely defined by its writers. What I’m doing here is pretty much what I’ve been doing all along at my blog and sequart, and I’m grateful that I’ve been able to do exactly what I’ve wanted to do here. Whether or not readers are interested is entirely up to them, but it’s what I want them to be reading. The formatting isn’t always what I would choose, but otherwise I’ve loved making the move.
That said, I’d be perfectly happy to participate in theme weeks, roundtables or whatever else Michael/Kristi happened to be interested in.
As far as the rest of the site goes, I’m also a bit disappointed that some bloggers have disappeared. But I have a soft spot for some of the more random stuff that’s appeared on the site so far.
Oh, and Noah? I’d be totally up for an Ariel Schrag roundtable.
Hey Rob. I think tcj has always been very open to writer input, which is as it should be. At the same time…I think there also has to be some editorial guidance. I like being able to do what I want on HU…but it really wouldn’t be right to do a massive read through of all of Marston’s WW comics on tcj.com. And, honestly, I don’t write about, say, John Le Carre or music on this site, because the audience is different. Having a focus isn’t a bad thing…it’s necessary. People want (quite reasonably) to have some idea of what it is they’ve ordered when they visit your emporium.
Everyone should check out the new 9eme Art for contrast.
Rob, TCJ’s defined by the writers but shaped by the editors, ey? What I miss is the limits of an issue, the way certain pieces might play against one another in the confines. Roundtables and theme weeks can do it online, but so far it’s tickertape. I’m hopeful…
Internet, I’m very disappointed that you haven’t unleashed thousands of tween commenters on each and every Kenneth Smith post. Come on, make me proud.
Noah, here’s a solution I’ve wanted to do for ages. Start “The Cromics Journal,” get the domain name, and start an alternate universe of criticism and webcomics. The Comics Repo can do glowing reviews of Acnewood, and “Cold” Heat Jeer can get in flamewars with The Hooded Unitarian.
To start it, we’ll need VC funding, like $200. If they can drop millions on a failed Japanese social network with an unfortunate name, they can fund this.
The only problem is that Unitarians don’t fight with anybody. They’re ecumenical like that.
9eme Art, c’est tres beau.
Also: Thierry Groensteen blogs. Formidable! I predict dramatic improvement in my French vocabulary.
Merci, Bill!
TCJ is a dinosaur man. No one cool reads this lame journal and everyone involved in it are so proud to be uncool it hurts. Sure be do!
For Christmas, I asked for a subscription to the new print version of the Journal. My wife attempted to subscribe by going to this website. She’s a smart person and computer-literate, but she was unable to figure out how to purchase a subscription. I think this is another sign that this website has problems.
Removed by admin.
Ed, go away.
Those criticisms are unfortunately on-target. There’s much to enjoy at tcj.com,, but the whole is less than the sum of its parts.
My latest collage-cartoon on the incoherence here noted, and some others on the website and TCJ message board’s problems (finding, accessing, the woeful lack of activity) from the gloomily-titled “Does this thing still work?” and “where did everyone go?” threads, gathered at http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/920/tcjcollagesgather.jpg .
Pingback: Everyone’s a critic: A round-up of comic book reviews and thinkpieces | Robot 6 @ Comic Book Resources – Covering Comic Book News and Entertainment
Pingback: TCJ.com, 2 Months Later » Comics Worth Reading
I want to be generous and offer that Slate took awhile to become a decent website, and they had Microsoft developers and money backing that. Also, as I recall, The Comics Reporter took a little while to become something worth visiting daily and later thrice-daily.
Still, the overwhelming sense I get from tcj.com is that its main purpose is really to be a place-holder for the Comics Journal brand until the New Direction Comics Journal is ready to sell later this year. It’s probably natural that it happens this way. It seems like most print publications transition pretty awkwardly into the internet form. Still, while Slate may have an excuse for having started from the ground up, that was well over ten years ago when there weren’t many models for online magazines to follow or any easy-to-implement solutions.
It sure doesn’t feel like tcj.com is filling any particular void in coverage of comics on the internet. For an internet magazine about comics, it sure doesn’t cover much in the way of comics found only on the internet. It mainly seems to still function as a Fantagraphics promotion tool, even more than the actual magazine did, with its abundance of reviews of Fantagraphics product. And in case you miss those reviews, Flog! and iJournalista! will point you to them.
The void that needs to be filled is the sort of lengthy in-depth news reporting on comics publishing that TCJ used to do. That sort of thing might be a chore to read on the computer screen, but it was a valuable part of the magazine. The internet excels in snide commentary and good visual gags about Disney’s purchase of Marvel but where is there a great article about how this purchase can impact various comics publishing issues now and in the future? There used to be great reporting about Diamond and how its control over distribution impacts publishing and vice-versa. With Diamond apparently suffering cutbacks in the last year, it’s time for a major look at exactly what’s at stake, and how seriously, for the comics industry as the economy buffets about the only company that’s responsible for keeping comics retailers in business. This stuff ought to be covered, and tcj.com should be the appropriate place to find it.
As Bill Randall pointed out in his comment posted elsewhere, Blood & Thunder is missing too–has been for a long time–but that sort of curated comments section would be a lot of fun to read, both for the wise debates and the Fanboy Rampage.
On the other hand, I spend way too much time reading about comics and not enough reading comics themselves, and I’d rather Groth & co put their energy and money into publishing more great books than lots of text about them.
I’d agree that reporting is something that TCJ did that you’d think could be a strength of the site. Also interviews…and long-form reviews. For whatever reason, though, none of those seem to have been a major priority, at least up to now.
Pingback: Madinkbeard » Harvey on Crumb’s Genesis