Bendis - Twitter rant

[Dean S.]

Hey all,

How many of you all caught Bendis' twitter rant ("rant" might be a strong word, but I'm using it) yesterday about comic bloggers and internet reviewers?  He clarified a little bit over at his message boards later and his big beefs were:
1) Internet websites practicing "cut and paste" blogging.  It seemed like he was mostly irritated by the fact that every comics blog had a link to the same DC announcements with (perhaps) 1-2 sentences of analysis. 
2) Comic reviewers online to personalize their review by (a) telling the reader the background with the title/character/etc and (b) using the word "I" in the review.

Since I do online reviews and try to do a good and professional job, it does hit a little close to home when someone who knows more about writing that I do (like Bendis) makes a critique.....

I've always thought sharing a little bit of personal context helps someone understand whether a review is/isn't going to be relevant to them. 

Opinions????

[Farrell]

Given that a review is the opinion of an individual, I don't see the problem with using "I" statements or putting it into context. You're not speaking for everyone, so why make it sound like it? 

[JimN]

Hey all,

How many of you all caught Bendis' twitter rant ("rant" might be a strong word, but I'm using it) yesterday about comic bloggers and internet reviewers?  He clarified a little bit over at his message boards later and his big beefs were:
1) Internet websites practicing "cut and paste" blogging.  It seemed like he was mostly irritated by the fact that every comics blog had a link to the same DC announcements with (perhaps) 1-2 sentences of analysis. 
2) Comic reviewers online to personalize their review by (a) telling the reader the background with the title/character/etc and (b) using the word "I" in the review.

Since I do online reviews and try to do a good and professional job, it does hit a little close to home when someone who knows more about writing that I do (like Bendis) makes a critique.....

I've always thought sharing a little bit of personal context helps someone understand whether a review is/isn't going to be relevant to them. 

Opinions????

I don't read a lot of online comics reviews so I'm not sure what kind of personal context you're talking about. Can you provide an example?

Jim

[Steve Raker]

I don't get it.....you're saying Bendis doesn't like background info such as title/character/etc. to be in a review? Huh?  There's got to be more to it than that.

[BobBretall]

Not having read the "rant", I can't comment directly.  I also meticulously avoid the Bendis forums, so I'm not going over there to try to seek it out.

However, I, too, do reviews of comics (weekly on our podcast for over 3 years; 161 weekly comics spotlight episodes).  We (John & I) try to make sure that our reviews are not reduced to "this sucked" or "I didn't like it", but rather try to go into WHY we did or did not like the comic in question.

We might think the panel-to-panel continuity of the art didn't do a good job of telling the story.   Perhaps the coloring muddied up the art and made the story hard to visually understand (again, for us, the reviewers).  Maybe it's unclear storytelling or poor turns of phrase, or choppy scene transitions.

In other cases, it's situational.  For instance, I might think a #1 issue did a poor job of introducing/setting up a story and giving a reader (in this case ME) any kind of compelling reason to come back for issue #2.  If it was issue 5 or 10 or 100, we might not expect this kind of set-up, but I think if you slap a #1 on a book, a reader should be reasonably assured that it's some kind of an entry-point to the story being told.  The WHY is important to me and need to go with the resultant "Thumbs up / thumbs down" opinion.  

Those are all negative things, it's just as likely that it's something I really like, in which case an effort is made to tell WHY it was good.

[Adam O. Pruett]

1) Internet websites practicing "cut and paste" blogging.  It seemed like he was mostly irritated by the fact that every comics blog had a link to the same DC announcements with (perhaps) 1-2 sentences of analysis. 
2) Comic reviewers online to personalize their review by (a) telling the reader the background with the title/character/etc and (b) using the word "I" in the review.

Without having read Bendis' words myself, and just going on what you've explained here -- I'd definitely agree with him about point 1. Cut-and-paste blogging is pretty weak. It's especially weak when the news isn't really news at all, but just sensationalistic reporting. Lord knows the Rich Johnstons of the world get many of their "scoops" by trolling certain forums and twitter feeds, hoping to find something remotely "controversial" they can exploit for headlines by taking completely out of context.

On point 2, though, I'm with you when you say...

I've always thought sharing a little bit of personal context helps someone understand whether a review is/isn't going to be relevant to them.

But perhaps he was objecting to reviewers who spend too much time talking about themselves and not enough about the material? Or the ones who take their personal history with a particular character as some kind of entitlement? Both of those would be valid criticisms...

[Sal!]

For me, if a review starts out with something along the lines of "I was in the comic shop the other day..." or "When I was a kid", chances are I am not going to finish reading it.

Reviews to me should be without context and based solely on the merit of the work in front of you. They should not be based on what the reviewer went through last week or what their favorite cartoon as a kid was. That type of contextual information isn't helpful to me when I am trying to determine to buy a book.

[Nojfotra (Jonathan D. Gordon)]

For me, if a review starts out with something along the lines of "I was in the comic shop the other day..." or "When I was a kid", chances are I am not going to finish reading it.

Reviews to me should be without context and based solely on the merit of the work in front of you. They should not be based on what the reviewer went through last week or what their favorite cartoon as a kid was. That type of contextual information isn't helpful to me when I am trying to determine to buy a book.

agreed , we as readers of the review, over time learn the taste of the reviewer and which reviewers have a taste similar to ours.

[NeverWanderer (Joey Cruz)]

Just to keep everything as clear so no one starts tilting at windmills, I'm gonna post some of Bendis's posts from his message board, where he chose to make it a full blown discussion...

After reading another excellent issue of American cinematographer I was filled with the desire to type this...

comics as an art form is in fantastic shape. the only things missing? thoughtful longform investigative journalism and critique. all we get nowadays are knee-jerk reviews and cut and paste blogging. which I have no problem with but it’s ALL we get. on a slow news week like this one I would love to see some of our better reporters rolling up her sleeves and helping the medium thrive. even reviews of trade paperbacks and graphic novels have seemed to have fallen by the wayside even though the sales are crazy large.

you’ll forgive me but I think that a snarky pseudo-hip attitude towards mainstream comics is uninteresting. if you’re a cut-and-paste blogger or comics journalist and I just annoyed the shit out of you… prove me wrong.

I am enjoying the e-mails from professionals agreeing with me but not wanting to stir the pot   Cut and paste blogging is cut and pastes from an article from another source… then adding a line of comment & signing their name to it.

I’m sorry I got on my high horse, I just do love this medium and I know a lot of you out there do as well. I miss amazing heroes and for clarification I go to almost every cut-and-paste comics blog  


and then after I was done typing it I realized it didn't belong on Twitter it belonged here where we could have a more interesting involved conversation in more than 140 characters.

I am already being misquoted as saying that all comic book journalists suck or that I am begging for attention for myself which is not what I said on any conceivable level and only confirms my growing suspicions that many people have trouble comprehending what they read

posts links to sites or individual pieces that you think are doing an above average to excellent job expressing the complexities of this many faceted medium. I would like to see those things.

And he later said this...

I tell you what I don't like in reviews. not just comic book reviews but reviews in general...I don't like the reviewer has to tell you their own back story or their own personal relationship with the characters... that has nothing to do with what your job is. the more times I see the words 'I' for 'me' in a review the quicker I tune it out. that's not a review that's a plea for help

and the other bugaboo is when the reviewers unable to review the work for what it is and what it intends to be. Siskel, God rest his soul, was very guilty of this from time to time. I remember seeing him review home alone and him wondering out loud why the movie couldn't be more about what it would really be like to be home alone. that's a Bullshit review. if the filmmaker intended to do that and failed, that's one thing, but the filmmaker attempted to make a live action Bugs Bunny cartoon, so the question is did he achieve his goal?

I see that with people who review superhero books... and some of these guys give me very good reviews so I'm not being a baby as I've been accused of...

I mean I am a baby but I'm not a baby about stuff like this!

[NeverWanderer (Joey Cruz)]

Oh, and uhhh....  then I wrote this:

I've actually found that the best, most in-depth discussion of comics, both as entertainment and as a medium is happening on podcasts. Around Comics (RIP), Wordballoon, and 11 O'Clock Comics immediately come to mind as shows that really delve into what's interesting about the medium.

With 11OC especially, they will go into minute detail on any comic that floats their boat -- mainstream, foreign, indy -- they cover it all and have enough diversity of opinion to fill hours of airtime with fascinating discussion.

Thing is, most people who follow this medium don't want to hear from the people who disagree with them, regardless of the content of the discussion that springs up from it. They'll harp on the fact that one of the hosts has decided not to read DC instead of focussing on the other 90% of the show.

Maybe it's a bold statement, but I would at least partially blame the dearth of legitimate comic book criticism and journalism on a lack of the audience for it. I think that even if we had an "Ebert" he would get shouted down by those who disagreed with him, and probably not even taken seriously by those who agreed.

We, as a culture, are so used to defending our views against the outside world that the only opinions that matter to us anymore are our own.

(cue the chorus of "Speak for yourself!")

[legion of daves]

i think a little personal context is fine, but i got the vibe that he was commenting on reviewers that share opinion more than they do analysis.

[deadcowaroma]

It always seemed to me that creators who criticise the criticisers were doing so to lash back at the people who hurt them. Bendis is far from the first creator I thought this about.

[NeverWanderer (Joey Cruz)]

To me, what he seems to be talking down is the "Harry Knowles" method of reviewing something: "This is my long and storied history with this director/actor/property, so now you will know why I loved it"

It had its place, just an anything does, but it makes the review more about the reviewer than the thing being reviewed, which, he's right, is not doing the job right. Bendis is just kinda putting his foot in his mouth in the way he expresses that, which, well, he does sometimes.

[Julian Lytle]

It would be nice to see some journalism, like getting down to the nitty gritty. Most stuff about comics isn't that much different than Perez Hilton.

[Nojfotra (Jonathan D. Gordon)]

It would be nice to see some journalism, like getting down to the nitty gritty. Most stuff about comics isn't that much different than Perez Hilton.

Its hard to go at it with a true sense of journalism when most of the podcasters are out having beers with the creators.   Comics and Comics podcasting is like sports journalism in the 30'3 through 50's.  Everyone is friendly with everyone so nobody is going to be to critical of the guys that they are acquitances with.

[BobBretall]

Comics and Comics podcasting is like sports journalism in the 30'3 through 50's.  Everyone is friendly with everyone so nobody is going to be to critical of the guys that they are acquitances with.

Tell me about it.

More than once I have not cared for something, given what I thought was a cogent set of reasons for not liking it.

On 2 occasions, when I have met the creators at cons, they were kind of pissed of at me for not liking their work.  Hey, not everyone is going to like everything, at least I talked about specifically what did not work FOR ME, different readers will have different opinions.  Look at it this way, some (not all) creators only want to hear positive feedback.   This is similar to all the god-awful singers who try out for American Idol because their friends & family all tell them how great they are when they are in actuality not up to professional standards.

That said, I also met 1 creator at a con that actually thanked me for what he saw as constructive criticism and have since had good interactions with him.

[Nojfotra (Jonathan D. Gordon)]

Tell me about it.

More than once I have not cared for something, given what I thought was a cogent set of reasons for not liking it.

On 2 occasions, when I have met the creators at cons, they were kind of pissed of at me for not liking their work.  Hey, not everyone is going to like everything, at least I talked about specifically what did not work FOR ME, different readers will have different opinions.  Look at it this way, some (not all) creators only want to hear positive feedback.   This is similar to all the god-awful singers who try out for American Idol because their friends & family all tell them how great they are when they are in actuality not up to professional standards.

That said, I also met 1 creator at a con that actually thanked me for what he saw as constructive criticism and have since had good interactions with him.

It is definitely not a position I envy. I know that most the podcasters are easy to spot on a con floor.  Unlike modern Jouranlists Creators and podcasters are close to the same level of stature in many cases. I always shy away from podcasts where the hosts talk about spending after hours at a con with a certain creator and then for months  his books are all they talk about glowingly with no perspective.  That said I don't expect a podcaster to ruin a friendship with a creator over one bad book. Unlike journalists , podcasters aren't getting paid

[Julian Lytle]

Its hard to go at it with a true sense of journalism when most of the podcasters are out having beers with the creators.   Comics and Comics podcasting is like sports journalism in the 30'3 through 50's.  Everyone is friendly with everyone so nobody is going to be to critical of the guys that they are acquitances with.

I wasn't talking about the podcasters, but these sites and bloggers.

[Just Bill]

Bendis would hate my podcast.  It's 50% about me and my reactions and relationships with comics and 50% about the comics themselves.  And I've turned down offers to interview creators.  Because it has nothing to do with my relationship with comics.

Thing is, I think journalism, criticism, and opinion pieces are three separate things. 

[Julian Lytle]

Was Bendis even talking about podcasts?