Bendis - Twitter rant

[Just Bill]

Was Bendis even talking about podcasts?

Looked to me that although he specifically called out blogs, he was also talking about a reviewing style of which he's not a fan.  Which would be a style that a lot of podcasts employ.

[VinceB]

Bendis shouldn't have said ALL, because Spurgeon's The Comics Reporter and Comics Comics prove him wrong.

[VinceB]

And I wonder, since he is a mainstream comics creator and his comments are most likely rooted in that section of the comics garden, if Bendis realizes that maybe longform journalism and mainstream comics just weren't meant to get married. Burn me at the stake, but maybe there isn't all that much to say about the average issue of Uncanny X-Men or Superman. Sure, we have our thought-provoking standouts, mostly originating from the mind of Grant Morrison, but beyond thoughtful commentary on art and writing styles, there isn't a whole hell of a lot else about which to talk, save commentary from the artists and writers doing the actual creating. 

[Dean S.]

Sorry to start a thread and then go MIA.  Installing a new router in the house = Easy.  Having to install Microsoft Service Pack #1 first = 90 minutes of waiting.  Honestly.....I was having flashbacks to working on computers back in 1992 or something.

Anyway, I'm glad folks have feedback on this and also glad that someone pasted Bendis' comments to this (which I should have done).  

I really liked the comment that there is a big difference between journalism, commentary and reviews.  For reviews, I'm just trying to be an eloquent and reasoned loudmouth.  

I also wonder if Bendis would feel differently about something if he was still a struggling new person.  Nothing makes me happier as a reviewer than when I can say something nice about issue #3 of some Image miniseries than NO ONE else is reviewing.  Of course, it gets a touch awkward when the creators drop you an email to say "thanks" because then you know they're reading your stuff.  

[deadcowaroma]

And I wonder, since he is a mainstream comics creator and his comments are most likely rooted in that section of the comics garden, if Bendis realizes that maybe longform journalism and mainstream comics just weren't meant to get married. Burn me at the stake, but maybe there isn't all that much to say about the average issue of Uncanny X-Men or Superman. Sure, we have our thought-provoking standouts, mostly originating from the mind of Grant Morrison, but beyond thoughtful commentary on art and writing styles, there isn't a whole hell of a lot else about which to talk, save commentary from the artists and writers doing the actual creating. 

Sometimes I think you're crazy, Vince. But not this time. 

[NeverWanderer (Joey Cruz)]

 Of course, it gets a touch awkward when the creators drop you an email to say "thanks" because then you know they're reading your stuff.  

I once had a creator email me directly after I gave one of his comics a decent-but-critical review. All he said was, "I read your review. You make valid points. I hope you enjoy the rest of the story more."

Just goes to show that not all creators are thin-skinned to constructive criticism. Had I just reamed the guy out for the book's flaws instead of giving it a thoughtful, balanced critique, I'm sure he wouldn't have even finished reading it, much less written me an email. Comic reviewers, more than any other kind of entertainment reviewer, actually have the potential to influence the art form they spend so much time analyzing. When more guys start realizing this, maybe we'll see a shift in both the quality and the reception of comic writing.



...but maybe that's a soapbox for another thread.

[Dean S.]

I once had a creator email me directly after I gave one of his comics a decent-but-critical review. All he said was, "I read your review. You make valid points. I hope you enjoy the rest of the story more."

Just goes to show that not all creators are thin-skinned to constructive criticism. Had I just reamed the guy out for the book's flaws instead of giving it a thoughtful, balanced critique, I'm sure he wouldn't have even finished reading it, much less written me an email. Comic reviewers, more than any other kind of entertainment reviewer, actually have the potential to influence the art form they spend so much time analyzing. When more guys start realizing this, maybe we'll see a shift in both the quality and the reception of comic writing.



...but maybe that's a soapbox for another thread.

BINGO!  You have just said much better something that is always in the back of my mind when doing reviews.  I don't know how much impact it has when you're reviewing Avengers or Batman & Robin, but I DO think of this with smaller creator-owned titles because you know they do read our reviews.  It can be almost like an interactive letter column.

[Greg Leclair (greg1ca)]

And I wonder, since he is a mainstream comics creator and his comments are most likely rooted in that section of the comics garden, if Bendis realizes that maybe longform journalism and mainstream comics just weren't meant to get married. Burn me at the stake, but maybe there isn't all that much to say about the average issue of Uncanny X-Men or Superman. Sure, we have our thought-provoking standouts, mostly originating from the mind of Grant Morrison, but beyond thoughtful commentary on art and writing styles, there isn't a whole hell of a lot else about which to talk, save commentary from the artists and writers doing the actual creating. 

    

you're pretty

[Wood]

I think this is just about getting lost in translation. I agreed with nearly everything Bendis said, but I also think he needs to recognize his frustration as a sign of the times. Citizen media is here to stay, and that creates a tremendous amount of noise. In a medium as intimate, incestuous, and let's be honest, tiny as comics there is very little difference in terms of reach between a "journalist" paid to give objective analysis of the industry and just some guy who has a blog and feels like sharing his personal thoughts. There's nothing inherently wrong with that guy blogging how HE feels about a book and using whatever criteria he deems necessary. If there's an audience for it, so be it. But trying to look at it from a creator's eyes, I empathize with Bendis because I can't fathom how he could possibly discern which folks were trying to do a professional journalistic review from the mountain of people who really are just out to have themselves heard without any real thought as to who hears them.

[Julian Lytle]

And I wonder, since he is a mainstream comics creator and his comments are most likely rooted in that section of the comics garden, if Bendis realizes that maybe longform journalism and mainstream comics just weren't meant to get married. Burn me at the stake, but maybe there isn't all that much to say about the average issue of Uncanny X-Men or Superman. Sure, we have our thought-provoking standouts, mostly originating from the mind of Grant Morrison, but beyond thoughtful commentary on art and writing styles, there isn't a whole hell of a lot else about which to talk, save commentary from the artists and writers doing the actual creating. 

But there is stories in the business. Let's be real here the biggest scoop of actual journalism in comics came from our dude Wood with the Marvel price increase. There are some things that do well but the bulk of it is just reviews and press releases and that my friends isn't journalism.

[NeverWanderer (Joey Cruz)]

Burn me at the stake, but maybe there isn't all that much to say about the average issue of Uncanny X-Men or Superman. Sure, we have our thought-provoking standouts, mostly originating from the mind of Grant Morrison, but beyond thoughtful commentary on art and writing styles, there isn't a whole hell of a lot else about which to talk, save commentary from the artists and writers doing the actual creating. 

This has been brought up as well. And I suppose it's a valid point, but it seems kinda all-or-nothing. Sure, eventually, you'll run out of interesting stuff to say about issue after issue of Batman or X-Men, but what about story-arcs? Trade collections?  There are a shitload of mainstream comics out there, and unless they've all managed to synchronize their storylines like women in the same household, I'm sure we've got certain stories ending, new stories beginning, and others still happening every single week.

So, rather than review one issue at a time, touch on each title every few months. This week we talk about the Batman arc that just wrapped up, the next week we talk about X-Men, the week after that Secret Six is kicking off a new story, let's see how their first issue did.

These are just ideas I'm pulling out of my ass, but the point is that just because this medium presents itself differently from other entertainment mediums, it doesn't mean that a system can't be adapted which allows for constant quality journalism and critique. It's just a matter of will on the part of the writer and, as cynical as it sounds, desire on the part of the audience.

And, Vince, maybe you're saying you don't "want" comics to receive the sort of journalistic attention that the other mediums receive, but I would argue that you give them that much attention and more every week on the podcast. You guys talk about the craft of comics as much as you review the comics themselves, and I think that's what Bendis is really looking for in his statements. People who can write knowledgeably and intelligently about every aspect of the comic medium. Why on Earth would we, the lovers and flag-bearers of the medium, want to isolate ourselves from that kind of quality writing? It seems counterproductive.

[Wood]

But there is stories in the business. Let's be real here the biggest scoop of actual journalism in comics came from our dude Wood with the Marvel price increase. There are some things that do well but the bulk of it is just reviews and press releases and that my friends isn't journalism.

Thanks Julian.

This really comes down to what people want. Do they want their reviews to be impactful? Is their goal to build and audience and been seen as someone with an influential and refined opinion of things? Or are they simply looking for a way to express their views and really have no goal beyond that.

If it's the former, then using "I" and personal anecdotes is a tough road to hoe. At Footballguys, we don't allow "I" and personalized analysis.

Someone may write, "I really think Adrian Peterson is going to have a big game this week." We will tell them it should say, "Adrian Peterson will have a big game this week." You may counter with, well it's his OPINION that Adrian Peterson will have a big game. To which we say...YES, and the presumption is that it's his opinion. He's not a fortune teller and he's stating an expectations for a future occurrence. There should be no need to say "I think" because that's implied.

There's also the issue of Authority. Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got 'em. In PROFESSIONAL critical analysis, you are not supposed to personalize reviews because it takes away authority. Let's review the following statements:

Food Blogger might say: "I really loved the chocolate egg cream at the Shake Shack."
NY Times food reviewer would instead say: "The Shake Shack produces an egg cream that is unrivaled in Gotham."

One is just how someone personally feels. So is the other one, ultimately, but it READS as though the reviewer is stating a fact. Now you may read the review and say, "BULLSHIT! Those egg creams suck balls!" But you understand that they are speaking from a position of influence, whether you value their opinion or not.

Movie Blogger might say: "Scott Pilgrim was the shit! One up!"
Entertainment Weekly might say: "Scott Pilgrim was an uneven experiment that ultimately failed to deliver for anyone not intimately familiar with the source material."

And so on...

Neither is WRONG. But bloggers shouldn't be surprised when creators don't value their opinions; unless they want to raise their own level of discourse. Removing personal anecdotes and the use of "I" are two great ways to enhance said discourse even if they really don't go any deeper with their actual analysis.

[VinceB]

And, Vince, maybe you're saying you don't "want" comics to receive the sort of journalistic attention that the other mediums receive, but I would argue that you give them that much attention and more every week on the podcast.

Not me. Not for all of comics, either.

People are getting killed over cartoons. Creators use the medium to reveal their trials with cancer, divorce, sexual assault and abuse, mental illness, oppressive governments, etc. There's plenty of comics and creators out there ripe for investigative journalism. Aside from the mainstream comics machine (incorporating Woooode's piece on price increases) and the efforts of the handful of creators currently reinventing certain aspects of the genre, there isn't a lot about the Big2 worthy of wasting a whole lot of words. Reviews, commentary, news bites...sure, plenty of grist for that mill, but deep reportage? On what? Wolverine's newest iteration? Who will wear the Daredevil costume? Is Batman really dead? These are subjects worthy of the Comics Journal treatment? There are only so many column inches one can devote to this kind of stuff.

[Farrell]

Someone may write, "I really think Adrian Peterson is going to have a big game this week." We will tell them it should say, "Adrian Peterson will have a big game this week." You may counter with, well it's his OPINION that Adrian Peterson will have a big game. To which we say...YES, and the presumption is that it's his opinion. He's not a fortune teller and he's stating an expectations for a future occurrence. There should be no need to say "I think" because that's implied.

Now that's I've read Bendis' comments, it doesn't seem that he's referring to either case, but rather the person who writes, "I've had Adrian Peterson in my fantasy league for two years and he never lets me down.  I know I'm starting him this week, and so should you." 

Of course you're perfectly correct that it's implied that it's the writer's opinion, and including phrases like "in my opinion" to some degree dilute the power of the message.  But I'm not sure why that would bug Bendis.  If anything, a reviewer writing, "The scene transitions were abrupt and sloppy, contributing to a highly confusing book", would seem (especially in the hyper sensitive world we seem to live in now) more offensive than, "I had trouble following the scene transitions, and frequently found myself confused as to what was going on."  That's not better or stronger writing, but it's pretty par for the course these days to bend over backwards to imply that it's at least partially the reader's fault when a book doesn't succeed in some way.  But again, that doesn't seem to be what Bendis is referring to anyway.

[darrell]

Not me. Not for all of comics, either.

People are getting killed over cartoons. Creators use the medium to reveal their trials with cancer, divorce, sexual assault and abuse, mental illness, oppressive governments, etc. There's plenty of comics and creators out there ripe for investigative journalism. Aside from the mainstream comics machine (incorporating Woooode's piece on price increases) and the efforts of the handful of creators currently reinventing certain aspects of the genre, there isn't a lot about the Big2 worthy of wasting a whole lot of words. Reviews, commentary, news bites...sure, plenty of grist for that mill, but deep reportage? On what? Wolverine's newest iteration? Who will wear the Daredevil costume? Is Batman really dead? These are subjects worthy of the Comics Journal treatment? There are only so many column inches one can devote to this kind of stuff.

Are you saying there is nothing interesting to talk about if its a super hero mainstream book but if its a indy that there is plenty to talk about?

[VinceB]

Are you saying there is nothing interesting to talk about if its a super hero mainstream book but if its a indy that there is plenty to talk about?

I'm not saying that there's NOTHING interesting to say. Obviously, there's plenty of it out there, but very little of it can be considered journalism.

[Wood]

I'm not saying that there's NOTHING interesting to say. Obviously, there's plenty of it out there, but very little of it can be considered journalism.

I think there's an immense amount that can be written about the mainstream that would qualify as journalism. There's just not a clear group of folks attempting it; probably because the people paying the bills probably don't believe there's much of an audience for it. The "mainstream" put out over 200 books per MONTH, have lots of people that factor into the process, have a rich multicultural set of contributors that span the world, have dynamic and unique problem in terms of the future of the industry, have an engaged and viable socio-economic demographic it caters to, and so on. There's a ridiculous amount of stuff that could be written on the industry that would be thought provoking, if folks bothered. But when you can copy/paste someone else's link with a snarky comment or two and still get page views and sponsored banners, what's the incentive for most?

[Just Bill]

Burn me at the stake, but maybe there isn't all that much to say about the average issue of Uncanny X-Men or Superman.

No burning at the stake... I was gonna say the same thing but couldn't figure out how to word it correctly.  Well said on your part.

[Just Bill]

There are some things that do well but the bulk of it is just reviews and press releases and that my friends isn't journalism.

But who said these review sites are trying to be journalists? 

[NeverWanderer (Joey Cruz)]

One is just how someone personally feels. So is the other one, ultimately, but it READS as though the reviewer is stating a fact. Now you may read the review and say, "BULLSHIT! Those egg creams suck balls!" But you understand that they are speaking from a position of influence, whether you value their opinion or not.

This is really the heart of my problem with most professional criticism. Maybe it's the standard AP style, but as a reader, that shit just turns me off.

When I'm reading someone's opinion of a piece of entertainment, I want to know that this person has the perspective necessary to understand that all people do not like the same things, that different pieces of art are trying to accomplish different things, and that while a given product may have affected them one way, their readers' mileage may vary. That perspective does not come across when a reviewer's main concern is sounding like they come from "a position of influence." It's like wearing a white wig in a courtroom. It may be traditional, but it's archaic, and it's not fooling anyone. Even people with authority can phrase their critiques in a way that doesn't alienate their audience.

In order for me to trust a reviewer to guide my decisions, I need to know that that reviewer is honest. Stating your opinions as fact means you are starting out from a position of dishonesty. The only value in it is in placing your opinion on an unassailable pedestal, at which point you're placing it out of the reach of any readers who are confident enough to think for themselves.

Now, with your egg-cream example, I wouldn't just drop the guy's column outright, because, typically, statements of positivity are much less off-putting than negative ones, regardless of their lack of perspective. Absolute Positivity implies openness. Absolute Negativity implies closure.

There is importance in how we use our words, and it bugs me that most people seem more worried about how succinct they are than how their message is coming across. Maybe it's the accepted norm, but that shit's gotta change.




   ...oh, hey, look, I'm up here again.