Bendis - Twitter rant

[Dave A]

2) Your point re: Bendis making his bed and now having to lie in it is a valid counter. The Bendis Boards are one of the, if not the most popular comic forums on the Earth and he created and leveraged those to fuel his popularity. He is pretty much a deity there and, to my mind, it's a noisy mess filled with TONS of the kind of knee jerk commentary and unfounded snark that he seems to be chastising. Does it differ in his mind when it's in a blog post vs. a podcast vs. a forum? Maybe, although that's an increasingly hollow distinction for my money.

This is a good point, and I've heard Bendis direct this same level of shallow, offhand criticism at movies, music, tv, etc in his own interviews. It's what people do. On the other hand, I don't think he's calling for that to stop so much as opining for a little more in-depth examination from comics journalists and professional reviewers in particular. Fans are gonna be fans, but maybe the fans, the creators, and the reviewers themselves should be holding that responsibility to a higher standard.

One thing I do think is a tad naive, though, and different from the Siskel Home Alone example, is the expectation that reviewers aren't going to be bringing any history to these stories about 40, 50, and 75+ year-old characters. Most of these characters were created before even the people who write and draw them were born... we've all got a lifelong history reading their stories. Hell, I hear half of the mainstream creators anymore refer to themselves as "caretakers" more than "creators".

It's one thing to say "I think the story should have ended this way instead of that way, and therefore I hate it"... I understand that being pretty insipid criticism. But, for instance, take the Star Trek reboot. If you look at the reviews on Netflix, pretty much every single one starts with a description of the reviewer's history with the franchise.

"I'm a lifelong Trek fan, and..."

"I've never cared about Star Trek before, but..."

"I loved Next Generation, but never got into the older stuff, until..."

Those are valid critical qualifiers, because they let the readers know where the reviewer is coming from in relation to themselves and their history with the franchise. The new movie isn't just some brilliant new concept that people went nuts for or hated; the concept and characters have been around for 40 years, and if a fan doesn't think you got it right because "Kirk would never say that", that's a valid criticism.

It's the same with mainstream Marvel and DC characters, and you have to take the good with the bad. There's a certain set of expectations that comes with writing those characters, because they've been around longer than most of the audience and we've seen every single one done well and done poorly. Bendis has done fantastic work with these characters in my opinion, but there's no question that he wouldn't have half, maybe not even a quarter of the audience he has today without that jumping off point, if he were just plugging away at his own creations. If you want the benefits that come with that built-in audience, you can't expect people to forget everything they've ever read... if you want to write Spider-Man and have an automatic 70,000 person readership, you can't get upset when people tell you you're doing it wrong.

[Burrell]

Another point that is kind of annoying is that Bendis doesn't get specific enough in who he is critiquing.

When people pointed out good reviewers, podcasts, etc., he said he was specifically talking about blogs.

And that is a quote taken directly from the thread on the Bendis board by Bendis himself:
"I didn't say there weren't any good reviewers out there I didn't say there weren't any good bloggers out there..."

But every time someone points out a good blog, he responds that he's not talking about that one.  So I don't know exactly who he's talking about.  If he wants to make this such a good conversation, then link to the bloggers that he thinks is doing it wrong.

I made the post:
"I know that this will come across as snarky, but I'm going to say it anyway.

You know what has plenty of in-depth investigative journalism and critique? Watchmen. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Plenty of the literary comics, such as Chris Ware and Dan Clowes. I return the challenge to the comic creators... make books worthy of in-depth analysis and it will be there. I just don't see it for the new Avengers lineup or Wonder Woman's costume change. I mean, the articles would take longer to read than the actual comics.

I enjoy mainstream comics, but I think they're popcorn entertainment and don't need that type of analysis."

His response is that the reviewers should review the work for what its meant to be.  Which I find ironic, since he's critiquing blogs for being what they're meant to be:  personal opinions.

[Kenney]

But every time someone points out a good blog, he responds that he's not talking about that one.  So I don't know exactly who he's talking about.  If he wants to make this such a good conversation, then link to the bloggers that he thinks is doing it wrong.

Then he would get called a dick for doing that. I can't really blame him for not saying iluvcomicsyo.blogspot.com is not a good blog.

[NeverWanderer (Joey Cruz)]

Another point that is kind of annoying is that Bendis doesn't get specific enough in who he is critiquing.

When people pointed out good reviewers, podcasts, etc., he said he was specifically talking about blogs.

And that is a quote taken directly from the thread on the Bendis board by Bendis himself:
"I didn't say there weren't any good reviewers out there I didn't say there weren't any good bloggers out there..."

But every time someone points out a good blog, he responds that he's not talking about that one.  So I don't know exactly who he's talking about.  If he wants to make this such a good conversation, then link to the bloggers that he thinks is doing it wrong.

I made the post:
"I know that this will come across as snarky, but I'm going to say it anyway.

You know what has plenty of in-depth investigative journalism and critique? Watchmen. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Plenty of the literary comics, such as Chris Ware and Dan Clowes. I return the challenge to the comic creators... make books worthy of in-depth analysis and it will be there. I just don't see it for the new Avengers lineup or Wonder Woman's costume change. I mean, the articles would take longer to read than the actual comics.

I enjoy mainstream comics, but I think they're popcorn entertainment and don't need that type of analysis."

His response is that the reviewers should review the work for what its meant to be.  Which I find ironic, since he's critiquing blogs for being what they're meant to be:  personal opinions.

I made this response to you over on the Benbo, but I figure it's worth echoing over here (and I know much more intelligent posters than I have already mentioned it here)...

I don't think he's complaining about the amateur bloggers, he's complaining that they outnumber the serious journalists.

But, then someone comes along and starts throwing excuses at him about why the amateur bloggers can't or shouldn't be better, and that's where his "There's no excuse for quality" arguments come in, steering the conversation away from what the point was, which is that, yes, we have THIS... wouldn't it be nice if we also had THAT?

[Burrell]

I guess its just me, but I only have enough time to read the good blogs.  Why are people even wasting time reading the bad ones?  I think that the audience would take care of it.  If you're writing a "bad" blog, and you have no traffic, then if you improve, word will get out, and you will get an audience.  And if you have a blog that's getting the audience you're happy with, then why change at all?

[NeverWanderer (Joey Cruz)]

I guess its just me, but I only have enough time to read the good blogs.  Why are people even wasting time reading the bad ones?  I think that the audience would take care of it.  If you're writing a "bad" blog, and you have no traffic, then if you improve, word will get out, and you will get an audience.  And if you have a blog that's getting the audience you're happy with, then why change at all?

You're still focussing about this being about "Good Blogs" and "Bad Blogs." It's not! It's about the lack of a different kind of writing than what (most) blogs offer.

[darrell]

I'm of two minds on the subject and I'm nowhere near as eloquent as alot of people on the boards about this. First off I get sick and tired of the anything that is not a super hero book or part of the big 2 is supposed to be so much more interesting and more important. I read plenty of reviews like Bendis does that starts out with "oh he we go with another super hero slugfest". Well I spend over 200 dollars a month on comics from Marvel,DC,Dynamite,Vertigo,Image and Boom and all of those companies have books in them that I love and some books that I didnt care for but whether or not they are special to me or worth talking about has nothing to do with if the character wears a cowl or its a detective or if its walking bean. What matters to me is if I think the story is entertaining to me and the same way people say you should open your mind to indy books I say stop being so damn closed minded to super hero books. A good comic reviewer to me is not someone who spouts off about how great the book is because its something different than the mainstream books but instead they tell me why they liked the story itself. I love listening to Raging Bullets every week because even if its a book I dont think is a good one I get a 2 hour show about what they honestly liked about a story whether its Amazon Attacks  or a book I prejudged like Batgirl that i picked up because of what Sean and Jim and found out that its an awsome book.

My other mind is to say that Bendis is ok when he reads reviews that are filled with just blind admiration of how great he writes and Ive even seen valid criticisms of his work which Bendis responds with snarky comments instead of actual dialogue. Bendis cant have it both ways. Its like hearing Paris Hilton complain about how bad she wants to be left alone and in the same week goes online and yells "look at me Im important"! Bendis gets alot of buzz with anything he writes and with that you get praise and you also get criticized so suck it up and enjoy the great career you have been blessed to have in comics.

[Farrell]

I'm of two minds on the subject and I'm nowhere near as eloquent as alot of people on the boards about this. First off I get sick and tired of the anything that is not a super hero book or part of the big 2 is supposed to be so much more interesting and more important.

I don't think anybody, Vince included, has said that superhero books aren't interesting or that they shouldn't be reviewed.  It's entirely possible to write a lengthy review about a superhero book.  But most monthly superhero books don't have enough that's new or different about them to warrant in-depth analysis about every single one.  Lots of non superhero books don't either.  As you said yourself, what matters to you is if the story is entertaining.  There's only so much a reviewer can say about a book that's merely entertaining.  I'm NOT saying there's anything wrong with just being entertaining.  I'm saying that those books don't necessarily reward a closer look. 

[Dean S.]

But, then someone comes along and starts throwing excuses at him about why the amateur bloggers can't or shouldn't be better, and that's where his "There's no excuse for quality" arguments come in, steering the conversation away from what the point was, which is that, yes, we have THIS... wouldn't it be nice if we also had THAT?

I kinda thought it was heading down that path too, but then I got my panties in a twist and got defensive.

I think serious comics news/journalism is just hard to do.  I know I couldn't do a good job of it, but I'd love to see more folks with serious journalistic backgrounds give it a shot.  One blessing in disguise as daily papers go down the tubes is that some of those folks will get entrepreneurial and some are bound to read comic books.

I do kinda wonder if there is actually enough real "news" to sustain serious journalism in this day and age when folks like us are blugging away on boards like this 24 hrs a day. 

[darrell]

I don't think anybody, Vince included, has said that superhero books aren't interesting or that they shouldn't be reviewed.  It's entirely possible to write a lengthy review about a superhero book.  But most monthly superhero books don't have enough that's new or different about them to warrant in-depth analysis about every single one.  Lots of non superhero books don't either.  As you said yourself, what matters to you is if the story is entertaining.  There's only so much a reviewer can say about a book that's merely entertaining.  I'm NOT saying there's anything wrong with just being entertaining.  I'm saying that those books don't necessarily reward a closer look. 

I'm not putting that on Vince thats why I didnt name him in my post and  entertaining encompasses alot to me in terms of sometimes thought provoking,sometimes funny,sometimes thrilling,sometimes provoking anger. Thats what a good comic can and does do whether its Iron Man or Chew or Superman,or Afrodisiac.

[NeverWanderer (Joey Cruz)]

My other mind is to say that Bendis is ok when he reads reviews that are filled with just blind admiration of how great he writes and Ive even seen valid criticisms of his work which Bendis responds with snarky comments instead of actual dialogue. Bendis cant have it both ways.

Bendis said outright that his call for more in-depth criticism extends to the people who give him shining reviews as well. He's not trying to have it both ways.

...and, again, I realize it's easier to fight from a standpoint of "He's badmouthing the fans of the industry who do this stuff out of the goodness of their heart!" but that's really NOT what he's doing. To be honest, I'm kind of baffled by the people who are getting up in arms about it. Isn't it possible to want more from the industry without it meaning that everything else sucks, or that you're being ungrateful?

[darrell]

Bendis said outright that his call for more in-depth criticism extends to the people who give him shining reviews as well. He's not trying to have it both ways.

...and, again, I realize it's easier to fight from a standpoint of "He's badmouthing the fans of the industry who do this stuff out of the goodness of their heart!" but that's really NOT what he's doing. To be honest, I'm kind of baffled by the people who are getting up in arms about it. Isn't it possible to want more from the industry without it meaning that everything else sucks, or that you're being ungrateful?

You can want more without saying everything sucks. I always want the industry to get better while at the same time being a fan comics.

[NeverWanderer (Joey Cruz)]

You can want more without saying everything sucks. I always want the industry to get better while at the same time being a fan comics.

You're absolutely right... and Bendis agrees...

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.

What's more, he even agrees with you about snobbiness towards mainstream comics.

you’ll forgive me but I think that a snarky pseudo-hip attitude towards mainstream comics is uninteresting.

And reiterating my last point...  (on the topic of better reviews)

I see [the same problems] 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!

It seems like you disagree with what Bendis is saying... while agreeing with what Bendis is saying.

[Burrell]

Ok, tangent to the discussion... Heidi McDonald posted in Bendis' thread that there was not much of a market to make money off comics journalism, so it wasn't fair to compare Bendis' example acting like a professional comics creator even before he was making money... her point being that while he didn't make money then, it was certainly the stepping stones to making money.  I don't want to get into the debate over whether you should produce professional work whether you are getting paid or not (as Bendis thinks). 

I'm curious about the actual numbers.   How many people read comics websites/blogs or listen to comics podcasts?  i.e., if someone were to make a site/blog that meets Bendis' criteria of what he'd like to see, how many people could they expect to read it?  Any guesses at all?

[Jeremy]

You guys are barking up my tree. And this is a really great discussion (yes, I read the whole damned thing!); mad karma to all. Hope I am not interjecting too late.

re: "Internet websites practicing "cut and paste" blogging.  + 1-2 sentences of analysis or snark to personalize.

This is by no means limited to COMICS coverage. This is what I hate about commercial blogging/net journalism, a la Gawker, Gothamist, HuffPo, and others that are more or less thinly disguised aggregators with a little original content sprinkled in between.  

re: a distinction between NEWS and JOURNALISM

Covering news is certainly journalism, but journalism plays a much broader role than just reporting the latest. Creator profiles are valuable; a mix of opinion pieces and analysis is a must; essay is invaluable; and straight reporting, including use of multiple sources for balance, etc., is of course very important. I think that last one is what the comics coverage by and large is missing, though I will point to The Beat 's recent sounding of the dell knell of wildstorm as a great example -- quotes from multiple creators on why it was important (and why, perhaps, it no longer is).

The web as a medium almost demands something that's not long-form journalism. So, yes, 17 comics sites publish DC's news about the move and such... but how many follow up with 4-5 other short entries to increase coverage? Whichever do, that's good journalism. The original reposting of the P.R. is okay by me, so long as that's not the extent of it.

Speaking of the web --  then you get into the matter of who is paying the bills and how. When comics site X discovers that a well-SEOed  headline and story gets 10x the traffic (and thus more impressions, thus more ad dollars) than that white rabbit they spent four weeks hunting, which got no comments because it was hardly controversial and people don't tend to respond in public to things they like okay . . . well, it's the SEOed shit that gets the priority. Further reading from the broader industry if anyone cares: http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/09/what-impact-is-seo-having-on-journalists-reports-from-the-field/

And then Rich Johnson/Bleeding Cool. I understand the criticism about rumormongering, but it's non-PR-driven journalism, one of the few out there right now not relying on the media machines of the big companies.  

re: using "I" versus not doing so

Even the Old Grey Lady goes first person in reviews from time to time. Depends on the critic I guess. Ruth Reichl, who is one of the best they've had, certainly wrote restaurant reviews in first person for the paper. (http://events.nytimes.com/mem/nycreview.html?res=9906EEDE1231F93AA1575BC0A961958260) .  Of course, not everyone has the talent or authority of R.R. to pull it off.

To me, the trick is imbuing a piece with some personal resonance. i.e., WHY should you, the reader, give a shit? So long as a reviewer or reporter imparts some of why they are covering the subject, making it readily apparent why it should be important to a reader, they've done the job.  More importantly, I don't want people that don't give a shit about comics to be covering it -- reference that recent debacle in the Atlantic Monthly (which Comics Alliance did a fine job of dismantling in a comedic manner). THAT's the kind of stuff you get when the reporter has the subject at arm's length -- no perspective, etc. At least an interest is paramount!

I prefer first person reviews for things like books and culinary experiences and other straight up reviews -- both reading and writing. But I am not keen on first person for most other journalistic endeavors (essay being a key exception, but that's usually opinion too).

re: What kind of comics journalism do you want?

I agree that's probably the best question to come out of this fine thread, and that's what I'd really like to know from the people who might be reading it -- i.e., all of you guys, because that's who would support such an endeavor, whether through funds, time, or pageviews. Although I do think there's a very strong appeal of pieces that  are written in a way that can interest a general audience as well as a fan audience. Like I think anyone interested in criticism can read Douglas Wolk and dig it, even if they will never pick up an issue of Legion of Superheroes or whatever he's writing about.

I discovered after the first time I (very clumsily) covered the Alternative Press Expo for a "city blog" about 5 years ago that I just loved meeting these artists and getting their stories, so that's the kind of thing I pursue to this day -- short interviews with various levels of creators, which I eventually extended to anybody doing cool niche things (microbiologist! coffee scientist!). I'd like to imagine that's an important sort of journalism as well, if perhaps as under the radar as the subjects themselves to a mainstream audience. A very good example of someone filling this role in comics is the daily crosshatch: http://thedailycrosshatch.com/ . Ever read it? You might consider checking it out.

jeez, I think I have lost whatever cohesion I meant for this post to have.  

Anyways, interested in opinions on what's lacking specifically and what people would like to see (or evidence that it's out there and just hard to find in an intensely out of balance signal-to-noise ratio?!?!?)  

[NeverWanderer (Joey Cruz)]

That Daily Cross Hatch link has got to be the best thing to come out of this thread by far. Much props, Jeremy. And great post. 

[Jeremy]

That Daily Cross Hatch link has got to be the best thing to come out of this thread by far. Much props, Jeremy. And great post. 

Right on ... thanks!

[chip]

I'm just gonna throw this log on the fire: maybe Bendis stopped producing stories worth critical examination a long time ago when he decided to make a steady paycheck and feed his family. He made a decision to create stories in a universe that is largely not of his own creation to provide for his families future. Nothing wrong with that, right? Then why should he bitch about it? Boring conversation for the most part. In the long run his work is disposable(with the exception of Powers and his other creator owned work) and will eventually be nothing but an entry in a Marvel handbook. Isn't it obvious to others that he does what he does so that in the future when peeps think of Marvel 3 names will come up: Stan, Jack, and Bendis. Maybe Quesada. He's doing it for posterity and history; that's how it seems to me.

Now I'm gonna go crack open the best book he's produced in 8 years- Fortune and Glory!!

[Dave Faust]

It's seriously frustrating that I don't have anything of worth to add to this thread.

I'll just agree with what's been said so far about there not being that much out there week-to-week to write about and leave it at that for now. Perhaps inspiration will strike soon.

[darrell]

I'm just gonna throw this log on the fire: maybe Bendis stopped producing stories worth critical examination a long time ago when he decided to make a steady paycheck and feed his family. He made a decision to create stories in a universe that is largely not of his own creation to provide for his families future. Nothing wrong with that, right? Then why should he bitch about it? Boring conversation for the most part. In the long run his work is disposable(with the exception of Powers and his other creator owned work) and will eventually be nothing but an entry in a Marvel handbook. Isn't it obvious to others that he does what he does so that in the future when peeps think of Marvel 3 names will come up: Stan, Jack, and Bendis. Maybe Quesada. He's doing it for posterity and history; that's how it seems to me.

Now I'm gonna go crack open the best book he's produced in 8 years- Fortune and Glory!!

So his only important work is his creator owned work?