Bendis - Twitter rant

[NeverWanderer (Joey Cruz)]

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?

Quite right! Absolutely.

Then why should he bitch about it?

 

Boring conversation for the most part.

So boring you had to respond to it?

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.

The merit of his work is debatable and completely subjective, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the comic industry deserving more in-depth journalism.

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.

No, I kind of figure that he does what he does (meaning write comics for Marvel) because he loves comics and wanted to contribute to the mythos he loved as a child. You know, like every creator working in comics does.


Y'know, I used to think Bendis's snarky "people must have a reading comprehension problem" comment was just snark, but after reading some people's replies here and elsewhere, I'm starting to think he's right. The substance of what he's discussing doesn't seem to matter, and only serves as an excuse for people who don't like his work to talk shit about him because they don't like his work.

This, my friends, is what is wrong with comic fandom, and it's fucking depressing.

[Dave Faust]

The substance of what he's discussing doesn't seem to matter, and only serves as an excuse for people who don't like his work to talk shit about him because they don't like his work.

This, my friends, is what is wrong with comic fandom, and it's fucking depressing.

Welcome to Morrison town. 

[NeverWanderer (Joey Cruz)]

Welcome to Morrison town. 

See, that's funny, because I always HEAR about all the shit Morrison gets, but I so rarely see it in the places I spend time. Sure, sometimes people will hate what he's doing in a story (I, admittedly, didn't like anything I heard about Batman RIP), but I've never seen people tear into him with the sort of personal hatred that Bendis receives.

It feels like so much, "What, do you think you're better than me?!" bullshit.

[NeverWanderer (Joey Cruz)]

Something else from the Benbo discussion. This was this poster's first post, and he made a lot of good points (including certain things I didn't 100% agree with, but hey). Lots of similar stuff to what Jeremy said earlier, but I thought his perspective was worth sharing.

As a full-time journalist for the past 12 years (and an on-and-off freelance comic book blogger for half of that time), this is a topic near and dear to my heart. Brian's criticism is dead on, especially when it comes to long-form, investigative journalism of the comic book industry. Hell, I think Brian's soft-selling it because articles devoted to talking to a writer about the identity of the new super-secret villain is not journalism. Unfortunately, that's what 99% of what is considered comic book news. And maybe that's what fans want, but it would be nice if there was more variety and depth to coverage.

Don't get me wrong. I'm OK with feature articles about story lines and fun humor pieces, but I also want more. It's a big tent, and there's room for everything. In fact, my favorite regular piece of what I constitute to be comics journalism is the Word Balloon podcast. It's the Tom Snyder or "Fresh Air" of comic podcasts (both compliments), and it's smart and understands what it's trying to do: have a good conversation with comic book creators. John Siuntres talks story lines and fan stuff, but he also talks process (I'm a huge process geek), and he's not afraid to challenge his guests with his questions. Plus, their fun as hell!

But I want to see more meat-and-potatoes comics journalism, too. I want reporters to hold creators and executives to the fire on decisions--creative and business--and not simply take their answers at face value. I want reporters to do their research and no their history (about the industry, not the first appearance of some character) so they can add context and perspective to stories. I want reporters not to cow tow to companies because they're afraid of losing access to talent or because they might not be able to get to pitch their Rogue miniseries after pissing off a source (and pissing off a source over legit news-gathering, not some snarky comment about "One More Day").

I think (hope?) you're going to see more probing journalism from bigger outlets now that the Big Two's parent companies are paying more attention to them. However, I think what you'll see is more talk of the business side of things--the equivalent to box office or ratings watching for movies and TV, respectively--which doesn't really thrill me, but it's a start.

When it comes to reviews, that's another matter. When I was a newspaper A&E editor, the arts writer and I had our shared definitions of the difference between a review and criticism.

Reviews were the down-and-dirty, show good, show bad pieces, this worked, this didn't, thumb up, thumb down. Personally, I find reviews to be empty calories, something that gives me an idea of what to expect out of a movie, TV show, comic, etc. But it doesn't have any nutritional value.

But criticism ... actual criticism is the equivalent of doing an autopsy on a work. It was taking a scalpel to a play and seeing what themes it was trying for, how it was accomplishing that, what choices an actor was making, shedding a light on why a production might've worked or failed or fallen somewhere in between. And this is exactly what Bendis is talking about when he says bad reviews have a lot of "I" in them because good criticism's priority isn't about how you respond to the work but why the work made you respond that way. (Off the top of my head, Douglas Wolk is a good example of someone who does this in his book "Reading Comics.")

Like investigative journalism, good criticism is hard to find in comic book coverage--and all entertainment coverage, for that matter. Partly, it's because it's tough to do and partly because I sincerely think readers don't want it. They want to know if a writer fucked up their favorite character or if an artist draws a kick ass action scene.

So that's a lot of words just to restate the problem. But I think this is a case of waiting for the industry to continue to mature. More journalists need to coming from a background that understands comic books don't begin and end with Marvel and DC. Or Image and Dark Horse. But that it's an artform that's vital. And that there's an industry supporting it that has a long, intriguing history that's 100 times more interesting than any crisis on secret infinite war worlds.

[Dave Faust]

See, that's funny, because I always HEAR about all the shit Morrison gets, but I so rarely see it in the places I spend time. Sure, sometimes people will hate what he's doing in a story (I, admittedly, didn't like anything I heard about Batman RIP), but I've never seen people tear into him with the sort of personal hatred that Bendis receives.

It feels like so much, "What, do you think you're better than me?!" bullshit.

For me it's the opposite, I know almost nothing about Bendis or the kind of shit he gets from people.

[steve bryant]

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?

I think he said "best book," not "only important* work."

Which isn't to say that the conclusion you draw is incorrect. However, from that phrase, we come up with a few possible interpretations:

1) Bendis has produced a number of "important" works and Fortune and Glory is the best of them.

2) Bendis has produced no "important" works but Fortune and Glory is the best of them.

3) Bendis has produced some "important" works and Fortune and Glory is the best of them.

There's no mention of the superhero material, no mention of importance, just the term "best"--which, to Mr. Bendis's pleasure, was not qualified with "I think" or "my opinion" before it.   


* I hate the use of the word "important" to describe art. I know sometimes it actually applies, but for the most part, it's reserved for pretentious, douchy material. Yes, I realize that this stigma is just my perception and has no actual basis in reality.

[JoeyN]

This, my friends, is what is wrong with comic fandom, and it's fucking depressing.

That the problem with all Fandom.

[Burrell]

There's no mention of the superhero material, no mention of importance, just the term "best"--which, to Mr. Bendis's pleasure, was not qualified with "I think" or "my opinion" before it.   

HA!  That's funny!

[chip]

So his only important work is his creator owned work?

No, Alias was very, very good.

[Farrell]

I think he said "best book," not "only important* work."...

There's no mention of the superhero material, no mention of importance, just the term "best"--which, to Mr. Bendis's pleasure, was not qualified with "I think" or "my opinion" before it.    

Wrong sentence, Steve.  In the same post, Chip also wrote:

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.

That seems unambiguous enough.  

[steve bryant]

Wrong sentence, Steve.  In the same post, Chip also wrote:

That seems unambiguous enough.  

Nice catch. Mea culpa.

In the interest of full disclosure, I haven't read much of Bendis's body of work so I have no idea how others will categorize it historically.

[chip]

Wrong sentence, Steve.  In the same post, Chip also wrote:

That seems unambiguous enough.  

The reason why I feel that his work for hire stuff is disposable is that no matter what he does with the characters within the Marvel U, the characters will never truly change. This has come up time and again in conversation on 11 o'clock; what the creators do with these licensensed properties now will not matter in 15-20 years due to the sliding timeline. So yes, I feel as if in some ways his creator owned work will have a reasonable chance of standing the test of time in a way that his main body of work won't.

Sure, people will talk about his run on ultimate spiderman for a very long time and it's pretty obvious that he re-invigorates characters like Luke Cage. But while  other creators will eventually supplant him and his vision, Powers will be always be f#ckin Powers by Bendis and Oeming and no one will be able to change that. It's concrete, and in my eyes it has more value as a story that can, and should be critiqued and written about for days to come.

I guess this is my a$$hole talking. The quality of comics journalism is completely predicated on where I personally get my comics news. Mostly, I get my comic biz news from iFanboy.com and comicbookresources.com; i think they do a pretty solid job, in my opinion anyways. I personally think Bendis is doing us a disservice as fans by not being specific about what portals he believes are doing things the wrong way when it comes to criticism. Instead we have a conversation that is eventually boring cuz we're talking in circles trying to decipher his so called rant. He should come out and tell us who/what specifically pissed him of instead of being vague.

[Dave A]

Instead we have a conversation that is eventually boring cuz we're talking in circles trying to decipher his so called rant. He should come out and tell us who/what specifically pissed him of instead of being vague.

I wanted to point this out specifically, because I don't really see it as a rant either, I don't think he's pissed off about anything. To me, what he's saying is like... ok, you've got two buddies who go down to Tijuana and are having just the best time in the world. Back in their hotel room they're getting blown by a couple hot Mexican hookers, and one guy turns to the other guy and says, "This is awesome! But you know what would be even better, would be if we were also on crystal meth right now!"

I don't think he's pissed at anything, or wants people to change who they are, or is demanding that people stop being fans and start being critics. I think he's saying he loves the state of things, and, hey, wouldn't it be even better if we had this other thing, too?

[Farrell]

I wanted to point this out specifically, because I don't really see it as a rant either, I don't think he's pissed off about anything. To me, what he's saying is like... ok, you've got two buddies who go down to Tijuana and are having just the best time in the world. Back in their hotel room they're getting blown by a couple hot Mexican hookers, and one guy turns to the other guy and says, "This is awesome! But you know what would be even better, would be if we were also on crystal meth right now!"

It's only 6:41 where am I, but I'm calling it now: best post of the day.

[Just Bill]

It's only 6:41 where am I, but I'm calling it now: best post of the day.

Yeah, I didn't see that one coming. Hookers and meth as an analogy for the state of comics criticism.  The bar has been raised today, folks.   

[Chris]

Do we really want "Hard" journalism in comics?

I don't want to know what editor has blacklisted a creator. I don't want to know who is fucking who. I don't want to know what writer was 2 weeks late on deadline and threw the whole schedule off. I don't want the dirty laundry that exists in every company and industry to be aired out for us to see.

TMZ for Comics would be a very very bad thing. When people ask for hard journalism, that's what they're going to get because there isn't any other kind of news.

[Wood]

Do we really want "Hard" journalism in comics?

I don't want to know what editor has blacklisted a creator. I don't want to know who is fucking who. I don't want to know what writer was 2 weeks late on deadline and threw the whole schedule off. I don't want the dirty laundry that exists in every company and industry to be aired out for us to see.

TMZ for Comics would be a very very bad thing. When people ask for hard journalism, that's what they're going to get because there isn't any other kind of news.

How TMZ equates to "hard journalist" is beyond me. TMZ is the logical extension of the OTHER side of journalism that Bendis is taking to task. The consumable, important for the millisecond it takes to read it, journalism where the way to make money is to be the first to link to the ACTUAL story and to have the best SEO so more eyeballs see your carbon copy of a salacious headline than others.

Bendis is talking about critical analysis of the WORK. Something akin to The Comics Journal.

[Rowland Pearce]

I couldn't agree with you more Chris. What more can a reviewer say but what they felt about a book, or any other form of entertainment. The questions asked by a reviewer should always be "Was I entertained by this?" followed by "What about it did I like and why, and what about it did I not like and why?" Anything less is lazy, and anything more hyperbolic and declarative (without explanation) is egotistical. Unless, being a writer, he is simply opposed to the word "I" because it doesn't take up enough characters. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

Dam, I needed those 2 cents...

[Chris]

Yeah, and The Comics Journal is what we have.

People criticize TCJ because it focuses on non-capes. That goes back the the debate that there isn't anything in mainstream comics to really comment on anymore. That leads us to the only news in the comics "we" read being the dirty laundry kind.

Seriously, what kind of in-depth coverage can we give to New Avengers?

[Wood]

Yeah, and The Comics Journal is what we have.

People criticize TCJ because it focuses on non-capes. That goes back the the debate that there isn't anything in mainstream comics to really comment on anymore. That leads us to the only news in the comics "we" read being the dirty laundry kind.

Seriously, what kind of in-depth coverage can we give to New Avengers?

I feel like we're going in circles a bit because Bendis has been very open as he's elaborated on that original tweet. Re: something like the New Avengers, he's not asking for a master's thesis, he's saying that the rants of opinionated fans overtakes the likely decent critical reviews that are out there somewhere.