PopSyndicate.com

Originally printed in the FW Weekly on September 20, 2006 by Kultur:
“The problem with most comic books and graphic novels is that most if not all of them are pretty poorly written. Obviously, I haven’t read every title ever published, but I have been through enough to make a sound generalization. I’ve yet to come across a single book — including anything by Robert Crumb or Harvey Pekar, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning Maus — that doesn’t have stilted, overly explanatory dialogue, poorly structured plots, and an utter lack of passion for the written word. As long as crappy writers continue trying to imbue comics and graphic novels with literature’s gravitas, no one will ever take them seriously. Seriously.”

From there, Kultur proceeded to write an extremely harsh review. Which wouldn’t normally bother me, except he wrote it about my graphic novel. I’ve gotten bad reviews before, and I’ll probably get a few more. The general policy is let reviewers say what they want to say, good or bad, and just let it be. However, I’ll admit this review got me upset. And my frustration had very little to with his opinions of my book (“on an intellectual level, makes The Teletubbies look like Proust”).

The thing that really bothered me was his criticism about comics in general. If you don’t like comic books, why would you review them at all? It’d be like Roger Ebert saying he hates movies, and proceeding to review them anyways. Wouldn’t a basic appreciation for comic books be some sort of pre-requisite? Hate my stuff, but at least show some respect for the medium. As a rule, you should never take anyone too seriously when they name themselves “Kultur.”

All of this got me thinking about the bonafide comic book reviewers, and comic book journalism in general. I decided to interview some comic book critics and reviewers to get their opinion. The people I chose are people I respect. I didn’t pick them because they gave me glowing reviews. Not so. In fact, Randy Lander, Ken Lowery and especially Johanna Carlson have been rather critical of my work. I’m okay with that. I also asked some professionals what advice they would give to online reviewers.

I can certainly identify with these sentiments (except for Dave Crosland’s, but hey). I’ve read some reviews where it was obvious they hadn’t read the whole thing. They looked at a five page online sample, maybe. Or they read the Previews description and went from there. The problem seems to be many of these online reviewers are pursuing quantity over quality. A lot of comics to read in a single week, do you have to review them all? A well-written review can be as entertaining as the comic itself. So I echo Terry Moore: Write something memorable. My added bit of advice would be to dig deep. Thoroughly analyze the comic before you. If your sole complaint about the art is that it’s “too cartoony,” I will track you down and kick your ass. Be specific. What’s wrong with cartoony? Is that even a word? Is your sole complaint that Steve Rolston is not Bryan Hitch? Also, I’ve never understood the whole “the art doesn’t fit the story” indictment. It’s a default comment that reviewers make when they believe genres should look one certain way or that somehow one style limits the expressive potential. Two Sisters is great spy fiction, so is Queen & Country, but they look completely different, and both achieve a good range in tone and overall effect.

Is an industry only as good as its critics? We expect a lot from our comic book creators. Maybe we should expect more from our reviewers?

Ladies and gentlemen: Let’s start with the questions.
Are you a critic or a reviewer? Is there a difference?

RANDY LANDER: On my good days, I’m a critic. Most days, I’m a reviewer. In my mind, a critic is someone who can really sharply analyze whatever it is he/she is criticizing, offering up not just an opinion on the quality of it but hopefully revealing some truths that perhaps even the creator wasn’t fully aware of. A reviewer is someone who runs down the material, offers up an intelligent opinion on the book and backs it up with evidence or at least strong enough writing that it feels like evidence. It’s a minor distinction, and if someone were to tell me that a reviewer and a critic are the same thing, I doubt I’d fight it out with them, but to me, it seems like being a reviewer is easier. Fortunately, most of the time, all that folks want are entertaining reviews and maybe a little insight, rather than something that digs deep into the material and gets to the capital “T” Truth.

ANDREA SPEED: The difference is mainly a matter of semantics. You can review without criticizing, but it’s hard to criticize without reviewing. Critic has such a negative connotation—nobody likes a critic—that I prefer to think of myself as a reviewer, but let’s be honest: we’re all critics. We try not to be sometimes, but that’s what it boils down to. So let’s just embrace the inner critic and eschew the BS.

KEN LOWERY: A little from Column A, a little from Column B.

The Semantics Police would probably argue that a reviewer gives first impressions and a general good-bad judgment on a product. A critic isn’t so much concerned with an immediate good-bad judgment as with exploring and analyzing work on as many levels as it offers. It’s about understanding the craft and the underpinnings of a story; it’s like telling someone about how an engine powers a car, rather than just telling you how smoothly that car drives.

To me, an ideal review involves some level of criticism—some deeper thought and analysis, a chance to pull away more from the material than a casual read/view/listen will yield. This is what I strive for. If you read a review I’ve written and come away having learned something about the material, the creators, or just how a story works—even if it’s a new perspective, rather than a new level of understanding—then I’ve done my job. Whether or not you agree with me is completely beside the point.

ERIC LINDBERG: I consider myself a reviewer. I don’t think there’s really a difference per se but “reviewer” just sounds better. “Critic” can have negative connotations.

JOHANNA DRAPER CARLSON: Yes, there’s a difference: a reviewer tells someone whether or not to buy something; a critic analyzes the work in some way. I’m sometime one, sometimes another, sometimes both, and sometimes neither.

But I’m more a critic than a reviewer, because I learned long ago that my tastes don’t match very many people out there, so telling people what to buy based on what I thought was good didn’t help either of us.

How do you approach reviewing a comic book?

KEN: I give it a day. I read the material along with the glut of comics I pick up every Wednesday, then I sit on it for a day and let it stew. 24 hours later I come back and flip through, and see what sticks out to me. I come from a writing background, so I’m much better at talking about dialogue, pacing, and story construction than I am artwork. This is unfortunately pretty common with most comics reviewers.

Monthlies provide a unique challenge. Anyone even remotely interested in what someone has to say about Part 4 of 6 in an arc, in series that’s 80 issues in, already knows all the groundwork, so you can assume some level of familiarity with the material. This frees up space. And as most individual issues in an arc are (quite frankly) loaded with filler and padding, there’s really only so much you can say about the average monthly comic.

So I try to bring in larger context. The arc itself, and how well that issue serves a function in it. What the general direction of the title seems to be, from arc to arc, both thematically and artistically. How well does this individual issue represent those trends? That is the final question. Talking about particular plot points gets old fast.

ERIC: I normally read the comic more than once, to really get a feel for it and my reaction. I usually focus on the writing first, whether the story and characters are well-crafted and engaging. I then assess the art and whether the style is pleasing to the eye and if it fits the tone of the story.

JOHANNA: (Johanna asked me to go here for the answer.)

RANDY: It used to be that I’d put a stack of books on the table, read them and review them. I could do about a half-dozen reviews in a night, and I’d basically start off with an intro paragraph (no spoilers), then talk about the writing, talk about the art, mention anything particularly notable in the story and close it out. I honestly have no idea how I wrote that much about so many books in what now seems like such a mechanical fashion, and I think that had a lot to do with why I burned out and tried to retire earlier this year.

These days, I’ve got to be enthusiastic about the book if I’m going to review it. That doesn’t mean I need to love it; one of my most enthusiastic reviews, one that practically wrote itself, was for Identity Crisis #2, which I hated more than 90% of the other comics I’ve read in my life. It just means that I have to feel like there’s something I have to say about the book. Once that’s there, it’s relatively easy to do the actual writing. Just like fiction/non-fiction writers do most of their writing in their heads when they’re walking around, showering, driving the car, cooking, etc., so too are most of my reviews written while I’m nowhere near a computer. They’re edited and modified when I actually write them, but the bulk of the review, from the turns of phrase to the general thrust of my argument, is already living in my head at that point.

ANDREA: Like I would review anything. Let’s face it, whether it’s a comic or a book or a film, everyone has their own tastes and own opinions. My opinion is no more valid than anyone else’s; the difference is I have a web site on which to spout mine. I read it, and simply ask myself “What did I like about this? What didn’t I? Is there something here that really cheesed me off?” (That happens a lot, I admit it.)

We’ll continue with part two of this panel discussion next week.