About David Hopkins
Location: Arlington, TX
Occupation: comic book writer, essayist, teacher
Bio:
Posts: 35
More from this author
We continue our panel discussion on comic book journalism with these five comic book online reviewers – Ken Lowery of the Ringwood blog, Eric Lindberg of Broken Frontier, Andrea Speed of Comixtreme, Randy Lander of his Comic Pants blog and formerly the Fourth Rail, and Johanna Draper Carlson of her Comics Worth Reading blog.
What criteria makes a “good” book? What makes something bad?
ANDREA: It really varies. Some things that work for some comics—excessive verbosity, for example - just don’t work for others. It comes down to the skill of the writer and the skill of the artist. If it is well written, no matter the style, no matter if the plot is old or nothing of much import happens, it’s still a good comic. If it captures your interest to the point that you realize the flaws only in retrospect, the writer has done his or her job. Art is even more subjective, but great art can’t save a poor story. Conversely, poor art can sink a good story. The ideal comic is a perfect mesh of the two.
And, on a personal note, I’ve had pretty good comics ruined for me with aggressive and needless cheesecake or pointless and excessive violence against women. I’m willing to overlook a bit of it—I’d better be if I’m a woman reading comics - but sometimes it’s so flagrant and egregious you can’t help but wince. If a woman’s sole purpose is to provide T&A, I don’t care how good the rest of the story is - that just kills it for me. A man may have an alternate opinion.
JOHANNA: (Johanna asked me to go here for the answer.)
RANDY: In my opinion, criticism is so completely subjective that you’re going to get a number of answers on this. The weasel answer, and the one I really want to give, is that it’s different for every book. For example, with Marvel and DC Universe books, being true to the characters as they’ve been written previously is key to my enjoyment, but it won’t be to everyone’s. I’ll say that in general, a good book is one where I’m wrapped up enough in the story that I don’t start questioning the plot, or the way the characters act, or the dialogue, until after I’m done reading it and I start analyzing it. If I’m a few pages in and I’m thinking “No real person would say that” or “Why is the plot going there, they haven’t set it up” or, worst of all “What the hell is happening on these pages?” then I’m probably reading a bad story.
ERIC: What makes a good comic varies depending on the genre and style. But most good comics have a synergy of words and pictures that combine in a way that seems effortless. Good comics have a well-written story, engaging characters, believable dialogue, great art, a unique voice or style, etc. Bad comics distract from the reading experience through stilted dialogue, amateurish art, obvious errors or typos, plot points that make no sense or ignore what’s come before, etc.
KEN: This is a broad question, so I’m going to give a broad answer.
A good book is passion. The people involved need to care about what they’re doing, even if it’s paycheck work. If they don’t give a shit, it’s going to show in the material, and everyone will have wasted $3-$4 and 15 minutes of their time better spent sleeping or masturbating. There’s enough uninspired dreck out there, there really is no excuse to bring in even more of it. All dreck does is further clog an already overcrowded market with more of what it doesn’t need.
Do you have any prior experience in journalism or reviewing other stuff (film, music, etc)? What’s necessary to be a good critic/reviewer?
RANDY: I have a bachelor’s in journalism from Colorado State University, earned about 10 years ago. In my time, I’ve done a little bit of news writing and feature writing for the college paper, and if you really want to stretch the definition of journalism, I worked in public relations for about three years after college. But all my reviews of television, film, videogames and the like are the amateur writings on my blog, and those came long after I’d been reviewing comics for five plus years. So my credentials are pretty much a journalism degree, which gave me the basis for my writing style and skills, and long term experience in the comics reviewing game.
As for what’s necessary to be a good critic/reviewer? I think that’s a personal answer, and you’ll get a different one from each participant here, and they’ll probably all be right. For me, it’s all about being honest in my opinions, explaining them clearly and hopefully in an entertaining manner and covering all the bases, from writing to art to concept, that need to be covered to explain the book to a non-reader.
JOHANNA: (first question) No, my writing background comes from academia. I have an MA in Popular Culture, focusing on the internet and fandom. (second question) The ability to explain yourself clearly and to understand the difference between what you like/don’t like and what’s good/bad. The two don’t necessarily match.
KEN: Yes to both. I’ve been a writer since forever, and I’ve been doing film criticism since I was… I suppose 16 or so? And I haven’t stopped since then. I ran a comics blog for about two years, doing all the things it is bloggers do.
Short answer: Yes.
As to what makes a good critic or reviewer? Roughly the same qualities that a book should possess to be “good.” Passion, for one thing. An interesting perspective. An ironclad belief in the crazy notion that art, even pop art, is worth taking seriously. (Some of you are smirking now, saying “what a pretentious bastard,” and that is exactly why you should never be a critic.)
A good critic has an agenda. He or she wants to shape his or her audience, to help them understand what makes good art, so that they can make better, more informed decisions. This doesn’t and won’t have a direct impact on sales, but everyone benefits when everyone appreciates the art on a deeper level.
And anyone who says a reviewer just “tells you if something is good or bad,” well, they shouldn’t be revewers either.
ANDREA: Yes, in a way. I did and still do book reviews (short story collections) for Joe Bob Briggs’ web site (http://www.joebobbriggs.com). Comics have a lot in common with short stories, in that you have a small space in which to tell a full, entertaining story, although comics’ serial nature allows them to play it out across a larger canvas.
What’s necessary to be a good critic/reviewer is a love of the medium, a desire to see it be the best it can be, some writing ability of your own, and a sense of humor. (The latter is vital. If you start taking yourself too seriously, that’s lethal.)
ERIC: I didn’t have any prior journalism or review experience. However, I am a writer and was an English major in college, which got the attention of my boss, Frederik Hautain. To be a good reviewer, I think someone needs to know and appreciate the art form, have an eye for detail, and be good with words. You can’t just say you liked or didn’t like something, you need to be able to understand and express why.
