BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Comic Books >

The Outsiders #1 - Slap central

  
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
21:13 / 10.08.03
"Now, what you are saying is that, if subjected to critical scrutiny, Outsiders #1 will fall to pieces. Is that also the position of e.g. Tom Raney? If so, then it seems that there is a genus of comics that must be protected from review, because to review them would be to destroy them. This is a fascinating situation - it's rather like the opposite of National Heritage. Things that are truly ephemeral and ramshackle cannot be surveyed too closely, as to do so would make them fall over... "

Nope. I wasn't saying that at all. What I was saying was that if you hold a microscope to the comic it would not stand up well. To look for strong narrative form, a dialogue-heavy script, and a story that takes the characters through a landscape of urban and societal importance is a lost cause. What you do get are super heroes fighting monkeys... that's it. The important thing to remember is that at no point did the Outsiders attempt to do anything other than this, aside from utilize Judd Winnick's humor (if you like his sense of humor). I would not give this comic to someone I wanted to introduce to comics. I've personally no real interest in getting new readers invested, though I've agreed with several lists of 'required reading' listed here.

Outsiders stands under review just fine, for what it is. And the art by Raney is quite good.

As it happens, I don't think the comic is continuity heavy. If you don't know who Metamorpho is, that's cool. Arsenal? I dunno, but he's got money and used to be a Titan, who are explained as being sidekicks who wanted to prive themselves worthy of their own merit. That's all you need to know about them. All in all, the backstories of each character are brief and fully explained. The albatross around the neck of the comic, however, is composed of Graduation Day references. It's very unfortunate. I just ignored them. It went fine.

So... I'm still very confused. We're not really talking about the Outsiders, are we? I've yet to see anyone say they read it, unless I missed something.

So... what are talking about?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:02 / 10.08.03
We are talking about "Judd Winick and Tom Raney's Outsiders, a joke review and the institution of criticism in comics". It's in the topic abstract. Some people are more interested in talking about the Outsiders #1, some in the Jess Lemon review and some about the institution of criticism in comics.

Various people in this thread have said that they have read the comic, which suggests either that you are not reading the thread or that you are pulling a faux-naif in order to attempt to communicate that the important thing here is whether the comic is enjoyable.

Oh, and you did not say that it would not "stand up well" to being put under a microscope. You said it would not survive it. Big difference. Which is interesting, and certainly more interesting than superheroes fighting monkeys. Dlotemp's position is also interesting; comics seems to have managed to create a world in which the existence of dissenting voices is seen as unnecessary or undesirable - if you do not like this comic, just say nothing and keep an eye on it. It might get better.

So, are we agreed that Outsiders, as a comic, is just there for mindless enjoyment and should not be judged, because to do so is to fail to understand its aim? This would put it *beneath* criticism, it seems - like a Mills and Boon novel or a generic teen romance, perhaps...
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
22:22 / 10.08.03
I did say "unless I missed something" not a faux naif... big difference, just to stay on the same page.

But to stick to what I was saying and say no more... My point is that discussing comics that we haven't read is very silly. Also, to expect a comic to live up to an expectation that it never proposed to live up to is also silly.

And I'd like to see more monkeys fighting in Eightball.
 
 
Ethan Van Sciver
06:13 / 11.08.03
Our Lady:

I don't support the idea of continuity heavy comics at all times, but I do believe they have their place. It's fine and dandy to have a book that is specifically for longtime fans.
 
 
some guy
12:51 / 11.08.03
are we agreed that Outsiders, as a comic, is just there for mindless enjoyment and should not be judged, because to do so is to fail to understand its aim?

Of course it should be judged - but it should be judged in context. We wouldn't expect to examine Teletubbies in the same way Jess examines The Outsiders just in case someone is new to television, would we?
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
17:11 / 11.08.03
Ethan Van Sciver I don't support the idea of continuity heavy comics at all times, but I do believe they have their place. It's fine and dandy to have a book that is specifically for longtime fans.

Perhaps some sort of certification then, a la the 'approved by the comics code' thing then? Certified okay for people who's best friends aren't imaginary perhaps?

FWIW, I agree with what you've written above, I dare say that if I read Outsiders I know enough about DC to identify most if not all the characters, and I dare say that I can pick up the rest pretty easily. But are comics really an obscure branch of culture to the Western English-speaking world that they need specialist reviewers?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:44 / 11.08.03
I think there's a lot in LLBIMG's comment (Mister Six, btw, discussing comics we *have* read is, if we follow your argument, in many cases dangerous. This discussion is not limited to discussion of the contents of a specific comic, as has been explained in the abstract and once more for the slow kids. This may be a difficult concept, but I must ask you to live with it, rather than trying to rot the thread because you no likee). If we are looking for a review that tells us how Outsiders #1 stacks up next to, say, the Teen Titans or Young Justice, which would perhaps be a logical question, Jess Lemon's review clearly isn't it. What is *does* do is draw attention to other elements that might not be identified in a comparison within context, if that context is limited to other comics involving young DC Superheroes aimed at a market of uncritical(outside context) readers, rather than, say, superhero comics in general, or comics in general.

This all makes perfectly good sense. If I love teen romances, and I find a review of 'Senior Sweethearts' by Adam Mars-Jones in which he draws attention to the formulaic, generic and heteronormative elements, I can certainly complain that this does not tell me whether it is a better or worse product than 'Heartbreak Ballet School'. I've mentioned variants of this in discussion of Terry Pratchett and the Lord of the Rings. Asked to choose between this month's Outsiders and Gen-13 on the basis of this review, I am little the wiser.

It does tell me that a reasonably able reader not accepting uncritically the generic conventions of the medium - that teenaged girls have the breasts of heavily modified 30-year old strippers, that characters have a vigorously limited range of body types, that Judd Winick characters break that character at the first sign of a possible pop-culture reference... these are crticisms made within the context of general reading, perhaps, and one thing I am interested in is whether a) comics in general, or certain types of comic, have a Protected status and b) whether failing to respect that Protected status leads justifiably and inevitably to the conclusion that the reviewer is conspiring against the creators out of malice, is fictitious, is a flat-chested ugly woman or indeed is a flat-chested ugly fictitious woman conspiring against the creators out of malice.
 
 
some guy
18:30 / 11.08.03
these are crticisms made within the context of general reading

...which is fair, but only to a point. All niche markets have an evolution of product that begins with entry level offerings and eventually reaches baroque experimentations that only make sense to the adept. There's no reason to expect all comics to be fit for a general readership, any more than neophyte film afficionadoes should be expected to know obscure foreign works or a newly legal drinker should expect to appreciate the nuances of a rare vintage wine.

In this sense, the Jess review is little more than an intellectual curiosity - a fun piece of cultural anthopology but of little relevance in the context The Outsiders presents for itself.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
18:42 / 11.08.03
Um, Haus. I have addressed the abstract's points and have said that to talk about a comic which you haven't read is silly. I haven't rotted the thread, by the way. My points have actually been taken up by others, which I suppose you no likee. I ask that you live with that.

Yes, this review in question serves only itself, not the subject (much like this thread). Jess' comes from a standpoint that is ignorant of the subject and its intent, attempting merely to be witty and annoying, which it does very well. The reviewer even admits to not being interested in the material. So why should the reader care?

The concept that certain comics are protected from review or criticism (I think you're getting close to combining the two) is muddy and not really a worthy question. Protected from whom and for the benefit of whom? To benefit the creators rather than the reviewer? This makes very little sense to me.

If you review the Outsiders with the same criteria as you would review Leviathan, you're going to look very foolish, and quite rightly so. If you critique the Outsiders... you're probably in University and should really read a book instead.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:39 / 11.08.03
Six: It has been explained slowly and carefully that this is not just a thread about whether or not we liked the Outsiders, and thus your posturing on the "silliness" of talking about a comic book unread is neither relevant nor interesting. I understand that you cannot deal with this concept, and that you did not read the thread in any depth before posting, hence missing fairly obvious facts like that others had in fact read the comic. These low standards are common to the Comic Books forum, but this does not make them in themselves agreeable.

Now, moving on, we have the rather muddy:

ignorant of the subject and its intent

Now, the question of intent is not as simple as this sentence suggests, as intent is not the same as a spoken language, say, that one understands or does not. As a product, a source of "mindless entertainment", that is something at the level of a generic teen romance, say, the intent of the Outsiders is basically to sell. If it succeeds in shifting a certain amount of product, it is a success, if not it is a failure. Therefore, anything that does not assist it in selling a certain number of that product is indeed detrimental to the sole purpose of the comic's existence, and thus must be combatted. Since the product does not have *virtues* per se, except insofar as it succeeds in being saleable, the logical step is to attempt to stress the yet greater absence of virtue of the threat (in this case, an unfavourable review).

Thus, a bad review is indeed a danger to the product comic, as it depends, it seems, on nobody thinking too hard about it, and thus anyone who *does* start thinking too hard about it is to be derided as fictitious, conspiratorial, flat-chested or, in our latest entrant, an overanalytical student. Never heard that one before...
 
 
some guy
20:59 / 11.08.03
Therefore, anything that does not assist it in selling a certain number of that product is indeed detrimental to the sole purpose of the comic's existence, and thus must be combatted.

...and thus Charlie's Angels 2 is objectively a "better" film than Donnie Darko blah blah blah. The example fails because it is overly broad; the measure of a teen romance is not in total sales, but in sales to the target demographic. Thus the success or failure of The Outsiders must be judged relative to its intent and ambition - that is, relative to the North American superhero comic book market.

Or does the fact that its first-issue circulation is higher than the sales of your average contemporary literary fiction novel reflect poorly on those authors? The Outsiders is not an entry level comic aimed at a general readership, any more than one should judge the 4,138th episode of General Hospital or an exceptionally rare and subtle wine by their allure to a general marketplace. These are niche products for specialized clientele ... which might of course be a broader damning of those markets, but of little relevance to the merits of the products themselves.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
21:01 / 11.08.03
Surely the point of the review had very little to do with 'Outsiders' per se - it could have been done with any other comic which was produced for Ethan's group of longtime fans and which required a reasonable amount of knowledge to appreciate. It seems to have been an exercise in seeing oorsel' as ithers see us, and in that respect has been partially successful (judging by the amount of outraged comment it has attracted). It is in the same vein as satirical reviews and precis of literary novels, music, etc. I can't see why on earth comics should be exempt from this type of review - but that seems to be the reaction of some of the people in the original review thread. Not because they are protecting either the creators or the reviewers, but perhaps because they have invested in certain ideas about comics which such a review undermines. Or alternatively, they have seen this type of review hundreds of times before and are just bored and suffering what might be called a sense of humour failure by the reviewer (a condition to which internet discussions are especially prone).
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:07 / 11.08.03
And yet, people who do not fully appreciate wine are allowed to drink subtle vintages and comment on them, and likewise movies, books and so on. We may trust somebody else's judgement more, but it is a rare occurence to find somebody who reviews an auteur film without having read every copy of Cahiers de Cinéma accused of belonging to a conspiracy to destroy art cinema or ruin Jean-Luc Godard.

Good point, though. The target market of The Outsiders is people who want to see superheroes fighting gorillas, and if they like it enough to buy it then it has done its job, just as the target market of Donnie Darko is twentysomething hipsters who like Pretty in Pink but felt it could be a bit more like The Invisibles. Which is why I find the techniques used in the discussion of the review more interesting either than the product or the review.

(Incidentally, could we keep the rhetorical flourishes down a bit? They're rather loud...)
 
 
some guy
21:35 / 11.08.03
Kit-Cat Club - spot on analysis there, and this is obviously what Heidi McDonald is doing with these pieces, and why they are so enjoyable.

On to Haus:

And yet, people who do not fully appreciate wine are allowed to drink subtle vintages and comment on them, and likewise movies, books and so on.

Who is seriously arguing that new readers aren't allowed to pick up The Outsiders? I think you're making a straw man here.

Incidentally, could we keep the rhetorical flourishes down a bit?

You're asking us? :-)
 
 
The Falcon
09:04 / 12.08.03
The Outsiders = a "baroque experimentation that only make sense to the adept"?

If you're in the right mood, I guess so.

(Incidentally, could we keep the rhetorical flourishes down a bit? They're rather loud...)

"Is this a joke? Is this one of those ironic things I never get?"
 
 
some guy
10:48 / 12.08.03
I didn't say The Outsiders is a "baroque experimentation that only make sense to the adept." Just making the point that all niche markets have product incomprehensible to the entry level consumer. I didn't bother to read the comic, no doubt much to Mister Six's dismay.
 
 
The Falcon
11:05 / 12.08.03
Neither did I.

How do you think the latest issue of New X-Men, for example, would have fared under 'Extra Credit' criticism? Not excellently, I'd warrant.

A lot of comics reviewers I've read seem to have personal hangups with areas of 'Universe Continuity', re: Lander's review of the aforementioned, which seems to hinge on the fact he can't quite accept the Weapon Plus/X crossover. AICN is terrible for this, and it's a regular bugbear of my friends at Hero Realm.

In thess cases, they're reviewing specifically for people who've been reading a particular superhero title for years. I don't think this is particularly objective or useful criticism.

But then, who read online comics reviews?
 
 
some guy
15:06 / 12.08.03
We do.

The continuity bugbears annoys the shit out of me. Almost invariably, the people railing against continuity began reading comics with Avengers 146 or Batman 294 or something like that. Makes these people sound a bit elitist: "Oh, I figured it out, but the general public would never be able to." Stupid fuckers. If continuity itself was a problem, TV ratings would never rise, sequels would never outgross originals and the only people currently watching EastEnders would be those who tuned in that first night in 1985...
 
 
some guy
15:10 / 12.08.03
they're reviewing specifically for people who've been reading a particular superhero title for years. I don't think this is particularly objective or useful criticism.

This gets back to context; you wouldn't expect a new drinker to appreciate the subtleties of an exceptional wine, for example. That comics doesn't have enough entry level books is a valid criticism - that New X-Men isn't an entry level book is not. And as with all fields, you'll find non-entry-level criticism as well. Hence most online reviews etc. I don't know that criticism should be - or even can be - objective. How do you objectively criticize Teletubbies? By comparing it to The West Wing because they're both TV shows?

However, I agree most online commentary isn't useful criticism.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:33 / 12.08.03
So, that the Outsiders is a bad comic can only be judged in terms of other comics aimed at the readership of the Outsiders? That seems fair. The only problem being that our non-familiar wine taster can express an opinion of the Loosen Sonnendahl '69 (soupy, with a funny aftertaste) without being accused of attempting to destroy the art of vineculture or the Dr. Loosen vineyards. That is the luxury "Jess Lemon" does not appear to have.

(And yes, the rhetoric gag was precisely that, a gag. Merely amused as ever to see people who complain about "rhetoric" used in arguments they disagree with employing it themselves, possibly without even noticing)
 
 
some guy
11:44 / 13.08.03
So, that the Outsiders is a bad comic can only be judged in terms of other comics aimed at the readership of the Outsiders?

It can be judged in any terms; only some of those are valid (see the Teletubbies example upthread). You're still playing with straw men - I don't see anyone here accusing "Jess" of attempting to destroy the art of comics, and although the non-familiar wine taster can express an opinion of a rare vintage, there's little doubt that this opinion would be A) ill-informed within the context of the niche wine market and B) belittled by wine aficionados. I don't see how the insularity of the comics market is any different than other niche markets once we progress past entry level product, except for the usual self-loathing on behalf of some insecure readers.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:47 / 13.08.03
Ah - so the people who are accusing Jess of being flat-chested and ugly, or stupid and missing the point, or indeed the idea that Jess is a straw woman behind which is an attempt to discredit Winick and Raney and get their book cancelled are the opinions of self-loathing and insecure readers, and as such should not be taken as representative of the critical comics-reviewing mainstream?

Well, that makes the whole thing a lot easier to understand - these are the random bellows of marginalised extremists - although I think you're being a bit harsh on these people, who are clearly passionate and in some cases also respected creators. It does leave the interesting (although more challenging) question of the relationship of consumer, reviewer and creator in comics and how it differs from other media wide open, though. Maybe we could explore that.
 
 
sleazenation
19:44 / 13.08.03
LLBIMG -

Who would you say possess the level of expertise necessary to qualify as a valid expert? Would a passing knowledge of the DCU be acceptable or would the afficionado be required to read all copies of pervious versions of the Outsiders before their view should be given any authority. It seems all to easy in the scenario you present for anyone who who disagrees with a criticism to simply dismiss its author as unqualified rather than simply disagee with the criticism or even engage with that criticism.
 
 
some guy
19:58 / 13.08.03
I thought you wanted to keep rhetoric out of this thread? And yet here you are, playing a bit faster and looser with your words than the facts will support.

the people who are accusing Jess of being flat-chested and ugly

Which people are these, and where?

the idea that Jess is a straw woman

Jess is Heidi McDonald writing under a pseudonym.

behind which is an attempt to discredit Winick and Raney and get their book cancelled

Who made this claim?

It does leave the interesting (although more challenging) question of the relationship of consumer, reviewer and creator in comics and how it differs from other media wide open

Only if you continue to ignore points made upthread.
 
 
some guy
20:10 / 13.08.03
Who would you say possess the level of expertise necessary to qualify as a valid expert?

I'm not sure terms like "expert" are useful here. But surely we would all agree that a hardcore football aficionado would be able to more intelligently discuss a specific match than a first-time sports viewer? Unless we are assuming that all comic books must be entry level product (something we don't carry over to other markets), it's unreasonable to criticize a specific book for being something it's not. The Outsiders is not targeting a general audience; it is targeting a specific audience. Jess' review is therefore as useful as a Merchant Ivory appreciation society covering Jason Goes to Hell, or replacing an episode of Sesame Street with The West Wing and soliciting reviews from the toddlers.

It seems all to easy in the scenario you present for anyone who who disagrees with a criticism to simply dismiss its author as unqualified rather than simply disagee with the criticism or even engage with that criticism.

I suppose I should make clear again that I haven't read The Outsiders and nor do I intend to. My review of the book might be similar to Jess' in that I'm unfamiliar with the characters and central concept, although it would differ because I am familiar with the conventions of superhero comics. Jess' review is useful from a general reader perspective, but as The Outsiders is not targeted at a general readership, the piece becomes an academic curiosity.

Perhaps Jess should be reviewing comics that are intended for a general audience?
 
 
The Natural Way
20:12 / 13.08.03
Oh. Fucking. Hell.

Here we go again......
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:20 / 13.08.03
Dude, there's a link in the very first post of this thread that links to the review, and thence to other "Jess Lemon" reviews, where these claims and others are made.I could fish them out myself, but realistically you have already read these threads, and the mere application of an unjaundiced eye might be useful.

Interestingly, whether or not Jess Lemon was "real" became and seems to remain a subject of enormous fascination - more so again than one might expect. This makes sense if one assumes a malicious intent adversely to affect sales regardless of any actual appraisal of the qualities of the book, then this may be quite important, as it determines who to attack back in order to undermine their credibility before they undermine the credibility of the enterprise. In general, to take LLIMG's example, I don't think the world of the "literary novel" generally has quite this relationship between creator and reviewer, and message boards in which creators and reviewers interact so heatedly seem again to be a comparative rarity, although I may be behind the times. This seems to me to be a unique situation. Perhaps, rather like our LLIMG, comics enthusiasts and creators alike are just more comfortable discussing each other than the more complex and awkward discussion of comics.

(Interestingly, I pondered and deleted an addendum to my last post reading:

Of course, you could instead be suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you clearly has something wrong with them, but I can hardly credit any intelligent writer with such a solipsistic and highly rhetorical position, nor such a desperate lurch for the ad hominem, so I feel that cleaving to what I take to be your meaning might develop the discussion in a more interesting direction.

I felt that it would be better to assume the best of LLBIMG. It appears I was mistaken, and he will be adopting his usual technique of insulting and sandbagging anyone who disagrees with him until they get bored and wander off. Plus ca change, eh? I remain alight in the hope of being proven wrong, of course...)
 
 
some guy
20:50 / 13.08.03
Dude, there's a link in the very first post of this thread that links to the review, and thence to other "Jess Lemon" reviews, where these claims and others are made.

Would you accept such laziness on the part of anyone else? I rather doubt it. I've been through the fourth page of the message boards following the Outsiders review, and haven't found any reference to Jess' boobs. Maybe it comes later. Nobody's asserted she's ugly, and nobody's described the review as a conspiracy to discredit Winnick and Raney and get their book cancelled. So yeah, unless you can whip out URLs and poster names, it does sound like you're playing with straw men and more concerned with your own preconceived stereotypes than with what people are actually saying.

Interestingly, whether or not Jess Lemon was "real" became and seems to remain a subject of enormous fascination - more so again than one might expect.

This is what I mean about the peculiar way some readers look at the comics industry. I don't see that the fallout over this is any different than the blow up over fake film reviewers or the early Talk Balk plants. Should you be able to produce the commentary on Jess you claim is out there, well, it's not a million miles away from the catty response to Hillary Clinton's writings, is it? So it's unique to comics how?

This makes sense if one assumes a malicious intent adversely to affect sales regardless of any actual appraisal of the qualities of the book

You seem to be basing this on Ethan's post on the Pulse ... but that isn't what he said. Can you provide a quote here?

message boards in which creators and reviewers interact so heatedly seem again to be a comparative rarity, although I may be behind the times.

Sorry, I don't see message boards as much different than Gore Vidal defending his work and slamming reviewers in the letters column of The Nation.

Perhaps, rather like our LLIMG, comics enthusiasts and creators alike are just more comfortable discussing each other than the more complex and awkward discussion of comics.

Trolling for an argument? I don't really see upthread where I've really discussed creators, whereas I do see several instances of discussing the quaint notion that all comics must be entry level product.

Of course, you could instead be suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you clearly has something wrong with them

What specifically did I write to suggest this?

And of course, considering your tone and history, this is amusing: a desperate lurch for the ad hominem ... he will be adopting his usual technique of insulting and sandbagging anyone who disagrees with him Who have I insulted and/or sandbagged?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:25 / 13.08.03
Well, those self-loathing comics readers... by whom I assume you mean the people who disagree with your position and thus have something wrong with them. Not classy.

Quotes from the "Outsiders #1" review thread:

This is a review written by a girl who thinks comics are just plain stupid and like so many other girlriends and wife's of comic book fans she's immediately turned off/resentful to the big boobs in comics. (just go to a bar and listen to the catty remarks a big chested lady gets from other woman, its hilarious.)



What a sick joke and totally disrespectful to people who actually do comic reviews.



I can't honestly even call Jess's column a review. It's more of a rant. At no point does she acknowledge anyone involved with the production of our book. Nightwing is the only character that she calls by name. Did she even read the issue? Or, what it sounds like, did she only flip through it?

It's clear that Jess did not enter into her assignment with an open mind. In fact, it appears that she has some sort of axe to grind. The fact that she opens up with a comment like " I swear to God it's the most retarded thing I've ever seen." seems to bear this out. From there forward her "review' becomes a steady stream of bile.

Obviously our book is not to your taste, Jess. Fine. Be a professional about it. You wanted to write a review? ( Or was it that the Pulse wanted you to do it, you seem to disagree with one another on this. What, no one wants to take credit for this?) Then write a review. Discuss the plot, the pacing the characterization, the artwork. But do it objectively. Otherwise, call it what it is, an opinion piece.

Like I said, I don't have a problem with honest criticism. As anyone else who works in the public eye, I've had my share of negative reviews. I'm a big boy, I can take it. Heck, a negative review can be a great learning tool. But only when it's informed and knowledgeable.

In this case Jess, you've apparently decided to shoot for the lowest common denominator. Be proud!! You've employed the Howard Stearn method of journalism. Good for a dirty, ill-informed underhanded laugh. Hope you enjoyed the joke!


That said this was a co-ordinated, smug little, mean spirited attack that intentionally put Judd and Tom in the cross hairs. No problem ridiculing and embarrassing someone else, its not like she is a professional. She is just - hahaha - the intern, right? RIGHT. Hope the 'alternative intelligencia' had itself a good old laugh.


First, the disrespect paid to the creators of OUTSIDERS #1 by PULSE and this Jess Lemon person through this thoroughly irrelevant review owes an apology, specifically to Tom Raney and Judd Winnick. It damages their reputation, unduly, and it may well hurt the sales of their book which I have no doubt is quite above average, and a reward to fans of the characters that appear therein.

Second, I can't stand comic fans that let simple, ordinary and frankly dull and stupid people make fun of them for their creative and unique hobby. I laughed at the review, but I was laughing at Jess Lemon, who I hope isn't allowed to drive a motor vehicle.

Especially if the review is a whiny piece of underage schlock from some little girl who's brother has to get her internships.


Judd and Tom are owed an apology.
They were not reviewed fairly and objectively.

In fact the whole thing looked like an attemt to sabotage their livelihood by doing this insulting piece. the first few issues of a book life are crucial to the book life and longetivity.... the first year is crucial a bad launch could mean an early cancelation.



She says the boobies are too big on the blonde girl. Is she flat-chested and directing her anger towards her God... who failed to "bless her" with the neccessary amplitude of T&A to attract a man? Her body image is horrible, so everyone else's body in comics must be made the same?


Here's how this review began. Jess went to a party at a con, like WonderCon and tried to fit in with everyone else. She probably made a bad impression, or looked ugly, or stupid, or retarded and got laughed out of the room. So she then takes her anger on people in comics as a whole, by ripping a book produced by a couple of nice guys.

She should drop a few pounds and learn how to do her makeup right and perhaps pad her bra a bit before she attempts to seriously write about comics.

There is also much use of the term "girl", with associated ideas of being too young, incompetent and, of course, flat-chested.

Perhaps before you reach for the straw man of your straw man argument, you should read the extra three pages, and look back over the first four with a less "preconceived" eye? In the light of this "laziness", your accusations of stereotyping seem rather anemic, and - gosh! - ad hominem. As I say, insulting and sandbagging in the hope that your interlocutor will get bored of a stream of abuse interspersed with monotonous repetition of the same few phrases (straw man seems to be making the early running here) and give up. Threadkilling through strangulation - not a noble pursuit.

Otherwise, I have yet to see Hillary Clinton post a vitriolic defence of her work on a bulletin board. Perhaps I am not reading the right bulletin boards. I would also not describe Hillary Clinton's autobiography as a literary novel, but can also not think offhand of any exchanges by Martin Amis or John Updike, say, of the kind above in response to a review on a bulletin board. Vidal in the Nation is not exactly the same set-up as the relationship of comics fan and comics creator, is he now? No conventions, for one. No personal appearances in his readers' message boards...that sort of thing.

As for discussing people rather than comics, I was, of course, referring to the fact that you are far more comfortable with personal attacks than actual discussion of the topic, which you continue here. The comparative lack of attention paid to the actual topic at hand (failing to notice any of the above quotes, it seems, and these idle and unexplored comparisons of Clinton and Vidal, not to mention not taking the time to think through what "discussing people rather than comics" might mean here) seems to bear this out.

As for "considering your tone and history" - the tu quoque is one of the lower forms of ad hominem attack. Not much of a string to your bow. It is just possible that you may actually address some of the comments you appeared not to have noticed first time around in your next post, but I daresay we will have the usual snide personal attacks, repetitive attempts to carry a point simply by saying it over and over again and that ol' insulting and sandbagging, at which point I probably will despair of getting any sense out of you, and give up. You may then enjoy your triumph. Ahem.
 
 
some guy
21:41 / 13.08.03
Perhaps ... you should read the extra three pages

What a terrible notion! But I thank you for finding quotes discussing Jess' mammaries and face.

Threadkilling through strangulation - not a noble pursuit.

And yet you persist.

you are far more comfortable with personal attacks than actual discussion of the topic

Where, specifically? I don't think mentioning your tendency to threadkill through strangulation quite constitutes a "personal attack." And quite interesting that I am currently responding to a rather large post of your own creation that neither explores the thread topic nor remains unblemished by the sort of ad hominem commentary you dishonestly claim to deplore.

So, to return to the subject at hand - should all comics be suitable for entry level readers, and if not, what should we make of Jess' review?
 
 
sleazenation
22:10 / 13.08.03
I'm not sure terms like "expert" are useful here. But surely we would all agree that a hardcore football aficionado would be able to more intelligently discuss a specific match than a first-time sports viewer?

actually i'm not sure I would - since a football aficionado's like all too many comic readers, have a different standard of loyalty to their favorite clubs or titles and will continue to defend them despite their poor quality. Conversely someone with a fresh perspective as the Jess persona perported to have can often be more incisive than someone mired in the conventions of the form or game.

A relatively inexperienced attendee at a match complaining at how dull a nil-nil draw/bland self-referential comic was while the aficionado who has investment in the club/title and form/game attempts to defend their experience looking at the skill of of a single tackle/joke.

Unless we are assuming that all comic books must be entry level product (something we don't carry over to other markets), it's unreasonable to criticize a specific book for being something it's not.

Firstly I'd suggest that while not a necessity, it is probably an ecconomic benefit that any entertainment is at least accessible it all who can purchase it. To put it another way -Watchmen can be appreciated by general readers while aficionados gain even more out of it. Secondly I think other comperable media do all make an attempt to make themselves accessible for first time readers - that's why Harry potter boooks recap the action of previous books, why soap opera characters explain why they are doing and what they have done so often.
 
 
some guy
23:23 / 13.08.03
I think other comperable media do all make an attempt to make themselves accessible for first time readers - that's why Harry potter boooks recap the action of previous books, why soap opera characters explain why they are doing and what they have done so often.

Do you think Marvel's recap page does this adequately? Do you think the recap in front of a random episode of Buffy Season 7 really makes the show accessible for first-time viewers?
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
01:10 / 14.08.03
... and ofcourse LLBIMG has not even read the comic. I counted three that said they haven't read it after Haus pointed out that everyone had. So bleagh.

just thought I'd throw that one in to see if this thread can go on for the next few weeks.

It's fascinating to see so much energy exerted over something so trivial (outside of the effect this review is assumed to have on the sales of the Outsiders).

Jess' review is very terrible, and it seems that this particular review is being brought up as a bone to throw about. It paints the picture that Jess Lemon is an intern with little interest in comics who continually asks her fictional brother for further info and rolls her eyes at the material saying it's stupid.

It's obvious to me that it's a gag pulled by Heidi and it's only purpose is to get a rise out of people or to make them laugh. Or to get posters to go for each other's throats for some strange reason.

This thread seems to me to have gotten way out of hand. No one is willing to listen to anyone else and statements get blown out to encompass all occurances rather than the one or two they apply to and only to one person anyway. Also it seems that LLBIMG and Haus are taking this far too seriously, which happens here a lot.

How long is this going to go on and what goal should it reach?

Can we just jump to that point and say we had closure rather than arguing that we do not agree on point of opinion??
 
 
some guy
01:17 / 14.08.03
According to Haus, this thread isn't about The Outsiders, but instead the larger institution of comics criticism. You don't need to have read the former to discuss the latter, and the pertinent points of Jess' review have nothing to do with the book itself. There seem to be two main issues:

• How reviews intersect with Team Comics (and whether fan reaction to negative commentary is unique to the medium).

• Whether all comics should be suitable for new readers, and if not, the relevance new-reader commentary on non-entry-level comics.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
01:28 / 14.08.03
If I may:

• How reviews intersect with Team Comics (and whether fan reaction to negative commentary is unique to the medium).

Yeah, the reaction is pretty unique. Comics fans are a venomous lot with a lot of time on their hands. And reviews can very easily intersect with Team Comics if the reviewer wants to take it there or if the comic in question is worthy of the Team Comics status.

• Whether all comics should be suitable for new readers, and if not, the relevance new-reader commentary on non-entry-level comics.

No. Little or a lot, depending on whether you like the comments.

So... are we done?
 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
  
Add Your Reply