November 6, 2003
“Note to self: Don’t change for anyone
Note to self: Don’t die
Note to self: Don’t change for anyone
Don't change, Just lie”
– “Note to Self: Don’t Die,” Ryan Adams, ROCK AND ROLL.
In case you were wondering, I skipped last week’s column due to the wildfires raging through San Diego County last week, still not fully contained as I write this. My house wasn’t in immediate danger but some friends of ours, and their children, were evacuated from their own homes and came to stay with us for a couple days, weekend days when I usually get the column started. From the company to the extra effort at entertaining kids who are forced to stay indoors all day (very hazardous smoke and ash in the air, that has since reached as far as Las Vegas and parts of Texas), to the enervation of watching scary news reports all day and night, I just became worn out and had to recuperate.
However, I did get a little reading done. Too late to review, say AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #500, but I must say that while the main story was pretty much garbage, I actually got a little misty for the Uncle Ben scene at the end. With Peter Parker my favorite comics character, and some father issues of my own, I was an easy mark for this one. The latest SLEEPER depressed the shit out of me as a father myself, but I’m not complaining. Great book. Oh, and for those disappointed that Dean Ormston only draws the occasional issue of LUCIFER, he’s currently doing a Judge Dredd serial in 2000 AD.
As far as the actual reviews, it turns out that the majority of the books this week are not particularly new. I figure many of you are reading by now because you just like what I say and how I say it, whether it’s a review of the not-yet-released new SGT. ROCK graphic novel by Azzarello and Kubert, or an old chestnut like Miller’s DARK KNIGHT RETURNS.
A little background on that one. Though a comics fan from a young age, I, like many, had periods in life where I stopped reading/collecting. I think through much of high school my allowance was spent on music, lots of import 12” singles and the like. It was in my freshman year of college, 1987, that I saw what I had been missing, rapidly consuming books that I now find still hold up well, like Byrne’s SUPERMAN, and some not as well, like a lot of McFarlane work on HULK and AMAZING SPIDER-MAN. But “DK” was one I loved so much then that in subsequent years it got an automatic endorsement from me as a masterpiece, despite the fact that I didn’t read it again until now. Not only was I curious, cracking open and beginning this swell, Chip Kidd-designed hardcover, whether this story still worked, I wanted to know if somehow DK2 worked better as a collection than it did as three big issues, and how the two books worked as an entire unit. So go ahead and read and find out what happened, and then catch the third of my interviews with notable comics reviewers, this one being Johanna Draper Carlson of Comics Worth Reading.
SGT. ROCK: BETWEEN HELL AND A HARD PLACE by Brian Azzarello and Joe Kubert. DC Comics. $24.95
|
The Azzarello name, and the fact that this graphic novel is released through Vertigo rather than DC proper, may lead some to believe this is a really dark, edgy update of those Silver Age stalwarts Sgt. Rock and Easy Co. Not true. When a writer known more for his creator-owned work (100 BULLETS) finds himself working under the constraints of work-for-hire, the results could be dull or watered-down, but in this case the practice of additional control is quite effective. This is a war story that could easily have come from the typewriter of original ROCK writer Bob Kanigher, though it would have been a fraction of the length.
The men of Easy Co. find themselves in some unusual circumstances, not just taking on some new soldiers but also mistrusting each other, when four Nazi POWs became three dead and one missing. Azzarello touches on the line between killing in war and outright murder, and does a fine job increasing the tension and manipulating the reader towards suspecting this or that man of the murder. As with some of the arcs in 100 BULLETS, he falters when the finish line is in sight, and the story really isn’t a murder mystery in the sense that the reader has to figure anything out. But he does well in giving Kubert plenty of room to shine, with lots of wordless panels and firefights. As sophisticated as one may want their war comics, action is always demanded, and Kubert delivers here, stark lines creating a wintry battleground with consummate skill. Not a work of great depth, but a pretty solid framework for the undiminished artistry of Kubert, one of the last of the true greats.
Check Maxim Online’s SGT. ROCK preview if you’re curious about the art.
WORLD WAR THREE ILLUSTRATED #34: TAKING LIBERTIES Edited by Peter Kuper, Kevin Pyle and Susan Willmarth. Top Shelf Comix. $5.00
Dissent has a voice in comics, and that voice is painfully shrill. This long-running Far Left comics magazine focuses on the War in Iraq and the post-9/11 challenges to, or attacks on, American civil liberties, with cartoonists such as Tom Tomorrow, Seth Tobocman, Ward Sutton, Keith Knight and others offering strips. The cover is striking, but a grimly telling indicator of the level of depth to be found in much of the contents: an Editorial Cartooning 101 image
|
of a camouflaged dog (Our Military) slavering over a bone with Iraq written on it (uh, Iraq). Art Spiegelman takes the inside cover, an hysterical rant about U.S. aggression with garbled text like “The killer apes learned NOTHING from the Twin Towers of Auschwitz and Hiroshima.” Bush has pointy ears, a Western version of Uncle Sam’s hat, and a wooden mallet at the ready.
Jonathon Lill’s “Angels to Aberfan” is slowly, metronomically horrifying, a nice bit of pacing that pays off. Likewise, Tobocman’s “Serpent of State” succeeds by being a relatively lengthy and informative piece about the settlements Israel has created for Palestinians. It uses a serpent symbol that’s not subtle but is nonetheless effective through the well-designed layouts, full of winding roads and fences that eventually encircle to become a prison.
Would that more of the cartoonists had offered diverse, thoughtful work, rather than the tired images of political figures as animals, Lady Liberty drowning or being taken apart, President Bush as a leering demon, simpleton or rich child. Ryan (JOHNNY JIHAD) Inzana manages to make Bob Dylan come off like a hack with an adapted excerpt of “Masters of War” in Inzana’s usual lousy scratchboard art. Scratchboard or woodcut are now so overused and clichéd in politically-minded cartoons that it’s almost quaint now, like the electronic handclaps in disco music.
Ward Sutton and Keith Knight offer some mild laughs, but the cartoons are mostly disappointing, with pieces like “Critical Condition” or Mike Diana’s “Go To Hell (an excerpt)” darn near incomprehensible. Better are text pieces such as Eric Laursen’s “War on Everone,” though it needed another draft to kill some of the whininess; “Bitten by the Viper: The New York Surveillance Camera Players” and Kate Crane’s “Clear and Present Danger,” which examines the Patriot and Patriot II Acts righteously but intelligently. It does, however, pair this piece with fair and balanced artwork like John Ashcroft with a rotting face, or Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney and Karl Rove all simultaneously raping Lady Liberty. Where’s the picture of Bush eating a baby, or using The Constitution to light a fire under America as a pig on a spit?
Despite some good reporting here, and the flashes of wit in some cartoons, the magazine comes off as political pornography. One knows from the cover what viewpoint is there, and the shots are meant to be familiar and unsurprising. It’s all about hitting the expected notes, giving the reader the money shots at the right time. It’s less a magazine about truth than one reassuring readers that things are just as bad as they thought, and that the people they hate are just as bluntly, gleefully evil. Yawn.
SLOW NEWS DAY by Andi Watson. SLG Publishing. $16.95
This is a graphic novel in the spirit of films like You’ve Got Mail, in that it’s a romance where two people of disparate personalities find each other after initially clashing. It’s not much of a romantic comedy, though labeled as such, because there’s not the focus is more dramatic and humorous. Katharine arrives as an interning photographer at a small town British news magazine, her
|
purpose not so much making a living as it is research for a wacky British character she has written for a proposed American sitcom. She’s not even really researching; she just wants her clichéd preconceptions confirmed.
There to shatter her preconceptions is Owen, a staff writer with an acerbic wit but none of the ridiculous Cockney mannerisms Katharine has absorbed from countless shallow portrayals in film and television. Owen comes with preconceptions of his own about vulgar Americans, and Katharine’s defensive abrasiveness doesn’t dispel them, but soon they are working together well enough, and even hanging out after work. This doesn’t please Owen’s long-suffering girlfriend Nicole, who has been patiently waiting for Owen to move out of his dad’s house and in with her, but who is also rather hard-hearted and competitive with Owen. The distance between Katharine and her boyfriend and co-writer Brett doesn’t help, either.
Though Watson takes the traditional route of giving the destined-to-be-together Katharine and Owen unsuitable, unlikeable—even unethical—mates to stand in the way, he only fails at developing Brett beyond the one-dimensional scheming Hollywood player. Nicole is not evil, and is capable of love; she just isn’t compatible, ultimately, with Owen. And Watson cleverly creates both external and internal conflicts between the boyfriends and girlfriends: Owen competes with Nicole over cover space, since he wants important local news stories and she’s happy to have sold ads; while Katharine fights to make her script have more dimension instead of the cheap Britishisms Owen knows the networks like. So the eventual union of Katharine and Owen is not just a union of love but of similar ethics and morality, an extra dimension not often found in the average romance. Watson is anything but average; he’s really a master of the form.
BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS HC by Frank Miller, Klaus Janson and Lynn Varley. DC Comics. $29.95 ea.
About seventeen years ago, Frank Miller wrote and penciled one of the best Batman stories of all time. It inspired the look and feel of Tim Burton’s movie; it made the character cool again, and it continues to sell well for DC Comics.
The story finds retired Batman Bruce Wayne going to seed, drinking too much with old buddy Police Commissioner James Gordon, also heading towards retirement soon. Wayne lost his nerve after the death of second Robin Jason Todd. And with him, it seems every other superhero lost their nerve, all agreeing to retire or be hunted down as criminals, with Superman existing in secret as a sometime rescuer of innocents in danger, but always ready to hunt down a hero who gets out of line. One doesn’t find a more depressing
|
scenario for superhero comics than Superman Sells Out, but Miller piles on more with a news media even more crass and gratuitous than ours today; a roving gang of monstrous adolescents and prepubescents called The Mutants; a corrupt police force; and a “reformed” Two-Face finally set for release, having fooled them all. It’s time for Batman to return, isn’t it?
Miller sets the character on a course he still hasn’t recovered from by emphasizing Batman’s drive to stop crime as a dangerous compulsion, even a mental illness. Wayne has been disturbed by the image of the bat since childhood, and this incident and his parents’ murder forever changed him. The idea that Batman’s presence is responsible for his Rogue’s Gallery of colorful, deranged villains is also explored when the near-catatonic Joker perks up with a smile again at the mere mention of Batman’s name. Miller is in full control here, unafraid to make Batman a more memorable character by not trying to make him likeable.
A lot of plates are spun over the second and third chapters, with Joker and Batman in their final battle, the defeat and repurposing of The Mutants into a rough-hewn, Bat-centric Guardian Angels squad; and of course, Batman taking on a partner again, the charming Carrie Kelley as the new Robin. And let’s not forget the ever-present, vile news media, and Gordon passing the torch to his young, female replacement, who vows to bring the vigilante Batman to justice. It all comes to a dramatic conclusion in the fourth chapter, focusing on Miller’s most audacious idea of the whole series: Batman taking on Superman, and winning. This is tremendously difficult territory, in that Miller must clearly establish Batman’s superiority of intellect and determination, while Superman has to be the most powerful patsy in the universe, yet still likeable enough at the end. Miller can’t get a grasp on why Superman would allow himself to be used this way, so while it works in very dramatic fashion for the purposes of this Batman story, it’s a little too pat and one-sided, and can now be seen as a harbinger of trouble to come for the sequel.
Aside from this, and the use of characters like Catwoman and Green Arrow as near-punchlines, the book is still a gem. The story is tight and packed with subplots, causing Miller to do some of his most compact storytelling ever, full of small, Kurtzmanesque panels that lose none of their impact because of the fine, careful inking of Janson and Varley’s frosty, subtle coloring. Miller’s pencils have never been more detailed or moodier, and he’s able to create such an atmosphere of tension he can afford to draw some supporting characters and extras in caricature without a loss in drama. The whole thing reads even better now, especially with a nifty new fake column by James (Jimmy) Olsen as the Introduction; some sketchbook material, and a peek at the original outline to the fourth issue, which contains some elements changed by the time the book was drawn.
BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT STRIKES AGAIN HC by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley. DC Comics. $29.95 ea.
Three years after the events of DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, Batman decides it’s time to take his fight to the next level. Instead of he, Carrie (now Catgirl instead of Robin, with a leopard suit and rollerblades) and the former Mutants keeping the streets of Gotham safe, he’s going to take down the most powerful two beings in the world, Lex Luthor and Brainiac, who choose to rule in secret, behind puppets like the computer generated U.S. President. Meanwhile, Superman has managed to remain mostly blind to the fact his old nemeses pull his strings, and has forged some kind of life for himself with Diana (Wonder Woman) and
|
their precocious daughter Lara, whom he is just starting to get to know. James Olsen is the only voice of dissent, and even with evidence the President isn’t real, the public still likes him anyway. As with the first book, Batman is proactive, putting plans in motion even when there’s been no major, recent change to the status quo, but one wonders why he waited three years this time, knowing what he knows.
The aging forces of justice are gathered again, from The Atom to the Barry Allen Flash to both Plastic-Man and Elongated Man, both played unsuccessfully for cheap laughs. Even the Hal Jordan Green Lantern is summoned home from some sort of dimension of light. The de facto JLA will take on the bad guys and their toys, and eventually Superman, with relish. Unlike the first book, there are no real subplots to speak of except for Superman trying to bond with his daughter and temper her sense of superiority toward humans, even as he’s trying to figure out whose side he’s on and what kind of man he’s become. That’s worthwhile material, and it’s interesting that this book is actually more about Superman than Batman, but Miller is not able to reconcile how the character could allow himself to be used and abused for so long without rebelling. There is some talk between him and Diana about biding their time, waiting for an opening, but it’s sure not difficult for Batman and his crew to turn the tables, which makes Superman more pathetic than ever.
Miller also has nothing new to say about Batman, other than that savagely beating criminals has somehow made him younger and more vital, a scary but intriguing premise. He loves Carrie, so there is the suggestion that he has found a kind of happiness, and a way for his bloodline to continue, but it’s not developed much.
In fact, very little is developed, though this is a longer book than the first. Reports at the time strongly suggested Miller was turning in pages whenever he felt like it, with little or no input from editor Bob Shreck, nor even a specified final page count. Miller has fun redesigning costumes for Flash, Wonder Woman and Catgirl, but the characterization stops there, at about the level of the cheesecake 900-number versions of Black Canary and “Batchick.” There are decent scenes for The Atom and Green Lantern, but they’re just scenes, isolated and only important because they’re surrounded with less interesting scenes. The rough quality of the art, and the big panels, suggests Miller was burning with a story he had to tell quickly, but the results are like some of those “great ideas” one writes on a nightstand notepad at 3:00 a.m. that are incomprehensible in the morning. The conflict with the supervillains never gets up a head of steam, and it’s honestly hard to even finish the last chapter, especially when the ridiculous, mean-spirited “evil Robin” subplot flares up and then is quickly extinguished, a haphazard conclusion to a total mess of a book.
Since the book’s release, many detractors of it have said Miller was some sort of sellout, that this sequel was a “cash grab.” But it makes more sense that, in his own mind, Miller probably thought he was doing something just as vital, his current statement on superhero comics. In fact, at the time he said something about being disappointed that so many comics since then had followed the “grim ‘n’ gritty” lead of the first book, WATCHMEN and others, and his intention for DK2 was to bring back hope and the inspirational qualities of Silver Age comics. And yet, hope and Silver Age values are almost completely absent from this book, other than the fact Miller seems to like The Atom and Green Lantern enough not to make them look too old. Whereas in the first, Miller used then-current continuity, such as Jason Todd, here he ignores a couple decades of changes in the DC Universe, using Jordan and Allen instead of their replacements, who have by now been established as pretty legitimate successors. It comes off as arrogance, and his use of “News in the Nude” as a further degradation of the news media from the first book comes off as ignorant, since such a thing already has existed for years. Satire doesn’t work if it’s actually milder than the real thing.
What good can be said of the book is that Batman still looks good, as do the pretty girls, and Lynn Varley’s coloring is brave, a rich, computer-generated palette that’s a wholly different approach from her work on the first book, and mostly successful. And equally brave is Miller’s artistic choice, but now matter how admirable it is that he chose not to repeat himself, the art here is just flat-out ugly a lot of the time, competently if more simply laid-out but unattractive.
The second reading of this work, all at once, with the typically sharp Kidd presentation, was meant to be a second chance for a much-admired creator. But it’s clearer than ever the book fails not merely due to high expectations from the first. It fails not merely because the art is radically different. It just fails.
KIMOTA! THE MIRACLEMAN COMPANION by George Khoury. TwoMorrows Publishing. $12.95
Miracleman, for those who don’t know, was a 1950s British knockoff of Captain Marvel produced by Mick Anglo’s studio. In fact, he is really more known there as Marvelman, his real name until threats of legal action from Marvel Comics prompted the change to Miracleman. Other than a slightly different look, and the deletion of Mary Marvel, it was the Marvel Family, down to lots of the same stories merely given a facelift and a spot of British flavor. By the
|
1970s, the character was almost forgotten, but by some good fortune enterprising publisher Dez Skinn and eager young writer Alan Moore got together to bring the character back, embracing his silly past while thoughtfully exploring more realistic consequences of being a godlike superhero, and how that would affect the world.
This volume presents a bit of the character’s Silver Age history, including an inconsequential interview with octogenarian Anglo, but mainly focuses on Moore’s run of stories, first in the British comics anthology WARRIOR, then in the sixteen issue run of MIRACLEMAN for Eclipse Comics, which featured Moore illustrated by Garry Leach, Alan Davis, Chuck Beckum (later changed to Austen), Rick Veitch and culminating in the luminous “Olympus” arc with John Totleben. With that, Moore had told the stories he wanted to, and handed the reins to Neil Gaiman and Mark Buckingham, whose excellent run was abbreviated due to the financial difficulties and eventual demise of Eclipse. There are interviews with all of the above and more, plus a look at part of the still-unpublished issue #25 by Gaiman/Buckingham, and a “lost” Moore/Totleben short story, “Lux Brevis,” still in pencil form.
While the book is valuable in that there doesn’t appear to have been anything of the sort attempted previously for MIRACLEMAN, it feels like a bit of a place-sitter until someone else comes along and does it right. The main strength of the book are the interviews, all conducted by Khoury, and he asks reasonably intelligent questions, but it seems he is very fortunate in having subjects like Moore, Gaiman and Skinn who like to talk. There are few insights from Khoury, who is content to chat and take in the conversation as a fan. There are marked inconsistencies in statements made by Moore, Skinn and Eclipse Editor-in-Chief Cat Yronwode, but Khoury doesn’t take this raw material and go back to confront anyone, nor does he present his own opinion of what the truth might be. This is in fact a major weakness of the book, leaving out any kind of detailed analyses of the Moore and Gaiman runs, or of the ongoing legal dispute over ownership of the character. This was still very confused when Khoury wrote the book, so a definite opinion might have been inappropriate, but one expects more than “let’s hope it all works out” tone of Khoury’s writing. In fact, his mostly-good “Overview” at the beginning of the book is marred at the end with fannish writing like “If you can find these books, enjoy them. If you don’t have them, get them! They really are worth the trouble of hunting down, and in the end you will really feel rewarded. Miracleman is truly one of the best things money can buy.” So is ELEMENTS OF STYLE by Strunk & White.
Khoury’s success at landing almost everyone involved with Miracleman (aside from part-owner Todd McFarlane, presumably) is laudable, though, and the book is always readable. The design and editing of the book are problematic, however. It looks pretty much like any issue of COMIC BOOK ARTIST, just for twice the price and with a spine, and while that design works fine for the magazine, something more sophisticated ought to have been utilized for an historical tome like this. There’s also an uneasy compromise in the design of the book between the seriousness of the Moore and Gaiman runs, and the goofy 50s stuff, so that we have lots of nice art from Totleben, Davis, Buckingham and others, but all the articles ending with a silly KIMOTA! thunder-and-lightning icon, and the Buckingham cover homage to the first appearance of Captain Marvel, which is a perfect copy but presents Miracleman in a 40s milieu and a costume he never wore in the comics. It’s a cute joke but not right for a cover about a serious comics work. As far as editing problems, the book is straightforward enough, from an Alex Ross Introduction to the Overview to the Anglo interview to Moore, his artists, etc., but then it ends not with any kind of summary of the body of work but with unimportant interviews with Barry Windsor-Smith (a wonderful artist whose connection to Miracleman is merely a handful of covers) and Beau Smith, who worked at Eclipse Comics at that time and whose interview mainly consists of promulgating the idea that McFarlane really is a good guy once you get to know him. This may be true, but what this has to do with MIRACLEMAN is anyone’s guess, and it’s a sloppy conclusion to a pretty good book that should have been great.
Full Bleed - The Comics Reviewer Interviews Part 3: Johanna Draper Carlson
And now we come to the third in my series of interviews with comics reviewers, this time with Comics Worth Reading’s Johanna Draper Carlson, not just one of the best online reviewers, but she’s been doing it longer than most. She brings with her not just experience but a very calm, patient tone, classier and more reserved than guys like me who will sometimes get their rant on. And though she didn’t remember, Johanna is actually the first person I’ve interviewed twice, having asked her just five questions three years ago, along with other prominent reviewers.
CA: Johanna, you might fairly be called the doyenne of comics criticism. Let me ask you, what does doyenne mean? Just kidding.
JDC: Once I looked it up, I was impressed. Thank you. It’s better than the other title I was referred to at this summer’s cons: “oh, you’re the female reviewer who’s not a Tart.” Not that I have anything against the Tarts, of course, it’s just that a few years ago, all women in comics were assumed to be Lulus, and now they’re all assumed to be Tarts. People seem to prefer groupings to independents.
CA: You've been doing this for quite a few years-how did you start? I understand Steve Lieber gets some credit for this?
JDC: Yes. Without him and Scott McCloud, my life would have been very different.
I was in graduate school, and I began getting back into comics, which I hadn’t read since I was a kid. I decided to study fandom online, specifically comic fans, along with my studies of hacker culture (the subject of my thesis). The CompuServe Comics & Animation Forum was the preferred online discussion group for professionals back then, and I began participating. I was getting bored with the superhero comics I’d stuck with so far (mostly LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES Volume 4), so I asked for recommendations.
Steve bribed me. In return for me trying three independent series and posting my reactions, he offered to draw me a sketch of any character I wanted. So I began formally writing up my thoughts on comics, and I got a very nice drawing of Dart (from ATARI FORCE), still one of my favorite characters.
I don’t recall what the three series were. One of them was ZOT!, thus the McCloud connection (along with the seminal Understanding Comics, of course). I think another might have been HEPCATS. My thoughts on that series were one of my first published-in-print reviews, for the Fat Jack’s Comicrypt (Philadelphia) store newsletter.
I kept writing about comics after that, mostly on Usenet, with a break when I worked for DC Comics. If I’ve gotten the dates right, this is my tenth year reviewing.
Steve also gave me the wonderful piece of advice: “don’t use ratings.”
CA: As I don't use them, either, I'll probably agree with you, but why is this good advice in your case?
JDC: It’s good advice in general. Often, my opinions about a comic
aren’t easily summed up in one number or letter grade. Too often, with
other people, I don’t think they match the rest of the piece, so I wind
up wondering where and why the mismatch happened. Either the scales are
too complex to be immediately understandable in an attempt to capture
more detail, or they’re unnecessarily simplistic. When more than one
review is considered, there’s also the problem of inconsistency across
pieces. I don’t really want to be in the situation of giving a
superhero comic, a self-published debut, and an independent publisher’s
graphic novel all a “7” and having readers think that that somehow
makes them all equivalent. If someone’s only reviewing one small subset
of comics, it might make more sense for them.
CA: Do you have a background in journalism?
JDC: Only in support functions. My first programming job was for a company that developed newspaper databases (for companies to take their morgues and clipping files online).
My masters’ degree is in popular culture, where we studied journalism as well as mass media, sociology, literary theory, anthropology, and in my case, the internet.
CA: And how did you meet your husband, KC Carlson?
JDC KC and I met at DragonCon, which was the only good thing to happen for either of us at that show. He was one of the few DC Comics representatives attending, and as a Legion fan, I was eager to meet him. (He was editing the book at the time.)
I walked up, introduced myself, and told him I wasn’t reading the book anymore because of the way they’d killed off Apparition. He later told me that he was impressed that I’d obviously thought a great deal about this and that I wasn’t frothing about it. I was impressed that he seemed interested in my opinion. As others would come up to the table, he’d excuse himself to speak with them but would ask me to stick around.
We chatted for a while. Later that year, we both attended San Diego. (That was my first year attending conventions, and I think I did six of them, just as a fan. Not a schedule I’d recommend for anyone not getting paid to do it.) At the end of the show, Sunday night, I was in the bar with a group of friends, and I saw him wander in. He looked a little lost, so I asked him if he wanted to join us.
Since we’d all been talking about comics all week, I asked him what else he was interested in, just to start conversation. He mentioned that he was a fan of power pop, especially bands like the Monkees. I’d written my high school research paper on the Monkees, which meant we had a lot to talk about. It turns out that even going to the bar was very atypical behavior for him, so I’m thinking it was fate.
Anyway, after I returned home, I began emailing him copies of my reviews, and we started corresponding online. I think it was helpful to him to have someone to talk to who knew a lot about comics but wasn’t in the field. He had a lot to sound off about, since he was editing all the Superman books, a rather stressful job.
We went from email to phone conversations to visits to leaving New York to build a life together, and now we’ve been married for 4 1/2 years.
Other than his time as editor at DC Comics, KC has worked in comic retailing, distributing, and just about everything else. He’s been working in the field since he was 14, when he helped a local magazine distributor bundle comics. (Seeing comic distribution before the direct market existed gives him a useful historical perspective.) During college, he helped open a comic store. He also opened and ran the Connecticut warehouse for Capital City Distribution; edited and wrote the Westfield Company newsletter for about five years; was the original editor of Comics Retailer magazine for Krause; and worked in DC’s trade paperback department before editing SUPERMAN, ZERO HOUR, and the LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES titles for them.
Should I be worried that we’re only four questions into this and already you’re asking about my husband? I know you don’t have bad intent in asking this, but it is a problem many women in the comics field face, being defined through their relationships or having it assumed that they got their position through their love lives. When I quit my job at DC Comics, for instance, the only response the executive editor at the time had after a year of us working together on projects was when KC was going to quit.
That leads me to a unique viewpoint I think I bring to reviewing. I’ve always been an outsider. First by virtue of simply being a girl reading comics – I wasn’t like other comic readers, because I wasn’t a boy, and I wasn’t like other girls, because I read comics – and today, by virtue of both being unaffiliated with any group or webzine and by having more truly mainstream tastes. I’ll take Andi Watson over Brian Bendis any day, which prevents me from having similar recommendation lists from many other critics.
That means that I don’t assume that my readers are going to share my tastes, which keeps me away from “Why should you read this? Because I said so” kinds of writing, which isn’t useful to the new or unfamiliar reader. This is called making a virtue out of necessity.
CA: I'll leave your private lives private, but has living with a comics
professional changed your feelings about comics or your approach to reviewing them? And if so, how?
JDC: It’s very convenient having a second set of eyes in the house, if I want a better idea of how to describe a certain art style or a judgment on whether my comments are fair or too picky. KC, having been a teenage boy himself, also sometimes has a better idea of how fanboys will react to certain areas of concern (like pointing out sexist characterization), which helps me prepare for potential backlash.
With our marriage, I also gained access to an astounding historical collection of tens of thousands of comics. I now have more comics than I could ever read, including rarities I never expected to see. This has subtly affected how I relate to comics, since I no longer need to acquire more just to have something new to read. If someone mentions a significant run of a title that I’m not aware of, I just request KC pull it for me (he’s the comic librarian), and the next day, it shows up on my desk. It’s demystified a lot of the hunt for back issues.
CA: There is a certain precision to your reviews, a very even tone to
them, with no digressions. Did this take a while to arrive at? Do you ever have the urge to go off on any kind of rant or tangent?
JDC: Thank you for saying so. That’s not something I’m conscious of, but I suspect it comes from having spent so much time on Usenet, which is a wonderful crucible for fair discussion. If my points aren’t supportable and sensible, I’m going to catch flak, so I make sure that my reviews are solid and defensible. I don’t care if people agree with me or not, but I am confident in the points I’m making. My reviews aren’t about me, they’re about the comics.
That may not be what you’re asking about, though. I’m not a fan of the kind of piece “rant” brings to mind. They can be entertaining, due to their passion, but for me, they pale quickly, especially on a continuing basis. I guess I’m trying to write what I’d want to read – fair consideration of a wide variety of comics and the diversity of skills that goes into making them great.
It may also come from influence from my day job. I’m a Quality Assurance Manager, which means my job is to analyze processes and documents, figure out what went wrong, and come up with how to improve them. Not a lot of room there for “but I hate purple backgrounds!”
CA: I guess I'm more Freudian than you in that I would argue all
reviews are about me, not just the comics, and that even this interview is as much
about me as you, since I'm generating the questions and follow-ups and chose
you as a subject for, as far as you know, some self-aggrandizing purpose. But to
tie that half-joke back to your answer, while I do think there's value in
passionate reviews, even rants, it seems to be overused in online reviews,
and there's just not enough reviews that manage to be somewhat scholarly and
even-handed without being boring and impersonal.
The site's name is a clear suggestion that your main interest is in reviewing mostly comics you would recommend. Negative reviews are confined to an occasional monthly comic for the most part, and even these tend not to be entirely negative. Do you feel that there are too many good books to cover that reviewing the bad ones is a waste of time?
JDC: I feel that I have too many books to cover to spend time on those I have nothing interesting or useful to say about. It’s more of a stretch for my writing skills to comment positively. Negative reviews are easy. It’s much harder to come up with creative, new ways to compliment something, especially if you’re not using a lot of sample art examples. Plus, there are a lot of good comics out there that are criminally unknown and deserve more attention.
I review books I don’t necessarily like for one of two reasons: I was sent a review copy, and I feel like I should respond to the invitation to comment, and/or to give people a more familiar point of comparison between my tastes and evaluative criteria and theirs. It’s a big help to someone who’s never heard of KANE or AMY UNBOUNDED, for instance, to know that we both feel the same way about BIRDS OF PREY or RUNAWAYS.
Oh, and occasionally there’s the impulse to prick the zeitgeist’s balloon. Sometimes there’s a sort of peer pressure among critics when everyone’s raving about Book Q, and I feel that it may not deserve the unquestioning love. That’s my contrary idiosyncrasy.
Another benefit to sharing a home with a fellow fan is exposure to titles I wouldn’t necessarily buy. KC’s got more traditional tastes than I do. Having those comics in the house keeps me in tune with that aspect of the industry.
CA: I noticed that in your reviews of the Free Comic Book Day books, and
in your comments about the latest news that Fantagraphics will be giving exclusive premiums to PEANUTS subscribers, that you align yourself with the retailer. Does this ever cause a conflict for you as a reviewer?
JDC: Not that I’m aware of. I have a lot of sympathy for the many good retailers out there. They’re on the front lines of a tough business, and I’ve seen firsthand how bad decisions by publishers, distributors, or customers can easily turn a potential profit into a loss.
I worked part-time at my retailer about a year ago, because I wanted to learn more about that side of the business. I’ve seen corporate publishing first-hand, and KC’s told me all kinds of distribution stories, but retailing often gets short shrift, when without them, the comics industry collapses.
Customers often aren’t aware of what makes it possible for them to get their books every week or month or season. I recommend anyone interested in the workings of the industry reading Brian Hibbs’ TILTING AT WINDMILLS for a fascinating historical view of what retailing’s gone through in the last ten years. The scariest part is how much trends end up repeating themselves, because memories in comics are so short (unless we’re talking about favorite Superman stories).
When I started writing a monthly column for Comics Unlimited, my husband expressed a similar concern, over it being a potential conflict of interest. I’m afraid I just don’t see how. I’m allowed to recommend whatever I want so long as the books are available and I stay away from adult material, and I find those conditions sensible. I’ve never let sympathy for retailers affect my opinion of a book.
CA: You review a great many books of all kinds (well, not much horror or
crime), but you appear to have an abiding fondness of superheroes, particularly classic DC characters. You've said that your first comic was probably a WONDER WOMAN or WORLD'S FINEST. What appeal do these kinds of characters still hold for you?
JDC: Fondness is a good word. Nostalgia’s another one. Superheroes brought my husband and I together as well as fueling my youthful imagination, so I appreciate what they can do for fans. At the same time, I probably have more interest in the idea of superheroes than in any particular current incarnation. The only superhero comic I wholeheartedly recommend is JACK STAFF, and I blush to admit I haven’t read an issue of that since it went to Image. (Solely because of time, no reflection on the series or publisher.)
I try to keep up with them because they’re still the driving engine of the industry, although that lessens every year. There are so few truly adult treatments of superheroes, though, that it’s hard to consider them much more than junk reading, the same way the sitcoms I follow are junk TV. (And no, THE ULTIMATES don’t count. “Adult” means mature treatments of their themes of justice, not adolescent sex sniggering.)
My favorite sub-genre of superhero books is teenage teams, partly because of the variety of characterization a team book allows, and partly because I’m far from being a teenager myself, so the bizarre characterization that occurs in many superhero books doesn’t seem so odd to me. The young adult should be the target audience of the superhero book, in my opinion, so it all fits together in those types of stories for me.
To address your parenthetical, it’s sometimes hard to draw the line between modern crime and horror comics, but we’ll get into that later.
CA: Do you enjoy any comics today that try to recapture that Silver Age
feeling, and if so, what? Or do you feel it's best not to make the attempt at something that's long gone?
JDC: If I want that, I’ll read the originals, either old favorites (the SPACE CANINE PATROL AGENCY or SUPERGIRL) or new ones (I haven’t tried the majority of the Marvel Masterworks yet, although I did read AVENGERS 1 to 300-something).
There’s nothing wrong with attempting to capture that youthful feeling of excitement and adventure, but there’s a lot wrong with trying to redo something that was already done 40 years ago. Too many people mistake “trying to recapture that feeling” with “trying to redo the characters and stories”. The best examples of Silver-Age-style straight-ahead fantastic adventure I’ve read were AKIKO, EXPLORERS, and the first two-thirds SPARKS.
CA: What was the last comic to get your blood pumping, something suspenseful?
JDC: The best graphic novel I’ve read this year was FINDER: DREAM SEQUENCE, which has definite horror elements, but I’m not sure that’s the direction you mean. I did find it astoundingly insightful into the creative impulse, though, and wonderfully inspiring in its craft.
I have little patience for drawn-out stories. I’d much rather watch, for example, cliffhanger TV shows on DVD, so I can binge on several episodes at once. Suspense just isn’t a big draw for me; good characterization and a story that teaches me something about human nature are what I’m attracted to. Waiting for “what happens next” usually makes me more frustrated than anything (partly because I read so many comics that I forget details month-to-month). This is why the move from serial storytelling to graphic novels is so perfect for me.
This will probably fuel all kinds of rumors, but I don’t want to get too emotionally involved in my entertainment. I save that for life. There’s an edge of resentment if my emotions are played on: “how dare they manipulate me that way?”
CA: Isn't that part of the contract between creator(s) and reader? To enjoy
entertainment, don't you have to be somewhat emotionally involved, giving
yourself into the entertainer's hands?
JDC: That gets back to the idea of different kinds of enjoyment. No, I
don't think that's the only way to enjoy a work. There's also the pleasure of recognition (for formula genres), where you know what's going to happen but want the familiarity of the journey. There's the pleasure of approaching something intellectually, where the more you analyze it, the more depth and layers you recognize.
Taken too far, your comment becomes a variant of "why are you thinking too hard about this? Just relax and enjoy it!" that most critics have heard at one time or another, usually from someone who doesn't like their comments.
CA: Have you ever been scared by a comic? If so, what?
JDC: When I was, oh, 8 years old or so, my best friend and I were allowed to
go through a shopping bag of comics her mom had borrowed from a friend
at work. They were all DC late 70s horror titles, like GHOSTS, HOUSE OF MYSTERY, all that stuff. We sorted them all out, figured out what we
had, and settled in to read. I'd only read superhero comics up to that point.
There was one story in one comic -- and I can't tell you which one -- that still gives me nightmares. It was about a guy who inherits, with his brother and sister, an old house with a clock that's actually a door to another realm. He's the only one that knows this, and he's
convinced that there's untold riches behind the door, so he plots and schemes to get their shares away from him so he can investigate by himself. He finally gets to be alone in the house. He sets the clock hands, gets the door open, and goes through... to find a realm of
ghoulish monsters. The clock has closed behind him, and because he hasn't told anyone else the secret, no one knows how to find him. He's tortured forever, as he deserves, bwa ha ha.
Pretty typical for that genre, I know, but I guess it hit me just right at an influential time. It definitely taught me to always know how to get out of whatever situation you’re in. I really wish I knew the title and issue number, because I'd love to hunt it up and try reading it again. KC’s got a lot of those mystery comics from that era, but I don’t even know when to start looking.
CA: Any interest in comics erotica? Any titles you would recommend as suitable and interesting for both genders?
JDC: Oh, yes. Some concerns were expressed to me when I reviewed an X-rated book recently (that it would cause people to stop visiting my site), but to my mind, that’s an important part of life, so why not cover it in comics? Especially given the verbal/visual blend that makes comics so fun to read.
It’s a shame that so much of what’s out there is so depressingly non-sexy. There are a couple of favorites that many people seem to enjoy, though: Phil Foglio’s XXXENOPHILE, where lots of humor keeps things in perspective while still being a great turn-on, and Molly Kiely’s work, which has a beautiful art line in addition to an interesting perspective. She’s best known for DIARY OF A DOMINATRIX, but I like her more recent graphic novels THAT KIND OF GIRL and TECOPA JANE.
I’m even helping (in a small way) create more good smutty comics. The new minicomic anthology SMUT PEDDLER was put out by a collective of cartoonists called Saucy Goose Press, and I’ve been asked to be the Submissions Editor for the next volume. More information can be found here.
CA: In the years you've been doing reviews, have you noticed a change in the quality of comics criticism?
JDC: Embarrassing admission time: Until recently, I didn’t read much other criticism. I don’t want to be unconsciously influenced in style or opinion, and I’d rather spend time writing myself.
Lately, I find myself flipping through blogs every so often. I don’t like the trend – I prefer discussion groups myself, because I think the cross-pollination of ideas and opinions are healthier, and blogs are harder to remember to follow – but there’s some good writing out there.
I just want people to think about what they’re doing and understand the difference between “this is good” and “I like this”. That’s why I wrote my guide to criticism and why I started an online journalism discussion group. The latter appears to be failing, though. I think people just don’t see the need, and beyond writing about comics, there isn’t a lot all journalists have in common.
There will always be poor quality writing about comics out there, and there will always be good quality writing out there. It’s just a matter of how hard it is to find the good stuff. Like the comics themselves, popularity and quality sometimes seem to be inversely related.
CA: I'd agree with you if I was less popular. Heh. As far as your discussion
group, since you mentioned it, I like it but have some reservations about
participating much. You know already I like to needle people and can be
combative, and there are plenty of people in that group I could see myself
battling, and who has the time or energy to spare?
JDC: Friction makes for sharper blades, and for sharper intellect, in
my opinion, but again, I grew up online on Usenet.
CA: Regarding the current state of online criticism, sure, there's
always good and bad, but we seem to me to be in a bit of a sluggish time, with
sites like SAVANT folding and most others content to throw almost any piece
of content up they receive, with little consistency of vision, or else they just don't do offer enough content with any kind of frequency to keep people interested.
JDC: I can certainly relate to not enough time to give to a second job,
and yes, editing volunteer contributions is tough. Still, there seems to me to be a lot of baseless fear among comic journalists. They make decisions to take the easy way based on what someone might do. That, again, is a whole 'nother conversation, though.
CA: How about in the quality of the comics themselves? Are they generally
better or worse now than they were ten years ago? Five years ago? Two?
JDC: I think comics are always getting better. The sheer variety of choice, able to be obtained in a relatively easy fashion, makes this a great period for the medium. It’s also good to see more choices in publisher, format, and style available for creators.
CA: Aside from relatively tame superhero comics violence, I don't see you
devoting much review attention to violent comics. Why is that, and do you think women are generally less interested in violence?
JDC: I do enjoy some of them, but I’m squeamish. I have a low tolerance for gore, and that’s often used as a shortcut for true suspense or horror. Too often, there’s no point to the violence beyond “we’re edgy” or “we got our R rating” or “we got talked about” or “if we put in enough of this, we won’t have to establish character or plot”. It just seems juvenile to me.
I do find myself becoming more traditionally girlish in my tastes these days, but I don’t know if that’s a result of settling down (husband, house, corporate job) or getting older (as when baby boomers start denouncing music trends just like their parents did) or just my tastes developing in different ways.
It seems to me that to enjoy a slasher movie, for example, you have to turn off your sympathy. You can’t identify with the victim, or the movie would be too painful to watch, and you can’t identify with the killer, or you’re a wacko. Since women are culturally taught to think more about others than themselves and to identify with others, maybe that’s a factor.
It’s also the case that men are taught to watch (speaking generally) and women are taught to think of themselves as the ones being watched (with attention to their appearance, identifying with the object of acquisition instead of the actor, and so on), so I suspect violence (which is often men against women) reads very differently to the two groups.
Not to mention that a recent discussion on the Texas Chainsaw remake I wandered into focused on how much fun it was to watch the lead actress’ breasts. Much of that and it becomes understandable why violent films and comics seem like a boy’s toy.
CA: What comics and/or creators are you enjoying the most these days?
JDC: As soon as I’m asked a question like this, I go blank. That’s why I set up Comics Worth Reading, so I could just point people there. One of my favorite discoveries recently is TEENAGERS FROM MARS, but that’s only one of a ton of great books out there.
I don’t have a favorite creator. There’s no one out there whose work I’ll follow no matter what. I come closest with Andi Watson, but only his non-superhero stuff.
CA: What's a big mistake comics publishers keep making?
JDC: Not planning for the long-term. Lately, this short-term attitude reveals itself in publishers that blame readers for “waiting for the trade” when they’ve shown that their collections are the preferable format, but I’m sure everyone’s tired of that debate.
The current market means that publishers, especially when it comes to book-format comics, can no longer count on initial orders to cover their costs. They need to look further out, whether it’s recouping costs on a collection over next year’s convention season instead of all at once, or considering long-term ramifications in determining policy, or making books available for reorder easily and accurately, or realizing that a large segment of comic readers are no longer interested in floppies, regardless of content.
CA: And that takes us to the end of our enjoyable interview. Thank you, Johanna.
JDC: Thanks for the opportunity to chat. I appreciated the great,
thought-provoking questions you gave me here.
Next Week: ISAAC THE PIRATE; ONE PLUS ONE, maybe the new MEATCAKE COMPILATION, and others. I so enjoyed using the “Master Race” detail by Berni Krigstein a few weeks ago that I want to end each column with a piece of art: beautiful, dynamic, cool or all of the above. This is from Dark Horse’s recent MAC RABOY’S FLASH GORDON VOL. 2. The third volume should be out this week.
Chris Allen
If you would like a book or graphic novel reviewed, please send to:
1451 River Crest Rd.
San Marcos, CA 92078
E-MAIL THE AUTHOR |
ARCHIVES
