Cheers,

Erica

I am on Publishers Weekly’s side. If you can’t maintain an amount of distance from something just because you got it for free, you’re either a Busch league idiot or you have some sort of debilitating mental issue that forbids your from speaking ill of someone who gave you something.

A good editor would have told McCann that if he couldn’t restore Mockingbird to life the hard way, he couldn’t use her.

SRS

Isn’t there a ton more at stake in those cases than in the case of book reviews?

“accusations of bias in the face of an otherwise wholly legit review are not criticism, they’re bitching and moaning”

I agree, but “bitching and moaning” and porn are the foundation of the internet. It’s easier to just deflect some bitching and moaning with a disclaimer, but apparently one is then branded an asshole.

Again, as it would affect me personally, up until yesterday I was planning on creating an advocacy website which would feature reviews of books I wanted to say good things about, but should I get to the point where I’m sent comics for review by their respective publishers, I would have included a similar disclaimer on negative reviews because a negative review would have been against website policy and should be explained.

Overall, the disclaimer is pointless. The review should speak for itself, and accusations should be ignored whether or not there’s any truth to them because we all know anyone can be bought but it’s the reviewer that has to live with himself or herself at the end of the day.

However, in lots of other fields, disclaimers and full disclosure seem to be widely required or encouraged. Doctors and researchers have to disclose gifts from drug companies, politicians have to disclose gifts from anyone, witnesses in court have to say if they have been paid for their testimony, etc.

So I think it’s not unthinkable that comics reviewers might want to disclose gifts too, whether or not there is any actual influence there, or just the potential appearence of influence. I don’t think you have to read in anything to the disclaimer. But maybe I’m wrong.

Well, when it comes to people reading a comic book review and thinking, “WAIT A GOD DAMN MINUTE — I wonder how this writer even got ahold of this comic book! This review is suspect until I know THE TRUTH!” — that guy is an asshole, not the sort of venerable asshole you’re describing, and shouldn’t be given too much weight.

notnecessarilythesameguy: “No, I’m pretty sure the average reader thinks [the disclaimer] makes you look like an asshole, too. ”

I’m pretty sure you’re incorrect.//

For you to be correct about my being incorrect, you have to assume that comics site readers do not read reviews of any kind on any other subject from any other source of news or commentary. Why? Because hardly anybody uses this stupid Disclaimer. Why? Because it’s stupid. Total ignorance of the existence of the larger world of reviews and criticism is the only means by which The Disclaimer is not conspicuous to the reader. As such, when a reader is presented with the The Disclaimer, they are likely to think, “Wow, why would you go out of your way to say that? I never see that anywhere else. Who cares how he got the book? This writer sounds like an asshole.”

I know what you’re going to say: “Is it so hard to believe that comics fans don’t read other sorts of reviews from non-comics-related sources? We’re talking about comics fans here!” Yes, yes, ha ha. But surely you’d agree that such willfully ignorant people are serious assholes.

//”Nobody’s going to say this if you know how to write [and if they do, they’re an asshole] ”

I can’t believe you said that. Are you new to the whole internet thing? Talent doesn’t protect someone from criticism.Talent doesn’t protect someone from criticism. //

We’re not talking about criticism. To criticize a piece of criticism, you have to take the writer to task on his assumptions and understanding of the material in question; on whether any comparisons he might make are relevant; in other words, the substance of the review. But we’re not talking about criticism of criticism, we’re talking about The Disclaimer, which you seem to think is useful in deflecting accusations of bias. You may be right, but accusations of bias in the face of an otherwise wholly legit review are not criticism, they’re bitching and moaning, and readers who’d do that are plainly assholes.

See? and thats how I continue to write daily.

I make it work for me.

lol

Jimmy

Heidi asked: “Does Roger Ebert go to the movie theater every Friday and stand in line and go back to the Sun-Times to say “Hey I caught some good flicks this weekend. Can I write them up?””

Film critics in Chicago (of which Roger is one) generally see movies for free in a screening room in the city. But it’s a paradoxical policy, because most newspapers have policies against comps and gifts. For example, I worked at one major daily newspaper early in my career and was not allowed to accept a comp ticket to a concert I reviewed. I had to buy a ticket and then get reimbursed. Other newspapers instruct employees to donate comps and gifts (even thank-you flower baskets) to local hospitals or other facilities.

Someone might write a review, in the broad sense of the word, because he wants to see good things prosper, and so will publish only favorable reviews of worthy projects; he might take a highbrow approach and focus on aspects of the artwork and writing that he believes are often overlooked by other reviewers; reviewing might be his occupation, so he’ll review whatever he is assigned to cover; he might do reviews on his blog as a way of communicating with other comics fans; or, he might be an industry shill and compliment whatever he’s covering, even if mistakes are flagrant, because the success of his employer’s Web site requires, in part, staying on good terms with the people in charge at DC and Marvel.

Whatever the motivation for doing a review, how many people do killer reviews, in which they describe the comics as garbage, unprofessional junk that should never have been published,, and are unconcerned about hurting the creators’ feelings?

IMO, it’s not uncommon for storylines to have major problems that would justify killer reviews. A premise could be obviously flawed; the storyline for an event might rely on an idiot plot to set events in motion; characters might be grossly mischaracterized. An inept writer might make all of those mistakes and more in a single storyline.

An upcoming example of a fatally flawed storyline could be the McCann/Lopez NEW AVENGERS: THE REUNION miniseries. Mockingbird supposedly returned to Earth in SECRET INVASION #8, but she actually died in AVENGERS WEST COAST #100. She died, period. McCann’s attempt to wish away the death in a CBR interview was nonsensical. If the Mockingbird in the REUNION storyline is supposedly real, then the premise and the plotlines stemming from it are invalid, and the storyline and its consequences will unavoidably be garbage.

Will reviewers be willing to take such a stance toward the miniseries, or will they rationalize, “Well, none of this is real, the deaths aren’t real, there are multiple versions of characters — you just have to take what you can get from an issue.” In other words, superhero comics are generally junk without any literary qualities — but if that’s the case, why review them at all? In such a situation, identifying a comp copy is a minor issue at best.

SRS

Just wondering.

I’m pretty sure you’re incorrect. We could poll the entire comics readership to find out, but then what are we going to argue about?

“//You don’t have to put up with comments like “you’re only saying good things about Secret Invasion because you just want to keep getting free comics from Marvel”//

Nobody’s going to say this if you know how to write. ”

I can’t believe you said that. Are you new to the whole internet thing? Talent doesn’t protect someone from criticism. Talent does make criticism easier to ignore, though. I think you just wanted to call a bunch of people assholes. Mission accomplished.

From a personal standpoint, if I write a review for Publishers Weekly, I wouldn’t use the disclaimer, but if I write a review on my blog, I might use the disclaimer.

How much faux-transparency do readers want? Do they want to know if the issue was bought at a discount? Do they want to know if it was purchased with cash or credit?

The whole notion is silly. Review the book/comic/movie, not the process through which you received it.

Non-assholes, on the other hand, are the most irritating, unrepentantly boring and stupid people I’ve ever had to suffer through. I’ve never, not once, had a good time with a non-asshole. I’d rather shoot myself, and them, in the face, then sit around with some cheery cocksucker who says shit like “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say nothing at all” or “golly, I really hope it doesn’t rain” or “gee, isn’t there a more constructive way to say that” or “hey, there’s only one set of footprints because that’s when I carried you”. I mean, if you want to hang out with your grandparents all the time, why read comic blogs? Just go work at a nursing home. That way you’re never but a minute away from somebody telling you how much they love you and your pretty smile.

Modern Day Rule about Comics: If someone said it on the net, the author and reader are probably assholes.

Did you consider that you–as a professional in this industry–view things a bit differently than the average reader? They may look like an asshole to you, but to their readership they’re being fair and honest. //

No, I’m pretty sure the average reader thinks it makes you look like an asshole, too.

//You don’t have to put up with comments like “you’re only saying good things about Secret Invasion because you just want to keep getting free comics from Marvel”//

Nobody’s going to say this if you know how to write. That’s where the professionalism really comes into play. And if they still say it anyway, well, they’re assholes too.

Promotional, on the other hand, implies that the publisher is sending out free copies of comics because it will somehow lead to selling more copies. If Marvel doesn’t send out review copies, it’s because they don’t think they need to (and, apparently, they’re correct). Either way, it’s a business decision. The publishers have no intention of bestowing blessing on the lucky recipients. And the practice shouldn’t be confused with payola to buy off the reviewer and encourage good reviews.

John Tebbel linked to the New York Times ethics handbook, in which review copies of books, CDs, computer programs, etc., are referred to as press releases. Review copies of comics are the same thing–nothing but another form of advertising (and a pretty cheap form, at that). If we must use review disclaimers, let’s make sure they convey that message.

Old guard vs. the new way? Can I be Hypatia on the steps of the library of Alexandria, and the Coptics or Visigoths or Iceni or whoever are standing below yelling “Tur is Tur” or “Eat no meat!” or “You fucked up!” or “We’re gonna win the cup!” or whatever? That would be totally cool.

Thanks! I’m fairly relieved that I won’t have to return the book.

I presumed it was the table of contents that was wrong, but I couldn’t find any information about it online.

What’s your E-mail? I’m very interested in reviewing your comics.

(For an extra five bucks, I’m also willing to discuss the disclaimer. I’m an amateur, so I’m still fairly cheap.)