Clay posted this on his blog yesterday:
If you're a comic book reviewer, ask yourself a question, and answer honestly: What do I hope to achieve with my criticism?
Do you just want your opinion noted? Do you wish to prove people wrong in their assessments of books? Do you hope to point people toward good work they may have missed? Do you hope to steer people away from books you personally don't like?
He raises a good point, and one he's brought up before. I think it would be appropriate to address the issues one by one:
1 - What do I hope to achieve with my criticism? Do you just want your opinion noted?
I honestly believe that most critics on the internet don't want to achieve anything with their criticisms other than just having something to say and saying it. Most of what passes for 'criticism' out there these days is not thoughtful, considered nor insightful. Instead it's full of invective, bile and incites good ol' flame wars with others who don't agree. No more do critics take the position that art for art's sake is something to be treasured or appreciated. In this day and age of fast-food-convenience or bust, art must MEAN something.
What passes for criticism is someone assigning a meaning to a piece of art based on mostly limited experience. One who criticizes who doesn't have any life experience by assigning meaning to something isn't a critic. That person is a loudmouth who can't shut up. In this person's world "this sucks" is meaningful on many levels without explanation.
2 - Do you wish to prove people wrong in their assessments of books? Do you hope to point people toward good work they may have missed?
I would hope that someone who engages in criticism would point to work he felt worthy of further consideration, but I just don't see it happen very often, and not for a long while. Then again, I don't read reviews of comics any more because I've grown tired of the pissing and moaning about why comics can't be great. Basic things like Compare and Contrast have been lost (even by me, to be 100% honest) when folks write about comics. It would be nice if someone reviewed a book they wanted to like, didn't like it, then told us why. That's a simple 500-word essay that can be helpful not only to potential readers, but to the creators as well. I suspect that most 'critics' on the web are merely frustrated wannabe comic book writers.
3 - Do you hope to steer people away from books you personally don't like?
Nail on the head, Clay. I think this is what most 'critics' really want to happen. "I hated this book and you should, too, so we can continue to be in the elitist club that we established long before the rubes who saw 'From Hell' started coming over to comics and then went to manga." Self-importance is a primary condition for anyone who qualifies himself as a 'critic' of comic books on the web.
Now, that doesn't mean there can't be good reviewers who don't like a comic. Not every piece can be gold, but let's show a little respect for the work involved and hope that our words of criticism could be helpful, if not constructive, about what we like, what we don't like, WHY we feel the way we feel and what we base our comments on. It's not hard, and I appreciate folks (like the commenter on Clay's post) who just give shout outs to works they like and why. That's a better 'review' for my money than someone on a 'major' comics news site who gets paid by the hit to be 'entertaining'.
Posts
6 comments:
I would have to agree that far too often, people who pass themselves off as comic book reviewers are simply people with an axe to grind. What they fail to take into consideration is that someone else might fully enjoy the works that they are bashing. And vice versa.
A review should attempt to be balanced, pointing out both positive and negative aspects in as objective a manner as possible. However, more and more, these so called "reviews" are nothing more than a soapbox for people to rail against creator "X" for the purposes of seeing (or reading) their name in print.
Oh, I don't have a problem with someone who isn't 'objective' as long as they're up front about it. That's why I like the shout outs best.
The prevalence of soapboxes is merely a reflection of the ease of hiding behind a pseudonym. There's a certain bravery in being out of range, I think, and that bravery is buttressed by ignorance or jealousy.
I don't know what this pertains to, exactly, but I can answer your question about why I review comics (in my zine).
I do so because 1. I think the fellow readers of the APA may find reviews interesting. I also think 2. that my writing style may be of some entertainment value. So regardless whether you read or are considering reading Red Sonja #12, you may find my review entertaining in some way. I also review comics 3. to let people know if I see something out there that I think is or isn't worth their hard-earned dollar.
A more general thought of reviews: You have to be selective in what you read. Similarly, I won't listen to sports radio. Because sports radio, like some reviewers, I'm sure, are just trying to get a reaction. They might not even agree with the point they're trying to make... instead, they're just trying to keep you reading/listening so you'll come back again next week, or after the commercial break.
When you're driven to keep readers/listeners around, and you're not particularly talented in the first place, an easy out is to scream and shout and be a dick and make outrageous statements. Why would anyone waste their time with that?
That's why I say you have to be careful to only read reviewers that you know are good... and to avoid sports talk radio all together!
Or, you only read reviewers who have similar tastes to yours.
The whole thing was just a response to Clay's posting on his blog, and it's a topic he's brought up before. My response to his post was not meant to point at anyone in the 'zine, only to address in general ways the general things he was saying.
I appreciate reviewers who try to like what they review. If they review a book they know they're going to NOT like, then they shouldn't review it. I don't buy comics based on reviews because I like what I like and I tend to follow creators now rather than characters. As much as I like Warren Ellis, his work on company-owned characters isn't NEARLY as entertaining as his creator-owned work. I won't say that the company work is formulaic, but it does have some similarities in style across the board. Notably the JLA stint vs. Thunderbolts. Character voices are almost exactly the same. However his book Ocean compared to his Iron Man arc while similar are both great examples of what he can do when he is working with little or no restraint.
But I like Warren to start with. If you don't like his work, you won't like it.
Ah, it's early and I'm all rambly. Sorry. I hope I'm not obfuscating things with this. Bottom line, I'm just trying to write something.
Oh, I knew it didn't have anything to do from within the zine. A review in the zine has about as much impact as a gnat farting in the wind.
But I'll still review things, because I enjoy it, and I enjoy reading others' reviews in our APA as well.
A review as its own work of art?
Post a Comment