MichaelDoran
10-30-2002, 12:07 PM
<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/general/critic.jpg" width="120" height="125" align="right">by <a href=mailto:mikesang@aol.com>Michael Sangiacomo</a>
I had a wonderful journalism teacher in college.
He was an old-fashioned, chain-smoking, tough-talking newsman who hated television news, tolerated radio news and believed that people who reported the news were REPORTERS. Don’t call them “friggin’ journalists.”
“That sounds like someone who keeps a diary,” he said. “You’re a reporter, you report the news.”
He wasn’t happy when I started writing reviews of plays, concerts and books for the newspaper I worked for.
“What the hell is this?” he would say. “You don’t have enough to do reporting the news, you got to go out and foist your opinion on us?” I explained that the reviews paid extra and that I could use every cent I could get.
“Yeah, yeah,” he said, “but once you get past ‘I hated it’ or ‘I liked it’ what else is there to say?”
I often think of his words two decades later. I still need the extra money garnered from foisting my opinions on people, so I review concerts, audiobooks (please check out <a href="http://www.audiobookstoday.com," target="_blank">www.audiobookstoday.com,</a> we need the hits) and, of course, the comic industry.
One of my worst critical experiences came back in the mid-seventies when I was phoning in a particularly critical review of a band from a backstage office. There I was talking about how the band of two brothers lacked any kind of musical cohesion and how they could barely sing on key, let alone together, when I looked up to see the guys standing there. Gulp. They took it pretty well, even conceded a few points before telling me their review of me. One good thing came out of that altercation, the idea that critics should write their reviews as if the artist is in the next dressing room. It was that night that I came up with an answer for my old journalism professor who wandered what is left to be said after “I hated it.” What’s left? The reasoning and logic behind the statement.
If a critic, even a self-appointed one, says that Jim Mahfood’s art in Spider-Man’s Tangled Web no. 19 sucks, he needs to explain the underlying reasons for his conclusion. It’s unlikely that he will change the mind of a Mahfood fan, but he will at least give some information to the poor schlub deciding between spending three bucks on this book or another one.
And that is why critics do what we do.
It does no good to praise everything, it does not help the comic buyer decide where to spend his George Washingtons. It’s just as bad to pan everything. In order for a critic to have some credibility among readers, he must prove himself capable of unbiased reviews. Readers can still disregard what he says, but at least they know he is sincere and not some comic company’s yes-man.
Most comic companies understand this and respect it, though a few individuals still get cheesed off at bad reviews. That’s a shame, but it’s also part of the territory.
The wonder of the computer age is that anyone can “foist his opinion” on the Internet, for better or worse. I think that’s a good thing, though too much information and opinion can be as bad as not enough.
Reading the dozens of posts that follow my words of wisdom here on Newsarama proves another old axiom: “try to please all of the people all of the time and you’re a freakin’ lunatic.”
I think Winston Churchill said that, or maybe it was my old journalism teacher.
I had a wonderful journalism teacher in college.
He was an old-fashioned, chain-smoking, tough-talking newsman who hated television news, tolerated radio news and believed that people who reported the news were REPORTERS. Don’t call them “friggin’ journalists.”
“That sounds like someone who keeps a diary,” he said. “You’re a reporter, you report the news.”
He wasn’t happy when I started writing reviews of plays, concerts and books for the newspaper I worked for.
“What the hell is this?” he would say. “You don’t have enough to do reporting the news, you got to go out and foist your opinion on us?” I explained that the reviews paid extra and that I could use every cent I could get.
“Yeah, yeah,” he said, “but once you get past ‘I hated it’ or ‘I liked it’ what else is there to say?”
I often think of his words two decades later. I still need the extra money garnered from foisting my opinions on people, so I review concerts, audiobooks (please check out <a href="http://www.audiobookstoday.com," target="_blank">www.audiobookstoday.com,</a> we need the hits) and, of course, the comic industry.
One of my worst critical experiences came back in the mid-seventies when I was phoning in a particularly critical review of a band from a backstage office. There I was talking about how the band of two brothers lacked any kind of musical cohesion and how they could barely sing on key, let alone together, when I looked up to see the guys standing there. Gulp. They took it pretty well, even conceded a few points before telling me their review of me. One good thing came out of that altercation, the idea that critics should write their reviews as if the artist is in the next dressing room. It was that night that I came up with an answer for my old journalism professor who wandered what is left to be said after “I hated it.” What’s left? The reasoning and logic behind the statement.
If a critic, even a self-appointed one, says that Jim Mahfood’s art in Spider-Man’s Tangled Web no. 19 sucks, he needs to explain the underlying reasons for his conclusion. It’s unlikely that he will change the mind of a Mahfood fan, but he will at least give some information to the poor schlub deciding between spending three bucks on this book or another one.
And that is why critics do what we do.
It does no good to praise everything, it does not help the comic buyer decide where to spend his George Washingtons. It’s just as bad to pan everything. In order for a critic to have some credibility among readers, he must prove himself capable of unbiased reviews. Readers can still disregard what he says, but at least they know he is sincere and not some comic company’s yes-man.
Most comic companies understand this and respect it, though a few individuals still get cheesed off at bad reviews. That’s a shame, but it’s also part of the territory.
The wonder of the computer age is that anyone can “foist his opinion” on the Internet, for better or worse. I think that’s a good thing, though too much information and opinion can be as bad as not enough.
Reading the dozens of posts that follow my words of wisdom here on Newsarama proves another old axiom: “try to please all of the people all of the time and you’re a freakin’ lunatic.”
I think Winston Churchill said that, or maybe it was my old journalism teacher.