THE PAPER CURTAIN XIII: PANDORA'S BOX

[MattBrady]

Pandora’s Box
by Patrick Neighly

Okay, I give up.

Prior to the San Diego convention, I made a promise to creators: give me your book, and I’ll review it. Nevermind the format of The Paper Curtain; give me a glossy graphic novel or a hand-stapled mini comic and I’ll tell you what I think. But there was one minor problem that I hadn’t anticipated. An awful lot of what I got is just not ready for prime time.

So I’m breaking that promise and offering a compromise. I’ve got my San Diego loot sitting here in a box. Some of it I’m going to cover anyway. Books that fit into the remit of The Paper Curtain, and a few books that don’t. But I’m not going to cover the books that aren’t of a professional quality, or the books that have more going against them than they have going for them.

Right about now a few dozen aspiring creators are firing up their email program for a heated retort. And elsewhere a few thousand readers looking for the next Video or The Gypsy Lounge are breathing a sigh of relief. So here’s my compromise to all of those who gave me books and minis in good faith: If you truly want me to review your book in The Paper Curtain, send me an email. I will include an honest review in an upcoming column. For a lot of you, this will not be a good thing.

This leads directly into an issue that popped up last time. The feedback for our last installment ended with an interesting post from one reader questioning the apparent conflict of interest in a creator reviewing work by other creators. The implication is that I have a vested interest in dismissing the work of others on the theory that this will instead generate interest in my own work.

I think this theory falls apart on a few different levels, but nonetheless it’s a valid question to ask. First – and most obviously – trashing other books doesn’t really help me in any way; unless they’re bad, in which case helps me not look like Peter Travers of Rolling Stone. Trashing books pointlessly more or less ensures I’ll never work for their publishers, after all.

Then there is the question of The Paper Curtain itself. I laid out the mission statement all the way back in our first installment: to call attention to good independent books that will appeal to mainstream superhero readers. As much as I love it, you won’t find a glowing review of Carnet de Voyage in here, because it doesn’t fit the mission statement. But neither do bad New Mainstream books.

What this means is that all of the books covered in The Paper Curtain carry a certain endorsement – essentially, “Hey, I think these may be worth your time.” It doesn’t do anyone any favors for me to recommend books that I can’t recommend, if you will. It makes the column useless, it wastes the buyer’s time, and it calls attention to a creator who might have one shot at showing fans she’s got the goods before she’s really ready to deliver. Any perceived weaknesses or other constructive criticism I offer must be seen in that context.

There is another issue, one that generally remains unspoken but tends to bubble away just under the surface of every conversation about the industry. And that is this: we’re a small, incestuous bunch. I’ve been self-publishing graphic novels for about a year now, and I can already Kevin Bacon myself to any other industry figure in one move. Two tops. We’re just not large enough for a dedicated split between creation and criticism. This is an industry where major publishers heckle their competitors at professional venues and trade barbs through fan websites, after all.

Glancing through the bulk of the industry’s notable columns reveals a tradition of creators large and small writing columns that survey the scene and comment on specific comics. Warren Ellis, Mark Millar, Tony Isabella, Steven Grant, Peter David, Donna Barr and Larry Young spring to mind. Jim Lee and Brian Wood have had stints controlling coverage here at Newsarama. Rich Johnston, Mike Sangiacomo and John Jackson Miller straddle both sides of the fence, along with J. Torres, Lee Barnett and others. Hell, Roger Ebert wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.

It gets even murkier. We’ve got retailers writing columns – for Comics Retailer, for Newsarama and more. Beyond opinion, these represent the views of people whose buying decisions affect creators’ livelihoods and readers’ access to material. Vampirella Magazine publishes comic reviews for books its publisher is in direct competition with. Even Wizard publishes comics now, calling into question the fairness of its industry coverage and price guides.

But does the presence of conflict of interest – real or imagined – mean that we shouldn’t at least try to look at books objectively? Should creators remain on the other side of the critical wall? Perhaps there’s an argument to be made that we should. But where does that leave this small, incestuous industry? Already the state of criticism is dire – there are few review sites of quality, and even then there is a gulf between sincere intellectual criticism and basic review, no matter how positive the latter. “Comic reviews” bring their own conflicts of interest, from fans unable to accept anyone but Hal Jordan as Green Lantern to the unending tide of reviewers who are merely frustrated creators.

Maybe the objection isn’t to negative reviews in themselves, but in the widespread use of columns as hype machines. Is it appropriate for columnists to use their organ as a tool for selling books? Do I cross a line by reminding readers that this is the last week they can pre-order my upcoming graphic novel The Supernaturalists? Is it in poor taste to suggest that they visit www.madyakpress.com for more information about this and other projects? Have I moved beyond the pale for mentioning that The Supernaturalists is a full 160 pages of original story on heavy gloss paper for the amazing low price of just $9.95 … the equivalent of eight monthly comics for the price of just three? Does it go a step too far to mention that readers can give their retailer Diamond order code AUG042841? And if I post the cover blurb by Steven Grant:

“I didn’t think there was an interesting vampire tale left to tell, but The Supernaturalists is it. A deftly told blend of crime and horror genres set in the Roaring ‘20s, Patrick Neighly once again demonstrates considerable and growing skill as a writer, with confident pacing, strong characters and snappy, efficient dialogue. Artist Jorge Heufemann is a find, his work evoking such disparate talents as Brett Ewins, Hugo Pratt and Russ Heath without losing its own identity. A real graphic novel, and a couple more genres Neighly has conquered well.”

…does that finally push us over the edge?

Oh! There’s Steven Grant again. What a complicated beast this is. Matt Fraction said nice things about The Supernaturalists at Artbomb, which is run in part by Peter Siegel, who wrote Killing Demons, which I’ll be reviewing next time alongside some other New Mainstream horror books. Fraction himself has written for AiT/PlanetLar and now IDW. He’s also on his second stint as a columnist over at Newsarama rival Comic Book Resources … where his partner is none other than Joe Casey, who wrote a cover blurb for my graphic novel Texarkana (JUN042655). My brain hurts.

In the meantime, I’d like to hear what you think about the state of comics criticism and the apparent conflicts of interest inherent in creator columns – my own and others. How does it play on your side of the fence?

Award-winning journalist Patrick Neighly is one third of the team behind Mad Yak Press (www.madyakpress.com). His new graphic novel Texarkana (JUN042655) is in finer comic stores everywhere. His previous graphic novel Subatomic is in development for television. Books for review can be sent to 768 Orizaba Ave. #7 Long Beach, CA 90804

[render man]

So no reviews?
Personally I could care less if you are a creator or the EIC of Marvel comics doing these reviews, you are still a person reading comics who likes to read comics, and so far all your reviews have not had that bent you mentioned at the top of your column. I have only read reviews by a person who likes to read good comics and wants to spread the word about these smaller indy comics to a larger audience. And promote your comics all you like, take every chance you can get and good luck to you. But I was hoping for some reviews. Whats up?

[jasinmartin]

Incest and comics, the state of the industry.

How’s that for a header? But it fits.

When I was approaching a response to Patrick’s comments this time I struggled to get the words out clearly. They were all there, I just couldn’t connect them very well. He hits on a lot of good points, but I think that line sums it up fairly well. It’s a valid statement, and as he points out, if you look around, not very hard to verify. So, my comments really touch on more of why I think that’s true, and how by their very nature, I think it’s okay for comics to be this way (but perhaps not desired). Here are a couple thoughts as to why.

I’ve seen recent industry dialogue posing the question that perhaps the only people or fans left in the medium are the creators themselves, either professional or aspiring. People that either work creatively within the industry in some capacity, or those who are actively trying to do so. That perhaps we’ve dwindled so far as to no longer even have people who aren’t in some way involved in the industry following the industry. Now, that’s certainly not a reality (a cursory trip to the local comics shop can prove it), but how far is it from the truth? It goes a long way to making Patrick’s point of the industry’s incestuous nature and how it is all around us in the industry.

Another factor that’s lead us to this point of pervasive interconnectivity has more to do with the very culture of comics, and their strong sense of community. After all, if we aren’t all creators on some level, at this point we are at least all lovers of the medium (not to mention shared personality traits, or perceptive preferences). Who else would make visits to a specialty shop for overpriced merchandise on a regular basis, and then go and talk and read about it online? How could these people be considered casual readers? So again to Patrick’s point, I think it’s more to do with the nature of things.

We are all people who are passionate about the medium, in one aspect or another, and anyone who approaches things honestly and objectively should be allowed a voice. Not to mention, the small press needs all the love it can get in today’s market. So champions for it, like Patrick, or James Sime, or whoever, should have a place.

But this does all come from the guy who had his book reviewed in this column’s last installment (see here: http://newsarama.com/forums/showthre...threadid=16419). However, I am also a proponent for the medium and the smaller books (see here: http://superrealgraphics.com/aboutme-comics.html), and plan to continue to feature books I like in my own publication, and anywhere else people will let me. For what it’s worth…

[StevenG]

I'd wager that most people would consider a "conflict of interests" a columnist writing about his own books, not a columnist writing about the books of someone else who contributes on the site. At least, whether or not the opinion is tainted, you've got the opinion of ANOTHER PERSON, not a pitch for your own book, even if they're going to talk it up and make it sound good for everyone. I've gotten fair reviews from good friends, because they have the balls to tell me what they think of my work, not just to me, but to their audience.

Simply talking up your friends' books all the time is more commonly referred as nepotism, but in an industry as small as ours (and when we think our friends' books are the best things out there), it's bound to happen.

[Cray_ws]

The business has always had nepotism, but it was less obvious than it is now. Even more so its easily accepted behavior, and there seems to be little that creates a 'conflict of interest' regardless of the situation.

I don't have a problem with nepotism, but if there's no one to play watchdog and see to it that it doesn't abuse or destroy the state this industry, then I have serious issues with it. Because it no longer about talent, but politics, which breeds more problems.

I think the key to breaking the incestive nepotism that plagues this business starts with the editorial position, which needs to be taken alot more seriously with publishers. They need not to be super-pals and have chummy-skills with the media reporters and reviewers, and spend way too much time babysitting their prima donna creative teams.

But changing such critical aspect of what is keeping publishers in survival mode is akin to ripping their proverbial heart out. Publishers will seem even colder and more less flexible in new ideas which has help push the creative boundries for bigger companies that were once stagnant, Examples of this is having Joe Quesada, and Dan Didio in their respective positions. No doubt that both have used their chummy-skills to aquire the talent they want thru friends and acquaintances. While it sounds like hard thing to do, its really not in this secular business. That is the greatest myth of all.

I don't need to be some hotshot to get someone to work with me, nor do I need to be friends of a friend to gain some access. Talent alone can go alot farther than nepotism. If I was EIC of major publisher, I need not to know Alan Moore to call him see if he's interested in doing work for us, All I need is solid pitch idea. In theory thats how it should work, it can, only if publishers are willing to draw the line in professionalism and nepotism.

[AruneSinghX]

I'd only add one more point:

Newsarama and CBR are not rivals. Augie of the DB, Matt of the Brady, my buddy and MINDS EYE COMIC co-manager Arthur Lender & I discussed this over dinner on the last day of the Comic Con International in San Diego.

We're all working towards one goal: promoting comic books and having fun doing so.

No animosity between us- I've got Matt on speed dial. He's a great guy and I'm always happy when he can post a cool story. I'm not going to pretend I wouldn't love to beat him to it, but him and I have affection for different properties/genres/etc.

I only dislike him when he reminds me he's not a huge LEGION OF SUPERHEROES fan. Bad Matt.

Think of Newsarama & CBR as the Batman & Superman of Internet Comic Book "journalism." You decide who gets each role.

Also, if you are in Minnesota, please check out the Mind's Eye Comic book store in Eagan. They can be reached at 651-683-0085.

[MattBrady]

he lies. I hate Arune, and Arune hates me. Pure. Simple. Hate.

Hate, hate, hate.

MattB

Hate.

[GeorgeG]

I say put them all up for review here. Something that the reviewer may not like, someone else might. It's all subjective after all.

But to go back on the original intent of the offer, I'd have to question your integrity more than anything.

There's no doctrine that says a reviewer needs to rip someone's work. Just be professional. Just point out what worked for you & what didn't. Again, what worked for you (and didn't) could be the exact opposite for someone else.

A lot of reviews I see I never agree with. That poor review doesn't stop me from purchasing.

I think the potential reader should decide, don't you?

[AruneSinghX]

Originally posted by MattBrady
he lies. I hate Arune, and Arune hates me. Pure. Simple. Hate.

Hate, hate, hate.

MattB

Hate.

Someone please ban this troll. He has no place here.

[tralfaz]

boobies