Alright, the more I look at articles in The Comics Journal (http://www.tcj.com/) the more I get annoyed with them. The Comics Journal seems to think, in all of their so called comic knowledge, that American comics are doomed and that superhero comics are god awful and art comics are too pretentious.

This essay/article struck a particular chord with me. The person here is arguing that people won't read comics unless they're dumbed down into genre-fiction and that they don't resemble super-hero comics or art comics in any way. This person wants comics to be something where a person can walk into a store and pick up a comic to help "turn off his brain".

This isn't the beginning of it though. All the essays in the comics journal come across as rants. Badly written rants. Badly written cynical rants at that. It's getting tiresome and I don't think it gets anyone anywhere.

Aside from one or two articles saying that manga is helping pick back up comics in the minds of youth, everything else is cynicism. What do you guys think?


By the way, here's a nice little critique of most webcomics;

The Comics Journal
I fully understand (and heartily encourage) the desire to experiment and improve one's abilities, but what is this instinct that drives fledgling cartoonists to display their experimental learning experiences to the world? There's a reason that shop-owners soap up their windows when remodeling their interiors: so that you can only see their work when they're ready for you to see it. Once you put something out into the world, you can't take it back. There's a reason now-famous cartoonists publish their old sketchbooks after they have acheived some recognition for their abilities. When you invite someone to your house, do you lead them through the back alley, past the garbage cans and refuse, or do you bring them into the rooms you're proud of?

i have to say about the quote you have on the bottom of your posts that there are some tings i disagree with them about.

one is the whole experamental comics thing, well if i want to know if an idea is good or not i'd have to put up an experemental comic in order to know.

so that i dissagree with completely.

i mean if your selling something that's one thing but if your not then whats the harm in testing a comic out.

I don't think their cynacism is very helpful, but they never delve much into why the comics industry is in the shape that its in. I think that its the industry and the bigger companies that have focused solely on profits that have degraded the industry (not all companies are like this though).

I think that they aren't looking very hard for good comics, it doesn't sound like they have looked at all into the independent comics that are out there. I think that their view and definition of comics and seeing what is really out there is very narrow.

That quotation at the bottom of your post makes me wanna punch them in the crotch with a sledgehammer. Bastards.

I hate elite internet columnists that think they know what's good for everyone.

.: Myxomatosis :.

The Comic's Journal are those guys in highschool that got picked on a lot sot hey formed their own clique and complained about the unenlightened masses.

At times, and this is very rarely, the comics journal can be insightful, but most of the time it's basically "everyone sucks but us". Because they know what's right.

Their the art snobs of comics. Who are so elitest that it's just sad.

Don't ya just love hypocracy?

The Comics Journal
Every few weeks I receive a batch of mediocre graphic albums from France. So-so humor, dull detective stories, fatuous heroic fantasy, cruddy crime stories - stuff that if I had nothing better to do I might read, but wouldn't actually buy.

Later, The Comics Journal (same article) wrote
Basically, it's crap. And my understanding is that aside from a handful of superstar series like Asterix and Blueberry and such, it's the crap that keeps the French comics industry alive.

This relates to the sub-title of the article that says "More crap is what we need." This person is actually saying that they want more of the kinds of titles that they would never actually buy. Weird, but if I was the person writing this article, I'd want a lot of comics that I would pay to read. In this they're saying that the masses want stuff that doesn't live up to this person's standard of quality. Basically, they're being an elitist jerk.

Also, this makes me really dislike them and makes me think they have never read Invincible or never watched Justice League;

The Comics Journal (again)
We don't have that in the U.S. What we have is Art Comics on one end and Unimaginably Awful Super-Hero Shit on the other.

You have to remember these guys have a sheild of asshat surrounding them from logic. Their only sustinance is pretentious forgien comics and scorn for super hero's.

Don't even try to bring up the fact that most probably started on super hero comics. Logic cannot phase them. Negative comments only make them stronger as the true ass mongerel gets.

You win. "Shield of asshat" just became my favorite phrase.

Look at it this way: It's the Comics Journal's 30th anniversary issue. They've been hearing about how "mass-market" and "lowbrow" comics are for thirty frickin' years. It's no wonder that a cold shell of cynicism has congealed over their souls. When they see these new "digital comics" on the "Inter Nets", where their backbreaking years of learning the craft are competing with the skills of people who may have started drawing only six months ago, they naturally get angry. They just can't get used to the idea of comics being something everyone can participate in, instead of something you have to work at achieving.

Bottom line: Don't worry about them. They're the critics; they're supposed to be snobby. We, as webcomic artists, are appealing directly to the people, and in that manner we're the real movers and shakers of the comics world these days. ...Besides, thirty years later, comics will be even more mind-blowing and accessible, and we'll be the ones grousing about how bad things have gotten.

~IJ

Despite his training or what ever he's read and such, he is being pretentious. It's not a sound. He is.

It can be old, or what ever. He can make points that mainstream is needed so the "good" can be made all he wants, but he's still being an elisit. He's limited off an entire genre and the majority of american comics. Because of that, he's being pretentious.

He's classifying art on a low and high level, and basically saying the low isn't as good, instead of looking at the low art comparitively.

He may have good intentions, but he's being dismissive of an entire style of comics. To me, that's just plain no good.

It's not that I think he wants us to belive we want all comics to "turn off the brain" it's the fact that he's impling that it's what's mostly out there. Even in superhero comics there have been ones that make you think and feel.

This article, I can't tell when it was written, but the copyright says 2002, and at that time, I could find comics that were well written and could make you feel. America got outta the "crossover polybagged with a card and a cd with your mom" kinda mentality nearly 5 years ago. Infact the last major issue with a special cover or anything was Uncanny X-men 350.

Now I can concur that some art comics will have an audience. But it's going to be a smaller audience. But there is. You can go to a Borders or a Barnes and Noble and see that. But there's nothing saying that a superhero comic can't be an art comic.

Take a look at Sandman Mystery Theater. That is on the verge of beign a super hero comic, but also it's not. Hellblazer too. A lot of the Vertigo imprint. And these have been around for a while.

So to me, it seems like he didn't bother trying to find examples of quality in a genre. So to me, this seems rather improfessional.

I think in the mini-comics essay the guy was mostly bitching about how people are producing bad comics and trying to get people to read them. But he overlooks the fact that creators can't judge their own work correctly and usually think their own stuff is better than it actually is.

JKline:

If i was gonna offer a true rebutal (i.e. actually respond to him directly) what you say would be true. You do have to respond as such. BUT, this is not the case. This is personal gripes, as was putting the article up here. It was for us to see, and basically concur or disagree.

I stand by my "sheild of asshat" statement, because I do feel it's true from looking at what I've read of the journal. They tend to build themselves up and tend to take people down for being mainstream. Do they always? No, cause I find it hard to belive someone can be elitist all the time. But if you look at the editorials, a big chunk of them are down with the mainstream, up with the indie. Which I can support to some level. A lot of indie artist will never get true recognition, but american comics (wether art or not) have their roots in the mainstream.

VERY few can say they got on the road to comics through art comics. Infact I would probably doubt anyone saying that with how comics are such popular culture.

But back to my point. The fact of the matter, none of us on this forum are paid to talk to these guys, but these guys are paid to talk to us. They have a duty to be professional, while we do not (though it can't hurt) .

And I belive the mini-comics thing is basically what you suggest. I belive he wants an artist to hone their skills before making them public, but as css pointed out, an artist cannot do that fairly.

I agree, there has been some good. But I have to look at articles and not editorials.

For example, when Marv Wolfman was trying to sue Marvel over the Blade royalties, they put the whole witness log into the issue. That's pretty damn cool. Despite me knowing that Wolfman had sold off his rights.

But the editorials, they grate me. I can't stand them, so I try not to read TCJ for that point.

My comment about their highschooling is fairly evident in their writing. The fact that they have a higher form of near superiourity. Which leads me to belive that kind of behavior was brought upon by taunting or such they've recieved at an earlier time.

In their editorials only mind you. When people have an inflated sense of self worth (as the journal has at times) it's usually brought upon by the fact they've been torn down before, and their hobbies are one's that superior them.

Do I KNOW this is true, of course not, but it would not surprise me a bit. It's kinda similar to the skinny guy in school becoming the pig of a cop. Now they're the one's people look to, now they can say what they want.

That's why I said it, and like my sheild of asshat, i'll stand by it. I'm not gonna go "well I meant that in a different way" or anything, cause I didn't. I meant it how it sounded. But, it's not without basis. Because we've all seen that kinda behavior before in some way shape or form.

One article stating Marvels failures is a good example. Saying how Marvel has failed to maitian their creativity (of course this was written several years ago when Marvel Knights was first out) and even reffering to ledgend John Buscema (I probably spelled that wrong) as a hack.

To me, that looks like vented anger. Like he feels comics "owe" him To me, that looks like how I said, a person who's been picked on in school, and now can rant and rave and people pay attention.

So basically this was a really long way of saying "i'm basising that on their writtings"

I don't. I know when I get off this forum that I have my life, just like these guys at the TCJ have theirs.

Now keep in mind, I've never said all who have a bad time in high school turn out this way, but this isn't pop psychology, it's what you see. They put their goals into what ever they find they have passion for. Some tend to be very nurturing and open to their arts, some don't.

Just like any geek who's gotten bullied. Some deal with it well, some do not. But as your quote from Thompson says itself says that he was a geek in high school. And no matter what you can say, it has a deep baring on a persons life in the future.

And as I stated earlier in this thread, if I was responding to them directly, this would have had a different tone. But, so far, there is a point that I a) do not know exactly how they were treated, and I can only go off assumtions. And like I've said before, their elisit attitude and writing style seem to me that of the type of person who's suddenly have a bit of power and sway and therefore think their opinion stands above others. b) not all people who've treated like this react the same way in life. It would be rather stupid to say all have. Because I'm sure a good number of us on this forum have gone through the same, and we have not gotten that same attitude.

My cop analogy was never meant to be concrete, but an example many have seen in one way shape or form in several mediums (wether in life or in arts).

And with credibility, I can safetly say, I pretty much have next to none. I'm not a recognizable name, I'm not a blogger or anything. I'm a guy who has a comic which he enjoys doing. I'm not flousting my opinion out there and belittiling art in forms that I just don't appreciate. I don't even try and say that I'm any kinda of expert, cause lets face it, I'm not. But one thing I am, is fairly honest in my opinion. Which is somethin I do credit to the TCJ, I respect their opinion on some level, even though I whole heartily disagree with it.

But, to me, they have a responsibility to be professional. They put themselves up as a sort of expert, that means you have to be open to at least atempt things you normally would not. To me TCJ fails on this in editorials. Now articles, as I've said before, are pretty well written and insightful.

But, really guess that's all I got to say bout that.

Please don't stop, best well thought out arguments I've seen on these forums for a good long while.

Cookies all round.

JKline-I'm with Chameloncholic, some of the items that you have brought to the debate has made me rethink my position. Good debaters can do that

JKline

thatreevesgirl
I don't think their cynacism is very helpful, but they never delve much into why the comics industry is in the shape that its in. I think that its the industry and the bigger companies that have focused solely on profits that have degraded the industry (not all companies are like this though).

Actually this is one of the reasons I have picked up TCJ at times. They've reprinted entire court transcripts and contracts in articles about creator disputes, championed creator rights, and done in depth examinations of industry issues.

Again, lest I seem a complete chearleader, I am not saying they are a sterling journalism magazine, though. They've engaged in their own stupid and unethical behavior at times themselves.

The one thing that is sad about online journals are if the authors cross that behavior line drawn (that most don't break) it is hard to recover. You can be pretentious just a few times and people will start to dismiss your better work because it is laden with just enough bitter egotism that they don't want to work to find the polished more insightful pieces. That is not necessarily the sole problem of the writer (as the reader I am also at fault for not delving deeper into their work), but with so much other material on the web, its so easy just to move beyond the more pretentious journals in light of less infuriating material.

(Written at…well, really freaking early for me, forgive me if it doesn’t make since I haven’t gone to bed yet.)

I think a good way to put it would be The Comics Journal is more like the New Yorker and Wizard is more like Entertainment Weekly.

Both can give you good info, but one caters to a different kinda audience.

Just to jump in and then run out just as quickly with some possibly incorrect or correct tidbit:

"Graphic Album" = album de bandes dessinees (minus the appropriate accents)?

He was probably using "album" to make fun of the French for comic books/graphic novels, that whole thing. Still sounds like a bunch of pretentious prickery, but that's me just assuming things out of context.

Ok, I'm gone, keep on debating!