Mega comic wank!
This hasn't appeared here yet that I've seen, so even though it's a bit old, it's very much worth it.


So there's a comic news site called the Pulse that's pretty high up on the list of comic news sites. Lots of traffic, lots of interviews with HOTHOT artists, you know the deal. The editors decide it would be fun to post reviews by a neophyte to the comics world. Wank ensues.

Am I the only one who thinks the "review" was a waste of web-server space?
Even though this article was well written with a chuckle or two, but it is by no means a legitimate critique. To have someone like Jess write an article about something she knows nothing about is unfair to both the creators of the comic, and the audience it was intended for.

Jess admits up front that she is NOT a regular comics reader, and has only read two comics in entire life (i.e. her world of "I can't even get into bars yet" life experience). So it confuses me to no end how and why Jess came to writing this review.

She totally misses the point of how comics work. Is there a point? Maybe, and maybe not. Jess spends too much time tearing apart the structure of the comic and trying to make sense of it.

Is the first issue of the Outsiders flawed? Sure it is! But then, when you think about it, EVERY comic is flawed. Take the Incredible HULK for instance, when we watch Bruce Banner turn into the Hulk, where does the extra mass come from? nOW, how many HULK fans have actually taken the time to think of that? Not many, I can assure you.

Maybe that's a failing on comic fans, or maybe it's a failing on non-comic fans for not just letting go and enjoying the story.

Jess, no offense, really... but I am going to tell you what husbands have been telling their wifes for years when she sits down beside him and gets him to try and explain sports... GO AWAY!

No, seriously! Jess, before you decide to write another "review", I would like to suggest you do the following: 1)Buy/Borrow/Steal a copy of "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud 2)READ some comics! I would highly recommend "Watchmen" by Alan Moore, "Ronin" by Frank Miller, and "Kingdom Come" by Mark Waid. All of which are new comic reader friendly (i.e. you don't have to know past characters or continuity to understand it) And 3) Go hang out at a comic shop and listen to what other comic readers are talking about. Get to know the industry, get to know the lingo, GET TO KNOW COMICS!

'nuff said! (a no-prize if you can tell me which publisher uses that expression)

The book's artist also shows up, and judging by his tone and multiple posts he's been crying into his Wheaties for a while:

As people who know or speak to me can attest, I really have no problems with readers expressing their opinion. Jess certainly has the right to present hers. My problem is with the complete lack of respect in regard to Judd, Scott, Gina, John, Eddie, Lysa and myself . Everyone involved put a lot of time and effort into the creation of this book, and DESERVE some respect.

I can't honestly even call Jess's column a review. It's more of a rant. At no point does she acknowledge anyone involved with the production of our book. Nightwing is the only character that she calls by name. Did she even read the issue? Or, what it sounds like, did she only flip through it?

It's clear that Jess did not enter into her assignment with an open mind. In fact, it appears that she has some sort of axe to grind. The fact that she opens up with a comment like " I swear to God it's the most retarded thing I've ever seen." seems to bear this out. From there forward her "review' becomes a steady stream of bile.

Obviously our book is not to your taste, Jess. Fine. Be a professional about it. You wanted to write a review? ( Or was it that the Pulse wanted you to do it, you seem to disagree with one another on this. What, no one wants to take credit for this?) Then write a review. Discuss the plot, the pacing the characterization, the artwork. But do it objectively. Otherwise, call it what it is, an opinion piece.

Like I said, I don't have a problem with honest criticism. As anyone else who works in the public eye, I've had my share of negative reviews. I'm a big boy, I can take it. Heck, a negative review can be a great learning tool. But only when it's informed and knowledgeable.

In this case Jess, you've apparently decided to shoot for the lowest common denominator. Be proud!! You've employed the Howard Stearn method of journalism. Good for a dirty, ill-informed underhanded laugh. Hope you enjoyed the joke!
---
Another mean spirited opinion. How refreshing! Do you lump yourself into this category? You read comics too... don't you?

I myself have been married for 13 years. I've seen boobs. It's true! Most professionals I know are married as well... I'm gussing they've seen 'em too.
---
As I stated... Jess did NOT write a review. It was an opinion piece. It's not journalism, it's bile.

There is no discussion of the skill, or lack therof that went into the production of the book. All Jess did was regurgitate, poorly, what went on in the issue. Oh, and throw in clever little snide remarks. A synopsis is not a review. So please do not call it such.

I've been doing this for a long time, and like anyone else, I've had my share of negative reviews. I've got a thick skin... I can take it. But have some manners. And do the job right.
---
How is it unprofessional for me to defend my work? Or more to the point request some manners and common decency?


The reviews are popular because half the self-loathing comic book fanbase loves to chime in with "Me too! God, I'm glad I didn't have an extra $3 this week to spend on that, because now I know it sucks just like I knew all along!" while the other really loves calling for the reviewer's head on a limited edition signed and numbered holofoil stake. There's also a great deal of bickering about whether this person is real or just a handpuppet, which is either a nonissue or something that will shake the very comic world itself to its awkward foundations, and also proves that he/she was wrong when he/she said that these books sucked. More wank ensues.

At last, the jig is up; in the most recent review, it's revealed that Jess Lemon is not quite who he/she has been presented as--but is a pseudonym instead. Metawank ensues. Nerds feel betrayed. If you can't believe the Internet, who can you believe?

The author of the most recent book also shows up, and is progressively unhappier that people are not willing to believe that dinosaurs had computers and that it's quite easy for Windows 98 to run their programs perfectly:

As for my knowledge of computers, I will be glad to match it with Heidi's (or anyone else in the comics field anytime). I've worked with computers since 1964, starting with a Univac 1108 and an IBM 360. I have a B.S. in mathematics, minor in computers, and an M.S. in math with honors. I was working on my Ph.D. with a world-famous mathematician when I left college to start my own corporation. I'm also the co-author of THE COMPUTERS OF STAR TREK.

That Heidi doesn't know anything about binary is sad. That she knows nothing about translation programming is no surprise. As to my storytelling techniques, I suspect Heidi won't be buying any of my work.
---
I'm glad to see that the contents of the story are stirring up controversy. Personally, I doesn't bother me one bit if you think all of my science is nonsense. You pay for the issue, you have ever right to criticize it. If you're basing your criticism on what someone else said about the comic and haven't read it yourself, then you're just displaying a naive trust in someone who has their own agenda in writing a review.

As before, anyone who needs to hide behind a pen-name to write comic book reviews is in my mind, pretty pathetic. Either you are willing to take credit (or knocks) for what you write, or you're just a loser with an attitude problem.

And then he turns into every BNF ever:

Hey guys:
EXTINCTION EVENT # 2 is now available. Please go ahead and buy copies and rip the story to shreds. I love being informed how much more science you know than me and how better a storyteller you are then me. And how you know which characters are going to die and which ones are going to live. And make sure to publish your opinions under false names just in case some one asks you what qualifications you have to be a reviewer? Because in the real world, most reviews are written by people who use their real names and have some credits in the area they are writing about.

Me, I think it's pretty obvious that with the internet anyone who can type can claim to be a reviewer without knowing how to read.

Meanwhile, I'm going to spend my paycheck on a Frazetta original I've wanted to buy for a while. Isn't it horrible to know that a guy who ignores your opinions and complaints can make so much money, while all you can do is whine behind a phony name? Life ain't fair, ain't fair at all; and all your bitching and complaining ain't going to make it any fairer. So keep those bitter and angry emails coming. If I was in your shoes, I'd be bitter and angry too.

WHINEWHINECOCKGOBBLEWHINE

Of course, the other comics sites got into the fray too, since they're more incestuous than the Hapsburgs, but that's a wank for a different time. Isn't it refreshing to see grizzled, ill-groomed comic professionals acting like particularly spoiled 16-year-old girls?


Worst. Wank. Ever.