I was in hot water this week
Comic Reviews - Week Ending 03/13/2022
Good morning, my friend,
If you’ve been keeping up with goings-on among recognizable comics writers, you may have heard one writer took very public offense to one of the reviews I wrote as a contributor for Weird Science DC Comics.
Yes, that’s right. In addition to my role as Publisher & EIC of ComicalOpinions.com, I’m a regular contributor to both Weird Science DC Comics and Weird Science Marvel Comics. It helps to keep me abreast of the Big 2, and we cross-promote wherever possible.
This week, the writer of a particular title was none too pleased with the harshness of my review for Harley Quinn #12. It was so harsh, as the claim goes, the writer felt my criticism was a personal attack and tantamount to gatekeeping.
I won’t get into the nitty-gritty of what was said or rehash the review (links above, so you can read it for yourself), but I’m going to address how we approach reviews, the lines we do not cross, and why this writer missed the mark.
First, our reviews are intended for the comic book purchasing and reading audience. The language and perspective are written as though I’m standing in front of a friend in an LCS and he or she asks “Is this a good comic? I don’t want to buy it if it’s not good, and I trust your judgment.” Reviews, the way we write them, are a public service. Not a cheering section for creators. Not a volunteer marketing arm for the Publishers (Lord knows they have much bigger marketing budgets than we do). Reviews are meant for the everyday person who buys and reads comics.
Regardless of the target audience, there is a line we do not cross. We critique the creation, not the creator.
Some may interpret the harshness (‘harsh’ is subjective as I've seen MUCH worse), as an attack on the writer's capability or work ethic. However, the focus of the review criticizes the quality of the work and the message(s) the issue sends. At no point is the writer criticized at a personal level. What is criticized is the poor level of the writer’s work and the message it sends about how much craft she put into delivering the best comic possible. It’s a subtle difference, but it is a difference. We have a line, and it will not be crossed.
So, why/how did this writer miss the mark?
First, this writer decided to make a public show of it two weeks after the review was published. The timing is suspicious. If the writer truly wanted to express concern, the professional thing to do is to reach out privately. Public tantrums never work, and in our increasingly jaded, “cancel culture”-obsessed social media ecosystem, these outbursts rightfully are developing a reputation as a childish cry for attention.
Second, the writer should know by now the difference between critiquing the creation versus critiquing the creator. When you publicly demonstrate you don’t know the difference, again, a creator looks thin-skinned and childish.
Last, the writer’s tantrum involved the word “gatekeeping” as if one review would either stop a person from buying a comic or prohibit a would-be writer from getting into the Comics Industry. Both claims are silly on their face as a) reviews influence but they won’t stop anyone from buying what they want, and b) if a would-be writer is so thin-skinned that a negative review puts them off their passion, it wasn’t a passion to begin with. The accusation of gatekeeping is nonsense, and again, it looks like an adult throwing around hot button buzzwords to childishly get more attention.
Oy! Sometimes creative types act like children in adult bodies (present readers excluded, of course).
Well, that’s the high level. Comments have been made about the situation. A few YT videos have popped up. It’s the drama of the week that’ll be forgotten in another week.
If you’re wondering why I spelled this out, it’s because it may help you to know writing for and about the Comics Industry isn’t all excitement and adventure. But, it’s also a cautionary tale for you if you’re in the Comics Industry or just thinking about getting in, so here are the basics for you to keep in mind:
Creators - Always settle matters privately
Reviewers - Criticize the creation, never the creator
Creators - Criticism of your work is not a criticism of you
I find this whole situation more amusing than anything else simply for how silly it is, but it’s always best to keep a clear head and act like an adult. Your nerves will thank you for it.
Now, let’s get on to the reviews
ALL GUTS, NO GLORY #2 – Review
BLOOD ON SUNSET #3 – Review
IN HIS OWN IMAGE #1 – Review
THE CIMMERIAN: HOUR OF THE DRAGON #1 – Review
RISE OF DRACULA #3 – Review
BETTIE PAGE: THE ALIEN AGENDA #1 – Review
DRACULINA #2 – Review
EVIL ERNIE (VOL. 4) #4 – Review
ELVIRA MEETS VINCENT PRICE #5 – Review
RED SONJA: BLACK, WHITE, RED #8 – Review
ODD YARNS – Review
TRAKOVI: THE SLAV WITH NO REMORSE #1 – Indie Review
Blade Runner Origins #10 (Titan Comics)
Download #3 (Red 5 Comics)
Fictionauts #2 (Red 5 Comics)
Carriers #3 (Red 5 Comics)
Breaker (Vol. 1) (Ablaze Publishing)
Jennifer Blood (Vol. 2) #6 (Dynamite Comics)
Nyx #5 (Dynamite Comics)
The Invincible Red Sonja #8 (Dynamite Comics)
Playthings #1 (Scout Comics)
Rad Wraith #1 (Scout Comics)
Impossible Jones #4 (Scout Comics)
Shadowman #7 (Valiant Entertainment)
TIGHTS #1 (Indie Submission)
TBD Indie Title
That’s the shortlist. We’ll add more as time and resources allow.
Again, thanks for your support. Please share (the handy dandy ‘Share’ button is down below) this newsletter with everyone you can. Your support ensures we can keep bringing you great content for a very long time.
Also, follow us on all the socials (FB, IG, TW, etc.) via @ComicalOpinions
Have a great day!