Blogathon 07: Keeping Up With the Critics (Part 2)

I'm not entirely sure what my relationship with other writers is. I know where Tim and I stand along with a few others. Actually, in getting people to participate in the Blogathon, I learned a little where I stand with others, positively or negatively, I guess. But, I don't think that's exactly what David was asking about.

Let me say a few words about David first: David is one of my favourite writers online. He's damn good. He inspires jealousy with almost every post -- thankfully, the kind that makes me want to simply be better. He's got such a strong voice and perspective and is unapologetic for it. He's one of the people I try to be like -- one of the standards I hold myself up to.

He and I are of the same generation of online critics. There's a group of us. What I found interesting when I quit CBR and announced that I was ending this blog was that, in speaking to a few of them, they understood and were in a similar place. We all began writing online around eight years ago -- a little more for some, a little less than others -- and all seemed to 'reach out peak' at the same time. It was fascinating to me to see how many of us were at similar places with our writing. We'd all written for a 'major' site or two, all had our blogs, all written pieces that got linked by everyone, all written pieces that were ignored, all had little dust-ups with creators... and we were all tired in our own ways. Is there something inherent in what we're doing that caused this or is it just that subtle peer pressure infecting each other? I don't know...

The worst time, for me, to deal with the influence of others is when it comes to my top ten comics of the year. Putting those books in order, leaving off certain critical darlings, putting on other books that no one else seems to like... you worry what that will do for your reputation. It's all ego and petty bullshit, but you don't want to post a list that turns you from someone other people like and respect into someone whose opinions are so out of vogue that you're a joke. I don't know if that happens with just one post, but it happens and it's something I'm always afraid of. And that's a little sad.

As David says, when you read about something someone else likes, you don't just want to check it out, you want to like it too. And you don't always. There's a lot of doubt that comes with that. Like what am I not seeing that they are? Am I wrong? Are they? Of course, no one is wrong. It's all opinions and reactions. No one is right, no one wins. But, try getting yourself to believe that.

It's easier when it's something you love and others don't, I find. I'm more secure in what I like than what I don't. I hate the term 'guilty pleasure,' because it's so stupid. This idea that you shouldn't like certain things -- or that liking them is something you need to justify... it's so wrong in its approach. My attitude is, if I like it, it's great. I wouldn't like it if it wasn't. Fuck everyone else.

I don't have that confidence in things I don't like, though. That's where the doubt creeps in. That question of what am I missing? I've yet to find a way around that...

And I'll deal with that in 30 minutes as I begin discussing West Coast Blues by Jacques Tardi with Ales Kot.

By the way, we're up to $600.95 for the Hero Initiative. Keep those donations coming! Even $5.00 can add up quickly if a lot of people give that much.

[Don't forget to donate what you can to the Hero Initiative (Details in this post)! After you do, let me know via comment or e-mail (found at the righthand side) so I can keep track of donations -- and who to thank.]

Blogathon 06: Keeping Up With the Critics (David Brothers Guest Post)

We both have a lot of friends who write about comics, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone talk about the subtle peer pressure that comes along with that. Do you ever feel like there are books that you should like, and that liking them somehow makes you feel more informed to be a critic?

I feel like that a lot. It's dumb, and I recognize that, but there's a certain level of wanting to keep up that I just can't shake. It's not quite competitiveness -- I don't care about whether or not I can go toe-to-toe with someone over Los Bros deep cuts -- but it's like... I learn by seeing and doing, right? I see that other people can do something, so I try it myself. So when I see people writing about something I'm not particularly into, be it highbrow comics or minicomics, my first thought is either "Why don't I do that?" or "Why can't I do that?"

This is an almost entirely internal struggle, one that I could solve as easily as just deciding not to care any more, but that's hard to do. When you see critics, and especially friends, championing a book, you want to not just check that book out for yourself, but to like it, yeah? You have good taste, so you have good taste in friends, and it therefore follows that your friends should have good taste. But sometimes your friends are really into it and you check it out and whoof... nothing doing. Which makes me wonder if I don't get it, instead of just accepting that different people have different tastes.

I don't know about you, but this definitely has an effect on what I write and how. I go harder and write more when I'm feeling bad about my tastes, almost as an attempt to justify the trash I like in the face of the stuff my friends like. It's not a conscious decision. It's only something I can see when I look back and try to figure out why I spent a week writing about the secret genius behind fart jokes or something.

But at the same time, while the whole insecurity that comes from this is dumb, it does make me a better writer, I think. If I was inclined to be charitable to myself, I would say that being driven to do that work, to dig deeper to cover up what I view as failings, makes me a better writer. I want to do more to keep up, so I figure out how to do just that, without reading a bunch of stinky classics or whatever.

Do you struggle with this at all? It's not a huge burden, and I can obviously recognize it for what it is, but it's a hard habit or insecurity to shake, even with that knowledge. We want to fit in, and I think more than that, we want to be considered good or informed or however you measure criticism.

Where do you stand on this? What's your relationship with the work of other critics like?

[Don't forget to donate what you can to the Hero Initiative (Details in this post)! After you do, let me know via comment or e-mail (found at the righthand side) so I can keep track of donations -- and who to thank.]

Blogathon 05: Keeping Up With the Critics (Part 1)

The topics that I received from my guest posters for this were fantastic. So fantastic that I don't have any favourites. If I did, this one would definitely be in contention for the top spot. The idea of having to 'keep up' with other critics is something that's always there, but not many people seem to talk about. Instead, we get a mix of support, hatred, jealousy, backstabbing, and pressure. I know I've felt or experienced all of those things at some time or another, and tried my best to focus more on the 'support' side of things than anything else.

A big part of that is because of Tim Callahan. Tim is the only comic critic who I can say I've only been jealous of once. By my nature, I'm a jealous sort of person. Not outwardly; I keep it to myself. My first reaction is often a jealous, awful one. I'm aware of that and do my best to press it down, not let it come out, and remind myself that there's no reason for it. But, yeah, Tim writing his piece for that second Gødland hardcover? That's going to make me jealous. And I've felt bad about that ever since.

Otherwise, Tim has been one of the most positive influences in my comics criticism world. He... didn't mentor me. But, grabbed me and stuck me by his side and said "This guy, he's all right." He'd written a book on Grant Morrison that everyone knew about and I was the guy he wanted to talk comics with. He got me the gig with Comic Book Resources (or, got me the opportunity to get the gig). He put me on Sequart's radar and I've written three essays for them along with edited a book that will see publication in 2013. Some of the stuff I am best known for is stuff I have done with Tim.

Tim Callahan is the example of how we should act towards our fellow writers. And it's an example I have tried to follow when I could. Write well, do your thing, and, when possible, use your name to shine a light on others. Very rarely have I seen Tim exert ego and I admire that a lot.

But, that's not all to this idea. It's not just about 'keeping up' with other critics directly. One of the hardest things to escape is the influence of others. That moment where you feel like you have to like something because everyone else seems to. That fear of not sticking to your guns and being your own person. I've had conversations with people about this and it can be hard to escape. If you look at my writing, you can sometimes see where I'm doing what I want and sometimes where I'm trying to fit in. Sometimes the two are the same thing, but not always. And what's even worse is trying so hard to escape the unsaid 'peer pressure' that you become a simple contrarian.  Where you begin taking stances you don't believe in just to be different.

All of this sounds a bit silly, but it's so easy to get lost in this bullshit. How do you draw that line between reading others and listening to them while still being separate? It's very easy to just 'fall in line' with someone who you respect and, honestly, agree with a lot of the time. I mean, if you agree with them 90% of the time, you're inclined to make an effort to see things their way that remaining 10%.

In 2012, I made an effort to really do what I want. I wrote about Avengers vs. X-Men and Before Watchmen. Not because it was the opposite of what everyone was doing. Just because I was reading them both and didn't really foresee anyone else writing about them too much.

What makes it especially hard is that no one talks about it really. You get the odd e-mail conversation, but not much in the open like this.

In 30 minutes, we'll see what David Brothers has to say.

In the last Blogathon, we raised $535 total. As of right now, we're up to $590.95 raised for the Hero Initiative this year. That is so wonderful.

[Don't forget to donate what you can to the Hero Initiative (Details in this post)! After you do, let me know via comment or e-mail (found at the righthand side) so I can keep track of donations -- and who to thank.]

Five Years Blogging: A Life Well Wasted

Both David Brothers's 4thletter! and GraphiContent reached the five year mark in February and March, so he and I discussed those five years together and posted the discussion in 11 blog posts over our two blogs. Here's the archive of posts for your convenience:

Part 01
Part 02
Part 03
Part 04
Part 05
Part 06
Part 07
Part 08
Part 09
Part 10
Part 11

It was a lot of fun to talk with David like this and I hope you enjoy what we had to say.

Five Years Blogging: A Life Well Wasted 10

[David Brothers and I continue to talk comics and blogging. Read part nine on 4thletter.]

David Brothers: I've never really had a problem with the reading part of it, whether for fun or pleasure. I've been rereading One Piece with the advent of the new omnibuses, but not really to review them. I just read them because they're good adventure comics. Reading is by far the best part of writing about comics, I could do that basically all day long, stopping only for naps or food, and be okay. True confession: I have done this before.

The list of things I want to do, or have started and let lapse, is as long as my arm. I had the Lone Wolf & Cub thing last year, which was interesting, but draining. The stories were pretty same-y, which made having to come up with something new to talk about each week a sucker's game. I keep thinking about retooling it and restarting, but man. The drive is simply not there.

I've got a stack of books at home that need to be written about. I keep a mental tally in my head of what needs to be done. Like, right now- I want to talk about Bokurano: Ours for 4l!, do a bit on Tsutomu Nihei for Comics Alliance, write about a specific thing Eiichiro Oda does in One Piece that I love but don't have a name for yet, read GoGo Monster (and probably write about it), write about some war comics Titan Books sent me, figure out how to explain why Vagabond is incredible... I'm very much in a manga mode it seems right now. Manga and old comics.

While each post is a time investment, maybe a couple hours or so depending on what it's about, I spend way more time thinking about what's fresh in my mind. I read Tsutomu Nihei's Biomega 1 last night and that unlocked some doors in my head. I've been mulling it over all morning, but I'm gonna read Shirow Miwa's Dogs 2 at lunch, so that'll probably go away soon. I'll have to write about it tonight to make sure I don't let it slide. I'm constantly buying books, and sometimes a book slips through the cracks and I don't read it until weeks later. If I've read it, I'm more likely to write about it, so GoGo Monster and Red Snow are pretty far down the list right now. What's fresh is what gets covered, and then I double back and grab what I left behind.

Here's a craft question for you. How mean is too mean? Where do you draw the line between "mean, but accurate" and "bridge-burningly mean?" Off the top of my head, I've called DC editorial and/or management "pathetic" when discussing their various practices or storylines. It may have been a bit too far, but I meant (and believe) it. How do you know whether or not you've gone too far when critiquing a work or event? Is there some rule you keep in mind when handing out 1 and zero star reviews?

Chad Nevett: Well, that line differs depending on where I'm writing. I've had some of my harsher criticism in CBR reviews toned down by my editor, which is fine. So I'm usually a little nicer there than I would be otherwise. On my blog, my only standard is to try and not make it too personal. I've found that you can be pretty damn harsh about the work so long as you don't make things personal. That's not always possible depending on what you're discussing, but, as a general rule of thumb, it works. And, as you know, my style of criticism tends to lend itself to trashing stuff. I don't know why, that's just where my mind goes. Even with books I like, I generally want to go "This was great, except for..." and then go off on a twenty minute rant about the one panel that fucked up the entire thing.

When it comes to star ratings... I gave a book zero stars once to a little bit of controversy, because how can a comic lack any redeeming qualities? And it was the fourth issue of mini-series where I hadn't read the previous three issues. People didn't like that I was trashing the book that hard, which I found funny since anyone reading it would go "Yeah, it's not good, but..." Fuck off, assholes. If that's how you're going to begin defending the book and saying I'm too harsh, just shut the fuck up, the book is obviously not worth it. I've been reading comics since before I could actually read and I couldn't follow that book at all. I don't care if it's the fourth issue of a six-issue mini, I really don't. I have never been that lost when reading a comic. That's one of the biggest crocks of shit in comics, you know, that storyarcs make it difficult to jump on board books. It makes it difficult to read an issue and understand every detail and nuance, yes, but rarely are comics so impentrable that you can't actually follow the main thrust of the story. That was the case with the zero-star comic, so it got zero stars. When a life-long comics reader with a Master's can't follow your supposedly straight-forward narrative, you've got problems. I've only done it once because I've only encountered one comic that warranted it, that failed so completely.

I also really resented the idea that we shouldn't do random issue reviews. If we didn't do those, most comics wouldn't get reviewed as we all wait for the beginning of a new storyarc and, instead, just forget about the book. Sometimes, the readers can be real pains in the ass. And yet we love them and hope for tons of comments and feedback.

At the same time, one thing I've avoided sticking on my blog is a hit counter. I don't want to know how many people are going there. I have no idea what the size of my readership is and that's the way I like it. I find that not knowing who's reading helps me not worry about the audience as much and just do what I want. If people read it, that's a bonus. How do you approach the audience? Do you have a specific reader in mind when you write?

Part 11 is up on 4thletter!

Five Years Blogging: A Life Well Wasted 08

[David Brothers and I continue our chat about comics and blogging about comics. Read part seven on 4thletter.]

David Brothers: You know, I don't know if I want to make a living off blogging. I don't even know if it's possible -- most people I know who do this for a living are part of big-time group or corporate blogs. Once you add in the fact that I live in one of the more expensive cities in the US and it looks slimmer and slimmer. I certainly wouldn't mind a job I can do from my couch... let me stop overthinking it. Writing about comics, in addition to writing about other things I like, would be a nice job.

I get to do a bit of criticism and creative writing on occasion in my day job, which is always nice. Sometimes it is creating or expanding upon an already established story in a video game, sometimes it's a really thorough consulting gig... it's good stuff. Very fun. Not quite as loose as I can get on 4l!, but still good. I also get to tell people I'm a "consultant," and that's usually pretty awesome. I get to do a bit of my hobby for pay, so I can't really complain.

I was doing fiction before I was blogging, actually. Started with fanfiction way, way back in middle school, took a break for a while, then came back to it with improvisational fanfic and normal fiction in high school. Impro was actually a really good experience and helped to mold me into a better writer. I had regular editing sessions, I learned to cope with deadlines, I learned how missing deadlines effects serial works, and I basically went ahead and worked out a good chunk of those "first thousand bad pages" that writers talk about. Looking back, they aren't that great (to be nice about it), but I learned a lot.

At some point I realized that using my free time to service someone else's trademarks for free is something that I hate and switched over to just straight up fiction. Crime stories, noir tales, near-future crime noir tales... I have an obsession, I don't know if you can tell. I spent a few years writing every day, spread between work and school and 4l! and fiction. I still have a folder with the only ones I liked enough to keep, about fifty text files that range from finished to the barest scrap of an idea. That ended up taking a backseat once I got my current job and was briefly replaced with a short-lived attempt at doing comics of my own. That ended when I realized that comics should stay a hobby.

One of my goals this year is to get back to short fiction, and then once I'm comfortable getting back in that saddle, to try to do something longer form. I dunno- I try to plan ahead for the site, I have several goals for the year, and this is just one of them. I'm working to not let it slip by the wayside, because fiction is a muscle I don't flex often enough.

Was that even an answer?

Chad Nevett: Seems like one to me. Building on that, how do you go about writing for your blog? How do you decide which books you'll discuss or what larger scale projects you'll undertake? Hell, what projects have you undertaken over the years? (Yes, that is my not-so-subtle way of telling you to stick a links section on your sidebar with notable posts/series of posts like my blog has... because those are useful and good.) I imagine your process in picking what to write about isn't too different from mine: whatever seems interesting that I have something to say about. Though, I've mentioned this before to Tim Callahan, I will admit that some element of choosing what I'll talk about is what else has been said about the book/creator. If tons of people have discussed a book/creator, I'm more likely to shy away than when, in the cases of Joe Casey and Jim Starlin for example, there isn't a lot of critical thought out there and I can sort of 'stake my claim.' Hard to deny that ego-driven element of wanting to be the first one there, the one that everyone after has to respond to, and deal with. But, more than that, usually, if a work/creator has been discussed a lot, there isn't a lot left to say and who wants to just repeat what's been said?

But, yeah, how do you actually go about writing posts? Do you outline them? Do numerous drafts, edit as you go, just start writing and eventually stop? I'm pretty loose, so I'm usually a just start writing until I don't have anything left to say sort of writer. I like the energy of just going with some ideas as your guide but not much else. It's how I wrote essays in university (yes, even in grad school, which explains why somewhat lacklustre grades at times): leave it to the night before and go in one mad dash. I'm a deadline worker and I find my mind works best when the pressure is on. Get some pop/slushy to drink, put on some loud music, and just go. While that may not result in extremely polished work, it also leads to thoughts and ideas that don't come from taking it slow and methodically (for me, at least). I always joked in university that what I lacked in polish, I made up for in 'mad ideas' that the professor may not have seen from a student before. But, obviously, that's not how everyone likes to work and I'm one of those people who are interested in the process of other writers, so how do you do it?

Go read part nine on 4thletter!

Five Years Blogging: A Life Well Wasted 06

[David Brothers and I continue discussing five years of comics blogging. Part five is over at 4thletter.]

David Brothers: Oh, it totally makes sense, and I'm definitely like that with Spider-Man. I understand where it comes from, too -- superhero books are built to hook people over the long-term. We want to see the soap opera continue, even after quitting comics or growing older. I mean, why else would I have read so much of that last New Warriors run? It had to have been my love for Thrash and Jubilee, because it certainly wasn't good otherwise.

Nostalgia moves units. Otherwise, why would we have a Jean Grey tease out of Marvel once a year? Imagine if movies did that. The plot of Godfather IV being the return of Luca Brasi or something.

So, yeah, it's weird, but it's weird in a way that I've grown up with, like making waffles in the oven or a little syrup on eggs. I think when it goes overboard, like when DC brings back Hal Jordan and Barry Allen and Ray Palmer and expects us to enjoy the deluge of boring old fuddy-duddies who represent the Good Ol' Days, it comes off stilted and dumb. I get tired of the constant kowtowing to the past. Hit me over the head with something new!

I was skeptical of Marvel's latest stab at a book called New Mutants, mainly because it featured the original cast in a book of the same name, nearly twenty years after their book had been canceled and apparently in the same roles they held back then. Instead, though, Zeb Wells is telling the stories of those kids as adults, with the title being a simple and obvious nostalgia-grab.

When done well, it works, but I vastly prefer new stories. Death to the past! At the same time, though, a classic hero showing up out of nowhere with a slick, "Did ya miss me?" before KOing the big bad guy? That's pretty good. Reading comics is kind of like giving yourself Stockholm Syndrome, I think.

I find books almost entirely by recommendation these days. I quit reading solicits a few months back, barring a quick skim for names I know or new hardcovers. People like Matthew Brady and Jog are invaluable, really. Each week they round up what's new and interesting and point out stuff I never would've thought to pick up. I'm pretty sure that Matthew's long series on Naoki Urasawa's Monster reminded me that Monster existed and that I had nine of the eighteen volumes, and from there I tripped into Pluto and Viz Signature. Really, I should send him an invoice for all the manga I bought in 2009.

One thing I used to do with music (back when liner notes were a going concern) and that I do with comics now is pay attention to what people I like enjoy reading. The essays in the back of Ed Brubaker and Sean Philips's Criminal are great for finding movies or books I need to grab, and random interviews with writers or artists work in much the same way.

I don't pay attention to the corporate hype machine much any more. Everything is "work of his career" this and "best she's done yet" that. Getting suggestions from actual people, people whose tastes I kinda know, is much more valuable. This is something else where Twitter helps out a lot. "Hey, what should I read?" gets you a bunch of responses.

I know we share a few interests, but I think Joe Casey is our main overlap in tastes. Since we had to end up here eventually, let's start with the broad strokes. How long have you been reading him and what do you like about his work?

Chad Nevett: I love the essays and ads in Criminal for that reason. That's how I got exposed to Hard Case Crime and their line of books. I've only read four or five of them, but have enjoyed all of them.

Joe Casey... to discuss Joe Casey, we have to go back to the X-story "The Age of Apocalypse," because that's when I got a subscription to Cable via the title becoming X-Man for four months. That story began when I was 11-about-to-be-12 and it was the perfect thing for a kid that age. Everything you know is now completely different! Good guys can be bad guys! Bad guys can be good guys! Some are dead, some are back alive, some are brand new! I had a behind-the-scenes special on the story that Marvel put out and spent hours just studying the new character designs and the maps they provided of their alternate world. I love alternate reality stories. It's the same, but different and you can do anything? Sign me up. They're carte blanche to screw with what you know and let your imagination go complete nuts. No continuity, just awesome times.

Well, for those who don't know, "The Age of Apocalypse" was a four-month story where Professor X was killed in the past by his insane, time-travelling son Legion who was trying to kill Magneto before he and Charles had a falling out. This resulted in the whole timeline changing and, for those four months, all of the regular X-books were replaced with their "Age of Apocalypse" counterpart. Uncanny X-Men became Astonishing X-Men, X-Men became Amazing X-Men, etc. As I said, Cable became X-Man, a younger version of the character bred by combining the DNA of Scott Summers and Jean Grey, which is somehow easier to understand than Cable's origin. Something about this character appealed to me, probably the name. How was there no character named 'X-Man' yet? Since that was coming up, I asked one of my aunts for a subscription to Cable/X-Man for Christmas and, when the X-books reverted back to their normal status quo, my subscription carried on with Cable. (What's weird, though, is that in the lead-up to "Age of Apocalypse," the subscription page listed the "AoA" titles, not the regular ones, so I literally subscribed to X-Man... and that subscription carried on with Cable despite X-Man being the sole "AoA" book to continue after the event was over. Explain THAT to me, Marvel!)

So, I had a subscription to Cable and I kept up with that as the title was... eh, mediocre. I didn't mind it much then, but now? It was Jeph Loeb and Ian Churchill. After that team left the book, it sort of floundered for a while until James Robinson and Ladronn took over with #-1 (remember those issues?) and began their opening story with #48 as Cable took on the Hellfire Club and Apocalypse's Harbinger. This was a semi-big deal at the time since Robinson had his reputation and it looked like Cable was going to turn around. And, then, issue 51 came out and it was written by some guy named Joe Casey. Who the hell is Joe Casey? I had never heard of him and I had, at least, heard of... well, basically everyone. Of course, this was Casey's first work for Marvel and in comics aside from a very forgotten thing for Calibre, I believe... So, here I was with a subscription to this book, Ladronn still doing his gorgeous art and Casey as the new writer, so I was basically forced to read this guy's work and he hooked me. He followed through on all of the promise Robinson's run and really made Cable into a fantastic read. After that, I made an effort to see what he was doing and, thankfully, he popped up in a few books that my dad was buying like Wildcats, Deathlok, Mr. Majestic and the odd one-off issue here and there, and he really blew me away.

What appealed to me about his writing at first was how he could blend the new and the old. He's very skilled at taking older concepts or characters and making them work now. In his Cable run, he made it a point to have Cable interact with the larger non-X-related Marvel universe by putting him in Hell's Kitchen and having him start a romantic subplot with a waitress at a diner. One issue that really grabbed me was one where Domino had been beaten nearly to death by this guy and Cable hunts him down to this crappy supervillain hang-out bar. Before Cable arrives, though, we get a scene of some out of costume villains just shooting the shit playing poker and that was one of those instances where I hadn't seen something like that before. Bad guys just acting like regular people and telling funny stories about their run-ins with heroes. Casey's good about bringing things down to that human level, of merging the realistic and the fantastic. There's also something fearless about his writing. Not always, but on numerous projects, he just does what he wants and thinks will work, screw the rules or what everyone else is doing, or if it will be a commercial success. He doesn't seem to turn his back on commercial successes, he just doesn't court them. Then again, it's hard to simplify his entire body of work down into a couple of paragraphs since it's rather varied (in content, tone, and quality).

I imagine you weren't on board with Casey from, basically, day one like me; when do you discover him? If I were to guess, I'd say it was Wildcats Version 3.0 since, despite its low sales, that's where people seem to have discovered that, yeah, this guy could write and was worth looking out for (when they weren't confusing him with Joe Kelly, of course -- which I never understood since the last names are different...).

Read part seven on 4thletter!

Five Years Blogging: A Life Well Wasted 04

[David Brothers and I continue our discussion about five years of comics blogging. Part three is up on 4thletter.]

David Brothers: It's interesting that you say that the Splash Page's popularity is both gratifying and frustrating. I enjoy it in part because it's a team-up between two people who I enjoy reading, kind of a special event, but I can definitely see where you're coming from. It's probably a similar feeling to writing a really great bit of analysis and watching a short post where you call someone a jerk get all the attention, yeah?

I think the draw of the Fourcast! for me is just sitting around talking about comics. I don't even remember why we began it, and gmail is telling me I probably asked her in person rather than sorting it out over email. I think it was just an idea I had and decided to make work. "Hey, I wonder if I can do this? Might as well find out!" kinda thing. I listen to a few podcasts, and I'm friends with Ron Richards from iFanboy, so I figured I should take a stab at it. It's definitely a different way of talking about comics. Shop talk is informal, a "can you top this" sort of thing, writing is detailed and needs structure, but podcasting is pretty much, "Okay, Batgirl. Go!"

Text-based content is fun and lets you be very detailed and all, but doing a show is more off the cuff and raw to me. It's way more personal, in part because you're on the spot. We prep before the show, picking subjects during the week and doing a quick recap before recording on Saturday, but the prep is usually, at most, just short notes. "We're gonna talk about Batgirl, then Wednesday Comics, and then do a brief bit about Alfred." It's all freestyled, which means we get some stuff wrong occasionally, but you'd be surprised at how easy it is to do.

I laugh a lot more when doing a show. It's a chance to back down from treating comics seriously for a while and just have some fun. I realized late last year that we pretty much do a Batman-focused show once a month. I'm not very fond of the Batbooks at the moment, reading basically just Batman & Robin (when the art is good), but it's always a trip. It helps that we record in person. I've done a couple of Skype shows with the Funnybook Babylon gang and, while they were good, you end up talking over each other. Since Esther sits on my couch when we record, she has the benefit of facial cues, raised hands, or thrown books to tell me when to stop talking about how dreamy Grant Morrison is.

On the subject of sounding worse... editing is a lifesaver. If you do something like, say, talk about '80s comics for 10 minutes straight in your 2009 Year in Review show... you can delete those. I'm fairly soft-spoken, but deeper voiced, which means that a certain amount of volume adjustment is necessary, anyway.

I like that story of how you and Tim connected. It's also funny how parallel our paths have been-- I bought Tim's book at my first New York Comic-con in '07 (though I think he wasn't at the table), and I'd interacted with Geoff Klock a bit online. We had a shared love of All-Star Batman & Robin the Boy Wonder (his piece on ASBAR and the grotesque is one of my favorite posts ever) and ended up meeting by accident at NYCC 07 and spent most of what I kinda vaguely remember as being a DC Universe panel talking about Dark Knight Strikes Again.

At NYCC '08, I met the Funnybook Babylon guys for the first time after terrorizing the internet together for a couple years. NYCC '09 introduced me to Tim (briefly, at least) and led to me, Sean Witzke, and Tucker Stone standing outside in the New York cold talking about Garth Ennis and accidentally founding the Joe Casey Fanclub. Meeting all these people who I dig is fun and (so far) always cool. Have you managed to make it out to any cons?

I love being able to talk about comics online, but talking about them with intelligent people (not like-minded people) is the biggest draw for me, especially with the advent of Twitter. Has Twitter changed your approach to blogging or how you read comics?

Chad Nevett: I have been to two cons in my life. I went to Chicago in 2003 and met up with a lot of people from Millarworld. In fact, I slept on the couch of someone from the forum while in Chicago and that was a great time. It also taught me that the only thing I really like about cons is meeting people from the internet. The con itself I could do without since I hate crowds, find the panels boring PR sessions, have absolutely no ambition in meeting creators/getting autographs, and, well, can buy books any time (though some deals are wonderful). But, the meeting people was great. Though, at the time, I was 20 and our big 'drink up' meeting was in the hotel bar, which started carding after I was in, so I was good. Except that the bathrooms were outside of the bar and I would have to leave should I want to relieve myself. That meant the lone coke I ordered with my food became my only drink of the night. I'm not a big alcohol drinker, though, so that didn't bother me at all, I was just very thirsty after a while.

The other con was the Paradise Comics Toronto Comicon in 2005 with a couple of friends where I got in for free since I managed to convince them that being an editor of the UWO Gazette was good enough to warrant a press pass. I did do a couple of interviews while I was there, which was cool. I interviewed Chip Zdarsky and B. Clay Moore, both of whom were very nice and accomodating of me and my frantic note-taking. That was also one of the rare cons Warren Ellis attended, so my buddy and I got to see him do one of his famous Q&A panels which is basically Warren telling funny stories until he doesn't feel like it anymore, which, in this case, was when the con organisers told him he had to go sign things. My buddy wanted something signed and I had brought my copy of Come in Alone since it's probably my favourite piece of work Ellis has done. When we got up to the front, Ellis takes a look at my press pass and goes "I recognise that name..." (or something like that) and that was weird. I don't think it was a good thing.

I have been meaning to get to another con -- Tim keeps telling me to come to the New York one -- but money has been issue. The New York one sounds great since a lot of people I'd like to meet and annoy would probably be there. Mostly the people I annoy on Twitter like Tim, Tucker, Sean...

Talking comics on Twitter is good and bad, I find. It's great for brief little tangental discussions where you just throw quick ideas out there, but for anything actually resembling an intelligent discussion, it can be difficult because of the limitations of the site. 140 characters is rather small to have a good conversation. Don't get me wrong, I've had some, like debating Batman killing with Uzumeri, but it doesn't happen that much. Plus, because of the way it works, conversations will become splintered and fractured as other interested people jump in -- which is a cool element, but does hinder conversations, too. Like most things, it's good and bad. It's great for reactions to news items or books when you don't have much to say beyond your initial thought of 'I like' or 'I hate.'

As such, I don't think it's changed how I blog or read comics except for people mentioning books that I should check out. I think it decreases the 'need' to blog, that feeling of wanting to share with people because I'm doing so there, but, otherwise, it hasn't altered much that I'm aware of. How about you?

Read part five on 4thletter!

Five Years Blogging: A Life Well Wasted 02

[To celebrate the fifth anniversary of both GraphiContent and 4thletter, David Brothers and I started chatting on Google Docs a couple of months ago and, well, we've finally finished with 11 chunks of discussion. The first part is up on 4thletter with each of us posting a new piece each day. So, enjoy the next five days as David and I talk blogging, comics, and, hopefully, make some sense along the way.]

David Brothers: I think I asked Gav and Wilde because they were my main comics friends online at the time. In fact, I'm like 99% certain that Wilde was the one who put me onto 100 Bullets. I thought it'd be fun to have something a little more open than a message board, and I wasn't quite arrogant enough to think that I could do it on my own. I wanted the kind of comics site I wanted to read, where reviews and oddball pieces and litcrit all walked around hand in hand. If it were just me on 4l!, I wouldn't be bored to tears, but I wouldn't be half as interested (and dedicated) as I am now. It's nice to talk these things out long-form sometimes, like when me and Esther did the point/counterpoint on the "superheroes don't kill" thing a few months back. It's comic shop talk taken to a more formal level, I guess?

Before Esther joined up, we had a couple roster changes. Wilde faded away after a while, so we asked a guy we knew named Paul, code-named Hoatzin, into the circle. He was a really funny guy, did some great reviews and had some quality cartooning chops, too. He eventually faded, too, leaving just me and Gavin. We hustled along for six months or so in 2008 before I badgered Esther, who I know from living in San Francisco, into writing for 4l!. We'd get together and talk comics every once and a while, and it was always fun, in part because we don't see things the same way.

Gav and I have specific tastes, including a shared love of Power Man & Iron Fist. I thought Esther would add an interesting point-of-view to the site, got her to do a couple guest posts, and then sent her a login like "Hey, try this if you want to go all out." This would've been late August, early September '08. Now, between all three of us, we've got almost every base covered as far as interests in comics go. Gav does Marvel and funny stuff (he is genuinely my favorite comedy writer online, has been for years), Esther loves DC and isn't afraid to flex her fangirl feminist muscles, and I'm, uh, everything else.

How much thought do you put into Graphicontent as a site/endeavor? I have rules that I write under (no cursing, no unreasonable personal attacks, list the creators involved every time, provide context whenever possible, etc) in an attempt to present a certain image of "David Brothers, comics blogger." I don't know how successful it is, but I've been doing it so long now that it's second-nature. How do you approach blogging? What're your qualifications for doing it? (Do you need qualifications to blog?)

Chad Nevett: I don't know if I ever thought about that explicitly. Obviously, I don't adhere by the no swearing rule, but I've always made a conscious effort to avoid personal attacks as well. I think my approach has always been just present my thoughts as honestly and directly as possible. I've always tried for a conversational tone, because that's what I find easiest to write and read, especially when discussing subtext and other facets of the work beyond superficial readings. Of course, it's more of a spectrum than a fixed point with short reviews usually very informal and casual, while longer pieces are more formal in tone.

My approach to blogging has changed over time, especially since I got the CBR reviewing gig. I think that made my blog posting a little less formal most of the time since I had to be more formal and professional all of the time there. Blogging became an outlet, partly, for that casual approach to discussing comics where you can tell exactly what I think in as direct a way possible. Meaning, if I think it's shit, I say it's shit. I can understand others not wanting to present that image, but it's never concerned me.

I think the internet has proven you don't need to be qualified other than wanting to say something. I think my education certainly gives me a perspective that's different from many. I'd hope I'm able to look beneath the surface a bit more, see the subtext a bit easier at times, pick up on literary techniques... That was partly my goal, I guess, when Steve and I began the blog. Two English lit guys talking comics. Do bloggers need qualifications? What do you think you bring? Do you ever find yourself falling back on being a 'black blogger' (or, feeling pressure to present that image) since that's an area not necessarily filled by comics bloggers in general?

Read part three over at 4thletter!