By the way, Mr. Superstar is going on tour this summer to promote his new CD and comics, so be sure to check out the Doane Report page for all the where and when, and even a little bit of the what.
How lame was last week's JLA: Our Worlds at War special? Jeph Loeb's insistence on giving us the entire post-Pearl Harbor speech as a running commentary on the action came off as lame, misguided, and insulting to the memory of the people who really, actually, in real life, died in that attack. To use it as a Greek Chorus for the background of a comic book (and a bad comic book at that) is, at best, questionable, and in this case, at worst, terribly inappropriate. Ron Garney never looked more generic, but given the weakness of the "story" he was dealing with, it's hard to imagine how he could have done much better. If this is the best OWAW is going to have to offer, well, I'm glad I didn't preorder any of it.
Speaking of preordering, I recently massacred my pull list, with the most serious hits going to Marvel and DC. I dropped JLA because the entire Waid/Hitch/Neary/DePuy era was botched from beginning to end, with only Heaven's Ladder fulfilling the promise of the creative team and the title they were taking on. DC and the creators involved should all be ashamed to the degree they were responsible for this abortion: Fill-in artists, lousy reproduction, and an overall obvious lack of creative commitment are the most obvious indictments here.
Over at Marvel, I dropped Avengers and Defenders, in both cases because I just wasn't enjoying them anymore, and I get the impression the creators involved might be feeling the same way. None of the upcoming Avengers artists interest me in the slightest, and Defenders without Klaus Janson inking loses at least 50 percent of its appeal for me. I also dropped all of the Ultimate titles. I'll probably continue to get Team-Up when the artist intrigues me, but overall I just realized at the age of 35 I don't need to read about Spider-Man anymore. Bendis and Bagley are doing fine, worthwhile work, but increasingly, I am aware I am not the audience for it. I am more than happy to get my Bendis fix in Powers, which is one of the best monthly comics being published today.
Ultimate X-Men is just, finally, not very good. There's one character running around pretending to be, well, everyone in the book. Millar is not doing a good job defining the team as individuals, and the plots are astonishingly threadbare compared to the work he was doing on Authority.
New X-Men continues to make the cut, which at its bimonthly publication schedule is very good financial news for me indeed. Why does Frank Quitely have an assigned fill-in artist if he can't even get two issues out on time in a row? Editor Mark Powers told Newsarama "Ethan Van Sciver is polishing off #117, and he'll be drawing #118 and #119 as well. We realize not getting to see Frank's work for three months will be frustrating, but anyone who's seen the sneak peaks we've released of Ethan's work knows that they will be getting their money's worth in the interim."
Oh, bullshit. We're not on this ride for Ethan Van Sciver. What an insult to readers. It comes as no surprise, considering the bitch-slap Quitely delivered to Authority fans a few months back. At this point, it has to be asked: Is the man on crack or what? If you can't handle the goddamned schedule, stick to special projects like JLA Earth 2 and leave the monthly comics to those artists mature and competent enough to handle them, Vince.
Safe on the pull list, probably for all time: Alan Moore's ABC line, anything by James Kochalka, Orion, Black Hole, Eightball, Love and Rockets, Planetary, Powers, Sock Monkey, Myth of 8-Opus, Dork, Jack Staff, Hellboy, and Transmetropolitan. The only book left "on the bubble," as they say, is The Authority. I'm still reading it and enjoying it, but Wildstorm has seriously screwed this one up over the past year or so, and the continuing lame attempts to cash in on the "franchise" do not fill me with hope.
Finally, someone online this week posed some questions about being a hack in the comics field, and I thought I'd share my thoughts on that with you.
1. What's the definition of a hack?
A hack is someone who shits out their work with little to no regard for quality or "art," rather, they're strictly doing it for the paycheck. Obviously this is a subjective, perjorative term. As long as you care about what you're doing, and put your best effort into it, you're probably not a hack. Although that does nothing to protect you from charges of being one from those who find something to dislike in your work. And there'll always be someone who hates you if you put yourself out there. When that happens, remember these words: "Fuck 'em."
2. Is it possible to be a sucessful writer without ever having been university or college educated in writing?
Of course. It's possible to do ANYTHING without going to college. It's a matter of whether you have passion, drive, and the will to educate yourself. In nearly two decades as a professional broadcast journalist, no one has ever once asked to see my diplomas. Good thing, too.
3. How loose with the facts is one allowed to be in creative non-fiction?
Could you define what you mean by "Creative non-fiction?" If you're talking about Gonzo Journalism like that of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson, I think the exaggeration is implicit in the contract between reader and writer, but that's pretty rarefied territory Dr. Thompson occupies. On the whole, if you're labelling your stuff non-fiction, I think it's best that it contain the truth. Of course, in the case of Dr. Thompson, his work becomes a certain kind of truth, whatever exaggeration it contains. And truth is always a good thing. Always.
Note: The madness continues! I'm auctioning some books off on eBay to make space in my apartment. Lots of bargains on comics and trade paperbacks and stuff. CLICK HERE to see my auction listings.