At Thought Balloons, Kevin Melrose thinks about comics criticism:
“These books [like Batman: Hush, Identity Crisis and Avengers Disassembled] and, in fact, most of Diamond’s Top 50, are virtually immune to critical influence. A negative review of X-Force or JLA is no more likely to sway readers than a positive review. So, why do reviewers — bloggers, columnists, et al — bother with them?”
It’s an interesting question, and it’s generated some interesting answers. Dave Carter at Yet Another Comics Blog, who reviews a daunting number and impressive range of books each week, offers his philosophy:
“By reviewing popular works, the reviewer allows the reader to gain a perspective on the reviewer’s tastes, biases, etc., with a work that they’ve both encountered. This allows the reader to make a more informed evaluation of the reviewer’s opinions for works that are unknown to the reader.”
That’s an excellent point, I think. I’m really happy when I find a reviewer who offers good predictive value for me. By that, I mean I can tell by their response to a work whether I’ll enjoy it or not. This isn’t to say that predictive value can only be found with reviewers whose tastes I share. Often, the opposite is the case (i.e. “If they hate it, I’ll love it”).
One comics critic who has almost eerie predictive value for me (particularly in terms of manga) is Johanna Draper Carlson at Cognitive Dissonance and Comics Worth Reading (if she likes it, it’s almost guaranteed I will, too). She also makes the time to review a number of comics that are decidedly not worth reading. She echoes Carter’s thoughts on perspective, and adds some other reasons, including:
“I think I have something to say about craft, and using a popular book means that more people may be able to see the examples I’m using.”
In his original post, Melrose wonders if the comics critic might not best use their reviews to promote underdogs:
“It’s the lower-selling quality titles, both “mainstream” and independent, that readers may not know about. Are those the books reviewers should be spotlighting instead — the ones whose fates may depend on a few hundred additional readers?”
Paul O’Brien, who regularly provides excellent, entertaining reviews of Marvel’s X-books, with lower-profile titles thrown into the mix, sees it this way:
“As far as I’m concerned, the point of writing reviews is to write something vaguely interesting or entertaining. I don’t see what further purpose is needed. If people want to crusade, fine, but I don’t see that as being remotely inherent to the role of a reviewer.”
Since I’ve been reviewing, I’ve moved towards reserving formal critiques (the From the Stack posts) for books I enjoy, new (for me) discoveries, under-promoted quality titles, what have you. I would say I favor underdogs, and I’ve reviewed a few titles I think deserve a wider audience (She-Hulk, Fallen Angel, Mystique) specifically for that reason, but as far as manga is concerned, I honestly don’t know how the stuff I really like (Sgt. Frog, Planetes, Hot Gimmick, Kindaichi Case Files, etc.) sells. I mean, I could be writing a review of the manga equivalent of… I don’t know… Ultimate X-Men.
I post about higher profile stuff all the time, but it’s mostly just snark and venting at what I perceive to be slipping standards at corporate comics companies. I don’t know if I’ve made a philosophical choice to avoid reviewing them or if they just make me too tired to consider them seriously and thoughtfully, beyond visceral, fanboyish eye-rolling. But I do seem to be heading in the direction Melrose suggests.
Should I have a more refined critical philosophy than “Me like! Me tell people who read blog!”? Probably, but my current methodology works for me, and it lets me be lazy and intermittent in my reviewing. I did have an odd experience at the shop the other week, when I was asking the shopkeeper to reserve some lower profile titles for me. Apparently, everything weird (i.e., non-Marvel, non-DC) I’ve asked him for sells really well.
With geek power comes geek responsibility. Babe Force, you’re out of luck.