RING THE CHANGES

My internal opinion-clock is either spot on, or royally fucked. Here I am thinking about this column for two weeks, greedily trapping every random idea or loose phrase that floats up from the mire of my nine-to-five hivemind, and these fuckers beat me to the punch.

Okay, "fuckers" may be too strong a word. Joe Casey and Matt Fraction have returned to industry commentary with The Basement Tapes over at Comic Book Resources, and the very first thing they happen to discuss is the very same thing I wanted to discuss: the role of comics journalism in print and on the web. I was fully prepared to call this Comment a wash when I started reading their inaugural column, but I didn't.

Because, well, like with any good argument I both agree and disagree.

'In comics journalism, you're basically talking The Comics Journal and Wizard' When it comes to comics journalism, you're basically talking about The Comics Journal and Wizard, possibly the two most diametrically-opposed foces on the planet. Although there are others, and some of them very good (I really miss Dan Raeburn's The Imp, for example), these two publications are the really the only ones worth talking about. The Comics Journal has been the best-written and most informative magazine on comics for almost thirty years now, and Wizard has practically become its own industry.

But the Internet is really starting to kick their asses. Not just in prescience or timeliness, arenas in which print simply can't compete, but also breadth of coverage.

There are certain things I can't read about in the Journal; certains books I'll never see mentioned in Wizard. They each have their agenda and they each cater to their audiences - you won't be reading a review of LOUIS RIEL in Wizard, and you'll probably never see an interview with Chuck Dixon in the Journal (though I don't know why you'd want to, anyway). There's a very clear separation between the types of comics they discuss. I can never avoid feeling like a guilty little plebian stain when I thumb through an issue of Wizard, which I occasionally do, and I've yet to read through an entire issue of the Journal without feeling insulted for liking something they mock.

You don't get that so much on the web. The best sites provide even coverage across the board with impunity. LOUIS RIEL, ASTONISHING X-MEN, TEENAGERS FROM MARS, whatever. They discuss the work for what it is, not what they think it should be, and do it without promoting a sensibility, which neither of the print mags can avoid. And when it comes to news, the Internet has been giving them a monthly kicking for what seems like forever now.

Unlike their digital cousins, the Journal and Wizard are subject to two to three months of publication lead-time, a concept that is nearly anathema to web-based publications. The Comics Journal runs an eleventh-hour story on the decline of Crossgen nearly one month after the company has all but disintegrated; Wizard announces an exclusivity contract one week before the creator's new work comes out.

'Any nerd with dialup can gorge himself on the latest comics news' Any nerd with dialup and the inclination can gorge himself on the latest and greatest comics-related news at any number of websites, blogs, or newsgroups on an hourly basis: interviews, reviews, hype, whatever. The Internet is far faster and sexier than any publication can be - that's what it's designed for.

The trump card that the official journos have over the web is content. It's rare to find a book review on the web that goes over 2000 words, an intelligent career-spanning interview, or appreciation of an entire movement - which you can usually find in the Journal or Wizard, sometimes even both. The publications know this, and they are adjusting.

Internet-based comics sites are forcing the two most successful comics publications (in America, at least) to rethink their approach. The editors know they can't compete with the breadth of information available on the web, so instead they focus on depth.

The Comics Journal is in the midst of a massive reboot - new editor, new format, new style, and new reviews of books they wouldn't have touched three years ago unless it was to maul them. A recent issue even featured a highly positive review of Grant Morrison and Chris Weston's THE FILTH, and only once did the writer knock Morrison's commitment to big company material, which I'm sure is a record. It seems to be in the process of de-curmudgeoning itself while keeping its intelligence and its commitment to shove some goddamn quality down our throats.

You can probably thank Dirk Deppey for that. A former Internet presence, I might add.

'The Journal seems to be in the process of de-curmudgeoning itself' And roll your eyes at Wizard, but it serves a purpose, okay? It may be gaudy, self-hyping infotainment, but what else can it be? There are even nuggets of quality here and there: occasionally they dip their toes into the art comics just to test the waters, and they've been known to surprise with astonishingly well thought-out and balanced stories before. It strives to sell comics as well as magazines, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. And as of last week, they've begun their own revamp as well, promising more of everything.

In the midst of all these changes, though, both publications have eschewed their web sites for their hard copy mags. The Comics Journal's website is Spartan at best - lots of short article excerpts, a few interviews, and not much else. Wizard's website is basically an online store, and a badly-designed one at that. Doing research for this article, I nearly stabbed my own eyeballs out after ten minutes of combing through offers on exclusive toys, special edition comics, and CGC grading. They even have the audacity to pick their own material, Wizard X, as "The Pick of the Week" (the "X" probably stands for exacerbating).

Something has to give. Either the publications are going to have a stronger, more active Internet presence, or the better websites are going to adjust as well, offering that oft-neglected content and giving Wizard and the Journal a serious run for their money - and I don't mean that figuratively.

So here's my prediction: Within five years there will be an all-inclusive website for comics-related journalism and critique. It will have a staff of fifteen or so intelligent, experienced writers getting modest paychecks for their work. It will cost money to look at this site, and you will spend that money, because it will be good.

Unlike the current versions of the Journal or Wizard, it will cover the mainstream and the independent without prejudice. Sometime between now and then somebody will figure out a viable business model and begin scooping up bloggers and commentators to run the show. It's possible, it's probable, and in my mind it's necessary. Whether the big two publications will be involved or obsolete is unclear, and probably the biggest decisions their publishers are going to have to make over the next few years.

If I'm wrong, you have my permission to say "I told you so." Finding me might be difficult, though. I'll probably be in a gutter somewhere huddled up under a mass of Journal and Wizard back issues, cursing myself for neglecting the one thing hardcopy publications are that websites never will be: a hell of a lot warmer.

IT'S PRONOUNCED MOCK-IN-UH

EX MACHINA is the best new "superhero" comic I have read in years. Brian K Vaughan and Tony Harris are only on their second issue, and they've managed to create a book that explores the American sociopolitical landscape with imagination and intelligence, not to mention that the book is fucking beautiful.

Let's keep this one, okay? I get nervous when books like this come out, because they usually get cancelled right when they hit their peak. If you're curious, check it out, and if you're already reading it make sure your friends pick it up too.

And for chrissakes, make them pronounce the title right. That shit drives me nuts.

John Parker lives, works, and writes in Kansas City, Missouri.

This article is Ideological Freeware. The author grants permission for its reproduction and redistribution by private individuals on condition that the author and source of the article are clearly shown, no charge is made, and the whole article is reproduced intact, including this notice.